The Worst Year in World History

Donald Trump / April 2020:

“Even if you go back into 1917, that was the worst of all time, but it was also not as bad as here. It was very bad, it was very rough. It was a bad one, but it wasn’t quite like what we’re going through right now.”
********************************


Released in December 2019, the film titled 1917 was widely acclaimed and decorated with awards — including the Golden Globes awards for Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Director. Not having seen the film, we will refrain from reviewing the story which is set against the ghastly battlefield of  World War I. It’s interesting to note that out of the five individual years  which encompassed “The Great War” (1914-1918) the filmmakers chose the holy year (for many Jews) of 1917 for its title — instead of 1914, 1915, 1916 or 1918. Maybe it’s  just a coincidence — or maybe it’s a message among “their crowd.” Who knows?

But the number does offer us a good “teachable moment”  for explaining the history-altering significance of 1917 — a year that was very good for “the usual suspects” (so good that (((they))) made a museum exhibit in its memory) — yet utterly disastrous for so many millions of “goyim.” We now republish a popular Anti-NY Times piece which originally appeared in one of our 2017 issues.

A FLASHBACK CLASSIC

Herbert Johnson’s anti-immigration cartoon (with “anti-Semitic” overtones) from the era, titled “Make This Flood Control Permanent.”

New York Times: Revisiting 1917, a Year That Reverberates for Jews Around the World

A museum exhibit set to open this weekend at the National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia and later this year at the American Jewish Historical Society in New York will focus on three historic events and their impact on Jews (evidently, no one else really matters). The exhibit titled, “1917: How One Year Changed the World,” will feature America’s entry into World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the Balfour Declaration.

Though much of what this particular Slimes article tells of these three events is indeed accurate, the deception lies in what is omitted about this sad centennial. Let’s dive in and see what we mean.

Two major Jewish museums are teaming up to school their flocks on 1917 — but their exhibit leaves out a few details.

Times: The war and the revolution resulted in strict limits on immigration to the United States, reflecting a fear among Americans that unrest in Europe would spread to their country. The restrictions were not overtly aimed at Jews, but because the quotas from countries with high Jewish populations were tightened, fewer Jews were able to settle in the United States.

The Omission: The restrictions were aimed, in large part, at stopping the influx of Anarchists and Communists who had been causing problems in America since the 1880’s. And it just so happened (surprise, surprise) that many of these subversive characters were of a certain ethnic group.

1 & 2 – 1901: President McKinley was murdered by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist son of Polish immigrants // 3. The lovely and gracious Anarchist guru Emma Goldman from Lithuania (Russian Empire) defended Czolgosz’s dirty deed.

Times: After the revolution, when the Bolsheviks came to power, and the xenophobia coalesced together and had the power to influence, that fear accelerated.

The Omission: The genocidal Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish affair. With the exception of front man Lenin (1/4 jew who spoke Yiddish), a review of the roster of Russia’s leading Bolshevik killers reads like the guest list for a Russian-Jewish Bar Mitzvah — Trotsky(Bronstein)SverdlovDzerzhinskyLitvinov(Wallach)Radek(Sobelsohn)Kamenev(Rosenfeld)Uritsky and many, many more.

The Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent bloodbath were Jewish — no “ifs,” no “ands,” and no “buts” about it!

Times: As the United States was entering the war, there were concerns among Jews over the persecution of those still in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Omission: Apart from the fact that the “persecution” of the chosenites was greatly exaggerated, it is important to note that the Communist movements of the other nations of Eastern Europe were also led by the usual suspects — Bela Kun in Hungary; Max Goldstein in Romania: Rosa Luxemburg in Germany et al. It is understandable that the good Christian people of these nations might come to justifiably resent the Jewish-led drive for a Bolshevik Europe.

Times: Not all Jewish immigrants viewed the United States as a safe haven. A handful of documents highlight the little-known story of Boris Reinstein, who came from Russia and made a career as a druggist in Buffalo. His 1917 application for a passport is on display, as is his 1923 renunciation of his United States citizenship. Mr. Reinstein was a true believer in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet ideology and left his wife, Anna, to return to Russia, where he worked in the Library of the Marx, Lenin and Engels Institute.

Comment: An interesting and useful little truth gem which validates our points of argument. Thanks Times!

Blah-blah-blah…Always soapbox rabble-rousing on behalf of “the people.” Trotsky (Russia), Kun (Hungary) Luxemburg (Germany)

Tiimes: The Balfour Declaration, meanwhile, expressed Britain’s support for a Jewish home in Palestine. For Dr. Perelman and Rachel Lithgow, executive director of the American Jewish Historical Society, one gratifying coup was the loan of two draft versions of the Balfour Declaration from the financier Martin Franklin…This was the text that was forwarded to Lord Balfour and was used as the basis of the Balfour Declaration. Arthur James Balfour, for whom the declaration is named, was Britain’s foreign secretary. The final declaration, in the form of a letter dated Nov. 2, 1917, was sent to one of Britain’s most distinguished Jewish citizens, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild.

Ultimately, it said, in part: “His Majesty’s government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object.” The document also added that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

Omission: Solid history, but the direct linkage between the Balfour Declaration and America’s entry into World War I is oh-so-conveniently “forgotten” about.

A wealthy New Yorker named Benjamin Freedman, a former aide to Bernard Baruch, later split with his fellow Jewish millionaires and “blew the whistle” on The Balfour Declaration and Zionist treachery in general. Freedman at his finest, from a 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington:


Let me show what happened while we were all asleep……

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. … There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years, Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply facing her — and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.”

