Wednesday, July 24, 2013


Royal baby. William told the media: "He's a big boy, he's quite heavy. We are still working on a name so we will have that as soon as we can. It's the first time we have seen him really so we are having a proper chance to catch up." BBC News - William and Kate present baby prince

William and Kate have a mentor called Sir David Manning.

Sir David Manning is on Kate and William's staff.

Manning was in New York on 9 11 and saw the fall of the Twin Towers.

Manning saw the smoke coming from the World Trade Center.

(New Statesman - NS Profile - David Manning)

Sir David Manning, 'part of the Kosher Nostra.'

Manning, who is Jewish, was Tony Blair's security advisor.

"In 2008 he became a director of Lockheed Martin... and joined the advisory board of Hakluyt & Company, an intelligence company partly staffed by former MI6 officers.[4]"

One of the Secret Rulers of the World - Sir David Manning

Kate Middleton's mother, Carole Goldsmith, has Jewish ancestry.

One source says that Princess Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd, was Jewish - born Frances Ruth Burke Roche, a Rothschild.

According to a story in the Daily Mail, Princess Diana was conceived during her mother's affair with the Jewish banker Sir James Goldsmith.

There is a striking resemblances between Princess Diana and Sir James Goldsmith's three children, Zak, Ben and Jemima Goldsmith.

If Diana had a Jewish mother (Frances Ruth Burke Roche aka Rothschild) and a Jewish father (Sir James Goldsmith), then William would have Jewish roots.

Big baby, with hair.

... comments:

"I've said for sometime that it often appears as if she's been wearing a pregnancy suit (fake boobs and bump). 

"Today we were proved right. 

"The size of the baby, the size of her empty bump, proves it! 

"The fact she was in labour for 12 hrs and is up and about on high-heels within 36 hrs proves it. 

"The way she hardly looks or touches the baby while on the stairs of St Mary's proves it. 

"Her slim ankles prove it! As mad as it sounds, the woman just did not give birth yesterday. 

"I've worked in a maternity ward and that's why I'm feeling positive about this obviously fake baby bump!"

"William appears to make a Freudian slip (BBC News) when he says: 'It's the first time we've seen him.'..." 

424 from Paddington


Newspaceman comments:

The Norway attack took place on 22/7.

Alleged Boston bomber Tsarnaev's date of birth is 22/7



Anonymous said...

Yes Indeed join up the dots. I'm ashamed to be British right now. By the way that William/Jacko picture on the balcony is a classic!

Anonymous said...

Kate is anorexic and everybody knows anorexic women have problems in getting pregnant and/or keeping the baby so good old Kate is no exception. Fake pregnancy all over....

Anonymous said...

What do you mean may be Jewish? They are!
They weren't wearing the colours of Israel for nothing when they emerged from the hospital. Surprised the royal sprog wasn't wrapped in a Star of David flag.

Anonymous said...

I wonder whose baby is William and Kate's baby? I mean his real parents?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Canadian Government Is Withholding Documents Concerning the Torture of Native Children

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Nothing important about this but please take a look at Queen's reptilian face

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

From Icke's: " 'Royal' Baby Coverage Crosses The Line Of Insanity

I have missed most of the child-like hysteria over the 'royal' baby (thank you God) but last night I was in a bar with the news playing on a big screen with subtitles. Had there not been silence and subtitles I could not have stayed a minute.

It was extraordinary. Even I was taken aback by the scale of the coverage. I was in the room for two hours and the 'royal' baby story was on when I arrived and still going when I left - wall to wall with nothing in between except advertisements.

I am glad I saw it really because it was a stark reminder that there are few sights more ludicrous and pathetic than the mainstream media arse-licking the system while claiming to be 'independent journalists'.

How can anyone involved in this sickening display of unbridled sycophancy for the family of the head of state and the 'future monarchs' (father and son) ever claim to be capable of challenging and exposing the system that the royal family heads and personifies?

Mainstream media you are preposterous and beyond redemption as a source of open and unbiased information.

Oh, but the baby is the future monarch? No he isn't. By the time his turn comes, the monarchy will be long past. – David Icke"

Anonymous said...

State of Mind: The Psychology of Control

Unknown said...

Run the numerology of this...

Unknown said...

Goldsmith appears to have been offed with a cancer bioweapon after founding UKIP;

Official cause of death is complications resulting from Pancreatic cancer.

Bill Hicks died from "pancreatic cancer that had spread to the liver"

And Jack Ruby died from pancreatic cancer that had spread all over his body in less than 28 days, ultimately clogging his lungs.

But he didn't have cancer of the pancreas....

Newspaceman said...

Sometimes you suggest too that Anders Breivik is not who he seems. The Norway attack took place on 22/7.

Sometimes you suggest too that the alleged Boston bomber, Tsarnaev, is not who he seems.
His date of birth 22/7

Royal birth announced on an easel - an easel is a Germanic word derived from donkey.


shirlz007 said...

this not good! This is seriously not good! Like... in a fucking Omen way! Something truly evil has just taken place here!

Anonymous said...