**** End quote ***

Yes indeed. That fateful history-altering year of 1917 was very bad for humanity. But it was very “good for the Jews” — as the popular inside-the-Tribe saying goes — which is why the Jewish museums commemorate that fateful year. And that, dear reader, is some serious REAL history.

* Note: On repeated occasions, Trump has referred to his “war against an invisible enemy” and a “deadly scourge” that hasn’t been this bad “since 1917.” The press continually mocks him for being off by one year on “The Great Pandemic of 1918.” But Trump knows exactly what he is saying.

Vox

The New Yorker

Video: The “Death Tsunami” Is Here. “You should never ever take any Covid shot anymore”. Dr. Sherry Tenpenny

We are living in an ever-more intense “Death Tsunami”; Dr. Sherry Tenpenny tells us.

She says in the UK, 1 in 73 people who got the shot are already dead, according to US government data. She adds, about a 1,000 people a week die, as a result of the coerced vaxx campaign.

About 900 professional athletes have already died – and the number is rapidly increasing, mostly from myocarditis, a result of the vaxxes.

When they first started with the shots in early 2021, Dr. Tenpenny says, we saw hundreds of people with electronic charges – Instagram pics with keys and other metal pieces, clinging to arms and foreheads. You may remember having seen such photos.

This is clearly the result of heavy doses of Graphene Oxide in the shots.

She suggests, they may have changed the formula of the injections, as such pics have largely disappeared – but the substance is still there.

This looks like the first lots were sort of “trial balloons”. They got away with them. Nobody stopped them.

Graphene Oxide, when exposed to hydrogen, takes on a magnetic charge. Dr. Tenpenny refers to hundreds of scientific documents testifying to this.

She reminds us that “they” want 3 to 5 billion people to be eliminated from the planet.

It’s a “slow killing”– sometimes very, very painful. Most people don’t connect the dots.

What Dr. Tenpenny says is substantially the same as expressed as a warning to the world earlier by Dr. Mike Yeadon, former VP and Chief Science Officer of Pfizer.

Dr. Tenpenny ends by recommending that anybody who is listening to this – or gets the message otherwise, should never ever take any Covid shot anymore.

Definitely NO BOOSTERS!

This cautioning also applies to simple flu shots, or combinations of flu-Covid shots – which are now being marketed. Because all these shots – “they” don’t tell you – will contain killer formulas.

See this.

Conclusion, yes, indeed, just about a year after the extremely forced shots began – mass-dying started – the death tsunami is flooding humanity, literally.

See this brief 2-minute video.

Cromwell & The Jewish Conquest Of England

OCTOBER 6, 2022

NY Times: 
Historic London Synagogue Fights to Stay Out of the Shadows

Rabbi Shalom Morris of London’s three-centuries-old Bevis-Marks Synagogue has got a bee in his beanie over the fact that two proposed buildings would, if constructed, cast shadows upon his historic “house of worship.” The usual “waaah waaah waaah” from one of “the usual suspects”

“If this was next to St. Paul’s Cathedral, it wouldn’t happen.”

Actually, rabbi — if this was next to St. Paul’s Cathedral, the “usual suspects” would be the first ones to argue, with that quintessentially Jewish form of sophistry,  something along the lines of: “Because of the separation of church and state inherent in a modern pluralistic democracy, a Christian religious institution has no right to influence the public zoning ordinances of a multi-cultural, multi-denominational metropolis such as London.”

Goy lives — and churches — don’t matter.

* Note: The synagogue is located in the special status area known as “The City of London” — which is different from neighboring national capital of London. The city (aka “The Square Mile) has its own government, its own mayor and its own independent police force.  The City is home to the Bank of England and has traditionally been considered the financial heart of the UK.

Rabbi Morris and his crew strongly object to a proposal to build towers near Bevis Marks. Too much shadow.

What grabbed our attention and interest about this article was the sub-headline about the vipers’ den (the oldest in England) being “320 years old” (1701)— which would put its construction at not too many years after the chosenites were permitted back into England. That sets us up for a good “teachable moment”  about arch-criminal and temporary dictator (1653-1658) of England, Oliver Cromwell — whose love for the Jews changed the course of world history. The article mentions Cromwell (a historical favorite of the chosenites) —

“Its first worshipers were Jews from Portugal and Spain who fled the Inquisition and were allowed by Oliver Cromwell in 1657 to practice their faith in England.”

Here’s the history:

In July of 1290, King Edward I (“Longshanks”) issued the Edict of Expulsion. The Sheriffs of all the counties of the realm were given four months to clear the chosenites out once and for all. The harsh action was based on the usual charges of the usual suspects being up to their usual business. You know — things like their hateful disrespect for Christianity, coin clipping, extortionate money lending, the ritual murders of Christian children — all of the usual “canards ” that have continued to “baselessly” pop up from time immemorial. The order would remain in force throughout the rest of the “Middle Ages.”

1. King Edward I booted the Jews out of England. // 2. A shrine to St. Hugh of Lincoln — a 
9-year-old English boy tortured and bled to death in a Jewish ritual slaughter in 1255. He was then dumped in a well. // 3. 
Expelled again and again and again
 — throughout history — always on the basis of “canards” and “libel.”

Let’s fast-forward 350 years to the 1640’s and the contention between King Charles I and the Puritan faction in parliament — a power struggle which led to two Civil Wars.  Cromwell — an Old Testament quoting, Jewish-loving, Puritan religious fanatic — (who was probably funded by Dutch Jews — led the radicals to victory and, a few years later, dismissed Parliament and established himself as “Lord Protector.” In spite of much reluctance among colleagues, Cromwell signed the execution warrant  of King Charles. On January 30, 1649, Charles was beheaded. With Charles — whose wife, Queen Henrietta Maria, was a French Catholic — now out of the way, Cromwell and his not-so-pure “almost Jewish” Puritans soon unleashed a terroristic (almost Jewish-like) persecution upon the previously protected Catholic population of Ireland. For all denominations, the celebration of Christmas — deemed sinful by the Old Testament Puritans — was banned. (here)

Though Cromwell’s revolution was short-lived (he died suddenly, perhaps poisoned?) and the monarchy would be restored, his historic 1653 reversal of the “anti-Semitic” banishment allowed the usual suspects to return to England and, over the course of subsequent decades and centuries; go about their usual business until England (and the vast empire which it conquered during that era) was under their financial and political domination. Once squeezed dry like a used-up lemon, “Great Britain” would be chopped up and rolled into Rothschild’s New World Order.

And that, boys and girls, is why (((they))) like Oliver Cromwell so much.

1 & 2. Cromwell and his intolerant Old Testament “Puritans” unleashed Civil War. // 3. Years after Cromwell’s revolution was undone, the unpopular “persecuted” Puritans were the same bunch of psycho fanatics who conducted the Salem Witch Trials and executions in 1690’s America — in which 19 women were hanged, 5 died in custody, and a man was crushed to death under heavy stones.
1. King Charles was killed and his Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria, was exiled. // 2. Two of Charles’ children were permitted to visit him before his execution. He bade them a tearful farewell. Just 4 years later, Cromwell invited the Jews to return to England and brought a few of them into his circle of advisers. // 3. Crazy Cromwell brutally crushed Catholic Ireland, but he was very “tolerant” of the Jews.

* From the Jewish Virtual Library:

“Cromwell’s favorable attitude toward the Jews was so marked that, according to his enemies, Jews regarded him as their Messiah.”

Putin Declares Holy War on Globo-Satanic Elite

Vlad the Bad is really “feeling his oats” these days — and there’s not a darn thing that de-balled NATO, the EU, the CFR, the Soros NGOs, Rothschild, the CIA, the UN, the Jurisprudence nor any of the other weapons (disarmed by Putin’s partner, Donald Trump) of the New World Order can do about it. The article describes the boldness and brazenness of Russia’s “defiance” —

“President Putin asserted that Russia would annex four Ukrainian regions and decried the United States for ‘Satanism.’ In starkly confrontational terms, he positioned Russia as fighting an existential battle with Western elites he deemed “the enemy.”

The speech was an extraordinary combination of bluster and menace, mixing conspiratorial riffs against an American-led “neo-colonial system” with an appeal to the world to see Russia as the leader of an uprising against American power. He referred to “the ruling circles of the so-called West” as “the enemy” — and struck a tone of anger and defiance.”

Oh snap! Did Putin really say “Satanism?”  We checked. Yes he did! And not just metaphorically or in passing either — but “outright” Satanism.

Putin:

“Now they have moved on entirely, to a radical denial of moral norms, religion, and family. The dictatorship of the Western elites is directed against all societies, including the peoples of the Western countries themselves. This is a challenge to all.

This is a complete denial of humanity, the overthrow of faith and traditional values. Indeed, The suppression of freedom is taking on the outlines of a ‘reverse religion,’ of outright Satanism. … Do we really want to see perversions that lead to degradation and extinction be imposed on children in our schools from the earliest years, for it to be drilled into them that there are supposedly some genders besides women and men, and offered the chance to undergo sex-change operations?”
Tell it, Vladdy. Tell it!

Gored by Putin’s Holy lance, the Piranha Press — in unison — is squealing over being called out for “Satanism.” Wethinks Vlad the Bad is over the target, no?

* Editor’s Note: Interesting timing with this Satanism stuff because Trump operative Steve Bannon recently described Pennsylvania Demonrat Senate candidate John Fetterman as being “someone who hangs out with Satanic Groomers.”

The Russian crest features a knight trouncing the dragon beneath his horse’s hooves. This is derived from earlier historical renditions of Archangel Michael trouncing Satan.

Following are more choice excerpts from a great leader who, after 20 long years of patient and cunning gradualism, is finally in a position of such strength that he may now deliver the truth with neither anesthesia nor apology — and no longer having to politely refer to Globalist scum  as “our western partners” but rather, as “Satanists” and “enemies.”

Putin:

“We will defend our land with all the powers and means at our disposal.”

“In 1991, at Belovezh Forest, without asking the will of ordinary citizens, representatives of the then-party elites decided to destroy the USSR, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their motherland. This tore apart and dismembered our nation, becoming a national catastrophe.”

“The battlefield to which fate and history have called us is the battlefield for our people, for great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

“Even today, the United States actually occupies Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and other countries, and at the same time cynically call them allies of equal standing.”

1. Russia has liberated FOUR pro-Russian regions of Ukraine for good, in addition to the Crimea from 2014. And de-balled NATO can’t do a darn thing about it because “Patriots Are Now In Control.” // 2. The alleged “sabotage” of Russian pipelines by “Biden” is all just part of the movie. Relax, there won’t actually be any World War III.