Israelite royal sprog,
Smithing gold for The City,
Dragons, Lies and UK Sheeple,
Still happy being as Slaves,
Cumstomers, numbers and soul-
less pawns. WAKE THE HELL UP

Anonymous said...

Newspaceman... Norway security left a good half-an-hour to Breivik on Utoya island.

Tsarnaev has an uncle that's been discussed previously here.

dragonfruitman said...

Lots of clutching at straws here re 36 hours & on your feet (in high heels), non-puffy ankles ... etc. etc. Shock horror, can't be true.

My wife's a pre-natal yoga teacher; she was ready to take our baby out and about after 1/2 a day's recovery and was in a bikini in 5 days. No puffy ankles. Yoga and a predominately raw food diet are the reasons. Maybe Kate did yoga as 'reported' maybe she didn't who cares.

What is considered 'normal' isn't necessarily natural (giving birth on your back, overweight, drugged etc.), just commonplace unfortunately.

However I believe the significance of the dates, the bloodlines etc. are real.

I am actively involved in progressing the 9/11 'truth' stuff. Got to try and stick with incontrovertible facts not speculation where possible. Far too much BS (whether engineered deliberate disinfo or just the way the Internet is) for my liking.

Fear is bullshit.
Love is all.

Unknown said...

“…it means, basically, that some movies are clearly being made by Invisibles and they contain messages for other Invisibles. Invisibles talking to each other in their own secret language… the movies are signals, they let us know that others are out there… "

- Grant Morisson / Mason Lang

When the Juwes return to Zion,
And a comet rips the sky,
When the Holy Roman Empire rises,
Then You (and I) must die....

From the Eternal Sea, He rises,
Creating armies on either shore,
Turning Man against his brother,
'Til man exists no more...

"The Juwes Are Not The Men Who Will Be Blamed For Nothing..."

- Galston Street Graffito, 1888

Anonymous said...

Dear dragonfruitman,

Forget the 9/11 'truth' stuff.

Love is all.

Love your oppressor.

Anonymous said...

What about the possibility that she actually did give birth but only much earlier than reported?

The baby is large and Kate was never terribly big. I am 5 5 and gave birth to a big 8 lb 1 oz boy 18 years ago. And I was not fat but I was BIG. My ankles never swelled. But 36 hours after my having my first child when my stomach muscles were still strong I did not look 6 months preggers. Maybe 4.5/5.

Might they have delayed his birth announcement to a more auspicious public date?

You know I really do not like scrutinizing women's bodies, especially post birth but straight away I was taken aback by the height and contour of her post baby belly. It's just too too. It should be softer and lower.

My belly only came a little close to looking like that post birth after my third child. And Kate has had much tighter abs than I ever had.

If I had to guess that baby was born a week ago at least. His head s still a bit misshapen ( a cone head ) indicative of a birth that took a while to push through the birth canal.

But his cone head looks like its mending. The fontenels look like they are joining. Again my first was a cone head and he remained so for 3 weeks. But he looked less odd after week one.

This baby was not born 48 hours ago.
Something is off.

Anonymous said...

From the comments on the link to HuffPo which Aan provided:

"Nonsense, the monarch who is head of the Church of England must swear to be a Protestant and to uphold the Protestant religion of England and Scotland. "

which is exactly what this nonsense conspiracy is all about. Jews have been desperate to affiliate themselves with royalty since the beginning of time, going so far as to create a false "de" on the name (Rothschild from Mayer, for one, and the "de" honorific on Michel 'de' Rosen) all royal honorifics on Jewish names are a fraud. To associate the royal family with any "Jewish" bloodline is an outright lie. For the royal family "Die Fidelis": Defender of the Cross - is the motto. My family is not even famous in any way, our bloodline goes back to year 1030, as does the British royals, we could provide proof of our bloodline which proved especially useful during Spanish Inquisition, when Jews tried to infiltrate the Church. This garbage, trying to associate the royal family, or any royal Christian family with Jews is a Jewish ploy as they are infatuated with royalty, having none of it themselves so they either try to wheedle themselves in somehow any way they can or try to discredit and/or destroy the royal family. NICE TRY.

Kristin in Arizona

Newspaceman said...

Aye but Kirstin, there are some other comments there that you chose to ignore as you cherry picked.

For example there is one about Glencoe massacre organiser, William of Orange, and his wife Mary, who had no children. Mary was House of Stuart, originally a Catholic family. When William and Mary died, the throne went to Mary's sister, Anne, who's father James was a Catholic (deposed by Will of O).

As regards the "Christian" angle, surely true believers in Jesus' teachings would not be so obsessed with the military, and indeed fighting wars, and indeed parading about with their troops ?

Surely you know the British Royal Family are "Germanic", allegedly. How far back can any jew trace their bloodline, and which variety of jew goes back furthest. That's a question worth delving into.

My position is regardless of "bloodlines" (surely debatable), the Royal Family have positioned themselves as "chosen ones" and believe in the "divine right of kings", which is not much different from the Pope's alleged divine-ness.


Site Meter