Putin’s rhetorical gems and corresponding actions come from a man whom the passionate purists among us once criticized for being too soft on the West — for playing footsies with Russia’s Jewish Oligarchs (who have since fled Russia for Israel, UK and Dubai) — for not recklessly invading Eastern Ukraine back in 2014 — for attending a WEF convention when he was a young security operative — for sucking up to Henry Kissinger — for lighting menorahs with rabbis, etc. Let this serve as a strategic and historical  lesson for ye of the backseat “Are We There Yet?” Chorus who get all worked up and start shrieking “psyop!” or “false opposition!” or “Jew puppet!” the moment one of our favorites utters something about “Covid,” vaccines or Ukraine that sounds too Globalese for our taste — or is discovered to have once attended an event sponsored by “fill-in-the-blank” — or just said something way too conciliatory toward the usual suspects. Keep your eye on the ball, boys & girls — not the head fakes!

When confronting a dangerous beast — equipped with the power to implant thoughts into the malleable minds of many millions of normies — it is calm, cunning, and temporary concessions — not passionate frontal assaults — that will win the war in the end. Of course, probably having had advance knowledge of the rise of Q and Trump surely must have made it much easier for Putin to wait out his “western partners.”

He played the long game with Satan’s minions until he no longer had to. Now, he is completely unchained.
“What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.


– Vladimir Putin, 2015 Munich Speech

The Eulogy Of Queen Elizabeth II That You Won’t See On Your TV

Turn on a TV, open a web browser, or scroll social media and you will not be able to avoid headlines and hashtags about Queen Elizabeth II passing away. After news broke that she was under “medical supervision,” media crews have stationed themselves out front of Buckingham Palace and its a veritable red carpet event as royals from all over Europe arrive to pay their respects and offer support.

the eulogy of queen elizabeth ii that you won't see on your tv

On Thursday, newly elected British PM Liz Truss said the “whole country” was “deeply concerned” over the news of The Queen’s deteriorating health.

“My thoughts – and the thoughts of people across our United Kingdom – are with Her Majesty The Queen and her family at this time,” Truss stated.

Hours later, and surrounded by her royal family, Queen Elizabeth II took her last breath. Now, all the constant reporting has turned to memorializing her.

But is the queen really someone to be hailed as this expounder of all that is good? Should her face be plastered on screens worldwide and a 24/7 memorial be rolled out in her honor? Maybe so, but not for the reasons corporate media will tell you.

On top of mothering a child predator and helping to cover up his crimes, Queen Elizabeth — during her time as a monarch — fleeced the taxpayers of England for hundreds of millions just to pay for her castle.

During this time, she hid her finances offshore — despite the fact that the Royal Family is tax exempt — and made countless billions off the backs of her subjects.

She also oversaw the horrific colonization of multiple territories in Africa and Asia in which people were savagely tortured, their land stolen, and their people slaughtered.

Also read: Queen Elizabeth II Is Direct Lineage Of The Roman Caesars By Blood! (Proven Fact).

Though the Queen-friendly press have tried to downplay her role in the slaughter mentioned above, her racist roots were exposed in a document released last year by the Guardian. The papers revealed that the Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s — when it was no longer considered “acceptable.”

It wasn’t just torture, racism and covering up her son’s affinity for children either. In one of the most damning admissions to date by the Church of England, the head of the church admitted in 2017 they “colluded” with and helped to hide the long-term sexual abuse of children and young men.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby apologized to the victims who spoke out and helped bring their attacker to justice in 2017. However, according to the report on how the church handled the case, as well as the slap on the wrist ex-bishop Peter Ball received for decades of abuse, ‘justice’ is a loosely thrown around term.

According to the AP, Welby ordered the report after Ball was convicted and imprisoned in 2015 for misconduct in public office and indecent assaults against teenagers and young men over a period of 20 years.

Despite admitting to sexually abusing 18 people, this serial child rapist was let out of prison after only serving 16 months.

The roots of the Church of England go back to the time of the Roman Empire when Christianity entered the Roman province of Britain and is the official state church of Britain. And, the supreme governor of the church is the Queen herself.

As the monarch is the supreme governor, it can be assumed that it took part in the cover up as well.

When not covering for pedophiles or overseeing torture, the Queen was also sympathizing with Nazis. In 2015, the Queen was seen on video giving the Nazi salute, during Hitler’s rise to power.

As TFTP reported at the time, in the video the Queen and the Queen’s mum raise their Nazi salutes proudly for the camera.

According to the Sun:

The film shows the then Princess Elizabeth, just seven, larking about in 1933.

Egging on her sister Princess Margaret, three, is their uncle Prince Edward, Prince of Wales. He was a sympathiser towards Hitler’s Nazi Germany and became King Edward VIII.

The stunning film footage of the Queen performing a Nazi salute is today revealed by The Sun.

The astonishing clip lay hidden for eight decades. The grainy home movie is thought to have been shot in 1933 or 1934, as Hitler rose to supreme power in Germany.

It is a matter of historical record that Edward VIII was, in fact, a Nazi sympathizer which makes the claims of childhood fun by the Queen to defend the video, all but irrelevant.

Exposed: All The Queen’s Agents And Corporations That Control The World.

It gets worse, intelligence given to the FBI claimed the Nazis were using the Duke and Duchess to glean information that would scuttle the war effort of the allies and help the Nazis win.

When the Queen isn’t saluting the regime responsible for the horrid deaths of 6 million Jews, she exploiting poor and mentally ill individuals.

As TFTP reported, the release of the Paradise Papers, a leak comprised of over 13.4 million documents, exposed the Queens insidious exploits of the mentally ill.

The documents included in the leak came from two offshore services providers and the company registries of 19 tax havens, which was obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and shared by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

The report from ICIJ claimed that according to records from the offshore law firm Appleby, Queen Elizabeth II’s private estate has invested millions of pounds in a Cayman Islands fund that has a history of taking advantage of poor families:

“Queen Elizabeth II has invested millions of dollars in medical and consumer loan companies, Appleby’s files show. While the Queen’s private estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, provides some details of its investments in U.K. property, such as commercial buildings scattered across southern England, it has never disclosed details of its offshore investments.

‘Yes, the Duchy was aware that the Jubilee Absolute Return Fund was run offshore,’ said Chris Addock, chief finance officer of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The records show that as of 2007, the queen’s private estate invested in a Cayman Islands fund that in turn invested in a private equity company that controlled BrightHouse, a U.K. rent-to-own firm criticized by consumer watchdogs and members of Parliament for selling household goods to cash-strapped Britons on payment plans with interest rates as high as 99.9 percent.”

According to a report from the Guardian, which partnered in sharing the revelations from the Paradise Papers, over the span of more than a decade at least, the Queen’s estate has made significant investments in businesses such as the off-license chain Threshers and the retailer BrightHouse.

In 2017, BrightHouse, which is Britain’s biggest rent-to-own retailer, was ordered to pay 14.8 million pounds to 249,000 customers after the watchdog Financial Conduct Authority found that the retailer was guilty of overcharging customers and intentionally taking advantage of people with mental health problems and learning disabilities.

So, to recap, the queen has overseen horrifying torture and occupation for decades, covered for pedophiles, exploited people with disabilities for personal gain, fleece her subjects for billions in tax revenue, and has a history of sympathetic intentions to the Nazis. And, this is by no means, a comprehensive list… there is still much more.

Her legacy is not kindness, altruism and majesty — it is colonization, brutality, land disposition, mineral theft and torture.

After knowing all this, we have to ask ourselves why… why is her face plastered all over televisions, computers, and newspapers? Why are thousands going to weep in the streets for her? Why will corporate media make her out as a hero?

This is not normal. The queen was a monarch, an unaccountable, legally immune descendent of a long line of brutal dictators who continued that role — and no, it wasn’t merely “symbolic.” Society needs to stop celebrating people like this. If we continue to make role models out of abusive tyrants, don’t be surprised when society starts to resemble that very thing.

Elizabeth is Dead — Charles is King

What’s next for “The House of Windsor?”

SEPTEMBER 09, 2022

NY Times:


The Queen’s Death Comes at a Moment of Great Uncertainty for Britain

Long an Uneasy Prince, King Charles III Takes On a Role He Was Born To

Queen Elizabeth II, like her great great grandmother, Queen Victoria, reigned (in theory) over Great Britain for many years — close to 64 and 71 years respectively and 135 of the past 182 years — with a few shorter-lived Kings reigning briefly in between. Of course, the real power “behind the throne” of the far flung colonial empire that is no more was not the British Monarchy, but rather The House of Rothschild which seized the island’s finances following the “Napoleonic Wars” and, in the ensuing decades, took control of its media and parliament. By the time Queen Victoria (of the German House of Hanover) was crowned in 1837, the monarchy was not only politically detached from the parliament, but the parliament itself danced to Rothschild’s tune. Two-time Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was openly linked to the Rothschild’s, as was political leader Randolph Churchill – Winston’s alleged father.

* Note:We say “alleged” because Winnie’s mom, Jenny Jerome, was abed-hopping trollop of the lowest order – but I digress.

Apart from not at all embodying the political power of Rothschild’s Island, neither lady — nor any of the men in between — ever really boldly asserted themselves in terms of expressing opinions on matters political or economic. The only exception was King Edward VII (Elizabeth’s uncle). Edward’s previous praise (while still a prince) of Hitler had already placed him in the cross-hairs of “the usual suspects.” Soon after ascending the throne in January, 1936, Edward continued to cause a stink in parliamentary circles with words and actions that were interpreted as “interference in political matters.” During a tour of poverty-stricken villages in South Wales, for example, Edward commented that “something must be done” for the unemployed coal miners. This simple empathetic comment, uttered during the Great Depression, was actually criticized as an attempt to guide government action — even though he had not  proposed any policy. 

In December of 1936, after less than one year as King, Edward was forced to abdicate the crown to Prince George, his stuttering brother and Elizabeth’s father — the phony pretext being that he was married to an American divorcee, Elizabeth Wallis Simpson. You see, the planned war with Germany would be impossible to pull off with an outspoken “pro-Hitler” King on the throne.

1. Queen Victoria was of the German Hanover line. // 2. Victoria’s spouse, 
Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, came straight from Germany. // 3. In 1917, the First World War caused King George V (Victoria & Albert’s grandson and first cousin to both Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and Tsar Nicholas of Russia) to officially change the family name from the German “Saxe-Coburg & Gotha” to the current “Windsor.” 
Edward VIII had an activist streak and a political bent — including admiration for Hitler — which could not be tolerated. A pretext was cooked-up to force his abdication in 1936. The following year, Edward visited Hitler with his American wife. Just look at how both of them light up in his presence.

This bit of history brings us to the new King, Charles. Unlike Victoria and Elizabeth, but very much like his granduncle Edward, Charles has not been one to shy away from making political statements and openly advocating for policy changes. Heck — Charlie makes Edward seem shy in comparison! However, unlike Edward, Charles has always remained in good standing with both the UK Judenpresse and the parliamentary class. Why the double standard, you ask?

It’s very simple. Goofy Charlie’s political forays — specifically his advocacy of the Climate Con and his condemnation of Vlad the Bad —  align perfectly with those of “The House.” It’s not that royals aren’t allowed to dabble in politics. If the political posturing is “correct,” then a prince, a queen, a king etc may speak as he please, provided it pleases Rothschild and the Global Crime Syndicate. Unless the White Hats have this creep (who, for all we know, may have had his ex-wife, Diana, murdered) under some sort of submission, expect to hear more nonsense coming from the pretend “king” of England. It’s also possible that, as King Charles, he may decide to finally keep quiet on these matters, especially since his brother, Andrew, was hooked up with Mossad pedo-sex-traffickers Epstein & Maxwell. Either way, we hope he will keep his stupid mouth shut. Better yet, we’d like to see someone shut his treasonous mouth, literally.

The Queen is dead. Short-lived be the King.

* This just in from reader Tom K: The number of days between Q’s very first post on October 28, 2017 and the Queen’s death is 1776 — the year during which the American colonies declared their independence from the Britain of Queen Elizabeth’s great great great great grandfather, King George III. Coincidence?

1. A Global Warmist // 2. A Putin-hater // 3. Not many people can get away with disrespectfully sticking a finger in Charles’s chest. Rothschild can!

Winston Churchill — Plagiarist & Forger…

Excerpts from ‘The British Mad Dog’ // By M S King

CHURCHILL THE PLAGIARIST AND ALSO THE USER OF GHOSTWRITERS

In light of his severe alcoholism, his high-life-living and his record of academic mediocrity, one has got to wonder how this puffed-up “literary giant” is able to muster the time and discipline necessary to author so many well-written books. Well, you see, the “prolific” multi-millionaire writer not only has the help of “literary assistants,” (ghostwriters) but he is also a plagiarist!

A young historian Maurice Ashley contributes heavily to Churchill’s widely-acclaimed 1937 ‘A History of the English-Speaking Peoples’. Years later, another historian named William Deakin pens an enormous amount of material for Churchill, including most of the text of his “widely acclaimed” series on World War II. The military narratives are supplied by a retired general, Sir Henry Pownall.

By the 1950’s, an aging and alcohol-addled Churchill is relying upon an entire team of writers to do much more than just research, contribute, and edit, but really take over his work.

The multi-million pound one-man literary enterprise that was Winston Churchill was not a one man show after all. — Ashley, Deakin and Pownall.

In addition to his reliance upon ghostwriting historians, the imitation intellectual also engaged in gross plagiarism. British historian Max Hastings, writing in The Telegraph, November 2, 2004, informs us:

“Pownall, ironically enough, had often confided to his own wartime diary rage and frustration about Churchill’s intemperate interferences in military operations. Now, for a salary of £1,000 a year, along with a less influential naval counterpart, he played a key role in the fortification of the Churchill legend.

Churchill skillfully injected into the narrative just sufficient rolling phrases in his own inimitable style to put a personal stamp upon the published version. The opinions and judgments expressed were, of course, entirely his own. But, from the delivery of the first volume onwards, some critics, including Life magazine which had paid vast sums for serial rights, expressed misgivings about countless pages of contemporary documents rendered verbatim in the text, to make up the weight.

By the time of the third volume, Life’s Henry Luce was growling: “The old boy is chiseling on us. If he were younger, we’d kick him in the shins.” Churchill narrowly averted litigation for plagiarism from Samuel Morison, an American naval historian whose narrative of the Pacific sea battles was recycled in the former Prime Minister’s volumes.”

Henry Luce, the legendary founder of LIFE Magazine, came to understand that Churchill was a money-grubbing plagiarist.

MID 1930’s
CHURCHILL THE FORGER, BROKE AND DESPERATE, RESORTS TO SELLING FAKE PAINTINGS

Just how desperate was Churchill’s financial situation during the 1930’s? Noted British historian and master document digger David Irving informs us:

“Churchill of course is no stranger to counterfeit art. In dire financial straits in the 1930s he took to faking the paintings of the deceased French impressionist Charles Maurin because Maurin’s signature sold somewhat better in the Left Bank boutiques in those days than did his own.

President Franklin D Roosevelt spotted the little deception, and wrote him a joshing letter about it in February 1942. For some reason those letters never made it into the official volumes of Churchill Roosevelt correspondence — an omission I have rectified in “Churchill’s War”, vol. ii: “Triumph in Adversity”. Now that’s Real History. Spreads like Butter.” (8)

Roosevelt had come to learn of the scam from a fine arts expert in Washington DC. Irving, in another article, quotes from the teasingly friendly 1942 letter in which Roosevelt writes to Churchill as though it is not known who the forger is:

“Dear Winston — these people who go around under assumed names render themselves open to all kinds of indignity and suspicion.” (9)

Having hinted at blackmail, Roosevelt mischievously added:

“The British Embassy was asked for verification and I suppose the matter has been to Scotland Yard and back again.” (10).

In ‘Churchill’s War: Triumph in Adversity, historian David Irving uncovers a 1942 letter from FDR to Churchill in which the former teases the British Mad Dog – a mediocre painter – about a 1937 scam in which Churchill put impressionist Charles Maurin’s names to his paintings – and then sold them to boutiques!

Countdown to the New Iranian Nuclear Deal

The world is inching closer to restoring a deal to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The US is examining the Iranian response to a ‘final’ accord tabled by the EU in the latest round of negotiation for the restoration of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or JCPOA, as the deal between Iran, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany and the European Union is known). 

In mid-July, Kamal Kharrazi, an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Al Jazeera,

“In a few days we were able to enrich uranium up to 60% and we can easily produce 90% enriched uranium. … Iran has the technical means to produce a nuclear bomb but there has been no decision by Iran to build one.”

Uranium enriched at 90% is considered weapons-grade.

Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently told CNN that Iran does not want to build a nuclear bomb, but instead they want the capability to build one.  There’s a world of difference.

According to US intelligence agencies, US allies, and IAEA inspectors, by 2003 Iran had abandoned its military nuclear program.

In October 2003, Khamenei issued an oral fatwa, or religious edict, that forbade the production and using any form of weapon of mass destruction. Two years later, in August 2005, the fatwa was cited in an official statement by the Iranian government at a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

“We do not need nuclear bombs. We have no intention of using a nuclear bomb,” Khamenei said in a November 2006 speech, according to a transcript from his office. “We do not claim to dominate the world, like the Americans, we do not want to dominate the world by force and need a nuclear bomb. Our nuclear bomb and explosive power is our faith.”

How many countries have nuclear bombs?

Nuclear weapons analysts estimate that the world’s nine nuclear states—China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have around 13,000 nuclear warheads in total, according to the Arms Control Association.

Iran’s nuclear power station and compared to others

The Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is the only nuclear power reactor in Iran, with a total of 42 199 million kilowatts of electricity generated from March 2011 to March 2020, which provided 1.84% of national electricity production in 2019.

According to Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atom Energy Organization of Iran, the country has less than two percent of the global nuclear capacity but is subject to 25 percent of all inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Eslami feels that western powers use the threat of Iran’s nuclear program as a pretext to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology, which has nothing to do with atomic bombs but enables scientific achievements.

Currently, Iran does not possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and is a signatory to treaties repudiating the possession of WMDs including the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Benjamin Netanyahu at the UN

Israel views Iran as their enemy.  Iran is part of a global resistance movement against the occupation of Palestine.  The resistance movement, in its many forms, demands that the five million Palestinians, who are Christians and Muslims, be given their human rights and a homeland that guarantees their freedom and dignity.

In September 2012, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly and used a hand-drawn caricature of a bomb to illustrate the threat of Iran developing a nuclear bomb.  His theatrical stunt was effective, and it got the attention of at least Donald Trump.

Why did Trump break the 2015 deal?

Iran reached its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which saw it receive economic sanctions relief while it drastically curtailed its nuclear program. Under the deal, Tehran could enrich uranium to 3.67%, while maintaining a stockpile of uranium of 300 kilograms (660 pounds) under the constant scrutiny of IAEA surveillance cameras and inspectors.

The 2015 deal was seen as an achievement of President Obama.  During the political campaign of Donald Trump in 2016, he promised he would break the Iran deal if elected to office.  Many of his campaign promises were directed at anti-Obama goals.

In 2018 Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the accord, saying he’d negotiate a stronger deal, but he never delivered on his promise.

Iran now enriches uranium up to 60% purity, which is a level it never reached before Trump broke the deal, and that is a short, technical step away from 90%, which is a level that can produce a bomb.

Trump broke the 2015 deal in 2018 to appease voters who were steadfast supporters of Israel.  While in office, Trump took more actions to support Israel than any previous US President.  Netanyahu urged Trump to break the deal, only to find that the Iranian nuclear program was greatly increased because of the break.

Who is the winner if a new deal is done?

China and India have remained loyal customers of Iranian crude, but if a new deal is signed, Iran’s crude oil production and exports could surge.

EU nations are still importing about 1.2 million barrels a day of Russian crude oil, which is two-thirds of the amount before the Ukrainian crisis.  In December, sanctions will stop that flow, and Iran is expected to fill that gap.

In 2016, Iran boosted its output to 3.8 million barrels a day within a year of restrictions being eased.  The onshore tanks stored huge volumes of crude oil and ships off Iran’s coast were quickly ready to sail as buyers placed orders.

According to Julian Lee, an oil strategist for Bloomberg First Word, and formerly a senior analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, Iran may reach a new deal that will allow Iran to fill in the sanctioned Russian crude oil for European nations soon.

The “Strongmen” Are Killing the NWO…

Those naughty, naughty “strongmen” are up to their anti-NWO mischief again – “stalling unity” in the face of “aggression” by the ultimate “strongman” in Russia. Turkish President Recip Erdogan is using the unanimous consent clause of NATO to block Sweden and Finland from joining the war-making club; and Viktor Orban of Hungary is using the EU’s unanimous consent rule to block efforts to embargo Russian oil.

From the “botched” pullout from Afghanistan to their impotence regarding Ukraine, it seems that the Globalist “weakmen” can’t get anything done during the Trump Era. At this point, one has to wonder, as indeed many in the Fake News have openly speculated, whether or not the monster which grew out of World War II will exist much longer — or at least in any form that has actual fangs and claws.

Behold some the worried headlines of the Fake News from recent years:

1. Trump said that he is “a big fan” of Erdogan// 2. Trump said that he is a “big fan” of Orban // 3. The cartoon, which is intended to mock Trump & Putin, actually depicts the new reality.

These are such promising and exciting developments which would have seemed impossible just a few years ago — at a time when direct and indirect US / NATO / CIA / Mossad subversion and belligerence was wreaking death and destruction in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria — and truly threatening to trigger World War III either in the Middle East / Iran, or the Korean peninsula, or in Eastern Europe. The world was about ready to explode in 2016. All that was needed was for the inevitable Killary Clinton to unleash the Satanic hell-on-earth World War III conflagration between “the international community” and the Russia-China alliance — a global catastrophe for the ages which George Soros himself was openly  “predicting” about in 2015. (here)

And still, due to the poison which has been deliberately injected into our community by CIA infiltrators posing as “right wing” digital warriors, a handful of “conspiracy theorists” still insist on branding Trump as either a failure at best, or a “false opposition psyop” at worst. Well, if it weren’t for this “psyop,” a good many of us might not even be here today. That’s a fact!

Since the days when the UK led various coalitions in numerous wars to topple Napoleon— and throughout the latter half of the 19th Century and early part of the 20th when that role was executed by the UK / France alliance — and all during the post WW II 70 year existence of NATO — the New World Order Crime Syndicate has always been able to command an enforcer force at its disposal. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (circa 1900) described the demonic dynamic this way, in Protocol 7:

“We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.”

What Trump, Putin and various other members of the “strongman” club have accomplished (or are in the process of accomplishing) is the deactivation of the NWO’s indispensable contemporary “hitman” — NATO. No NATO means no New World Order. PERIOD! —  How’s that for “false opposition?”

Of course, though saving millions of lives, in the physical sense, is a laudable achievement worthy of celebrating; repairing and restoring the shattered minds, morals, families and spirits of so many who have been afflicted may prove to be the most daunting challenge of all. Just have a look around you. The NWO’s culture-wreckers have done quite a number on humanity these past 50 years or so.

1. Mike’s illustrated & annotated Protocols of Zion // 2. The informal British-French “hit team” of the 1800’s collaborated during the Opium Wars against China, the Crimean War against Russia, and plotted against the US during the War Between the States. In 1904, in preparation for “The Great War” (WW I) to come 10 years later, the UK-France war-making alliance was formalized as “The Entente Cordiale.” // 3. After WW II, US-led NATO served as Rothschild’s pack of menacing attack dogs.

UK Government To Launch Digital ID Technology In April 22

The UK government is pushing ahead with its nationwide digital ID plans, despite half of the responses to its public consultation on digital identity opposing the idea.

uk government to launch digital id technology in april 22

Source

On April 6, 2022, new digital identity document verification technology (IDVT) that enables data sharing between public bodies and businesses for the purpose of identity verification will be introduced. It will be made available to UK employers, landlords, and letting agents who can use it to digitally carry out pre-employment criminal record checks, right to work checks, and right to rent checks.

The introduction of this digital IDVT is part of the government’s far-reaching digital ID plans which were announced in March. The government has framed these digital ID plans as a way for UK citizens to “easily and quickly prove their identity using digital methods instead of having to rely on traditional physical documents.”

Under these digital ID plans, UK citizens will be able to “create a digital identity with a trusted organisation” which can be used “in-person or online” and “via a phone app or website.” These trusted organisations will then be given a “legal gateway” to “carry out verification checks against official data held by public bodies to help validate a person’s identity.” The government will also allow the “trust” generated by a single successful digital identity check to be passed to other organisations “where appropriate.”

The trusted organisations that provide these digital identity solutions will need to get accredited and certified under legislation that the government plans to introduce. Once accredited and certified, they’ll be “given a trust mark to demonstrate their compliance and will be defined as being a trust-marked organisation.”

A new interim governing body, the Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (ODIA), will be set up in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) and it will have the power to issue these trust marks. The ODIA will also publish a publicly viewable list of trust-marked organisations.

new legislation set to make digital identities more trustworthy and secure

Source

Other companies that rely on the digital identity solutions provided by trust-marked organizations won’t need to be certified but may be subject to “flow-down conditions” such as agreements to not share the information they receive.

Before announcing these digital ID plans, the government sought views and feedback on its proposed approach to digital identity via a public consultation.

50% of the responses to this consultation were “against digital identity in principle” but the government didn’t include these responses in its statistical analysis of responses to the consultation because they “did not engage with the questions.”

However, the government insisted that “outside the context of producing the statistical analysis, we have taken these responses into account as part of this consultation exercise.”

The government also admitted that some respondents feared that “digital identities are going to be made mandatory for all people” but dismissed these concerns as “false” and said it will seek feedback on how to “encourage more inclusive digital identities.”

“As set out in the consultation, there are no plans to make digital identities mandatory, but we recognise they are an emerging technology and people may not be fully aware of the privacy and security benefits,” the government said.

“Therefore we will take steps to increase understanding amongst potential users and engage with civil society groups to receive their expert feedback on how to increase inclusion, now and into the future.”

The government added that it’s “committed to ensuring” that “people will still be able to use available paper documentation.”

The government’s digital ID framework has completed alpha testing. The next steps are a beta publication followed by beta testing before the framework is formalized in legislation.

The government cited “positive feedback received about the ability to conduct right to work and right to rent checks remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic” as one of its reasons for initiating its review of digital ID technology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government embraced jjab passports – a technology that shares many similarities with digital ID by requiring citizens to use a digital pass.

These jjab passports were used to scoop up large amounts of data from UK citizens, some of which was shared with private companies.

identity document validation technology in the right to work and right to rent schemes, and bs pre employment checking

Source

Vaccine passports are one of many examples of the UK government using or proposing the use of technology to surveil its citizens. Other examples include it secretly surveilling millions of COVID jjab recipients via their phones, proposing a social credit style app to encourage healthy eating, and proposing the increased use of surveillance drones to “protect” women.

Despite its history of surveillance, the government insists that this digital ID technology will have “strong security and privacy standards.”

The government’s digital ID plans were announced in the same month that the UK government’s Online Safety Bill began its legislative journey. This bill mandates the implementation of identity and age verification technology on many large online platforms.

This current attempt to introduce digital ID comes almost a decade after the UK government launched its 2013 digital ID project “Verify” which was blasted by the National Audit Office and internal Parliamentary committees for “failing the public” and missing all of its performance targets.