British Government cuts £100 million (pounds) from National Health Service cancer treatment program in order to give £100 million more to Syria

timesrefugees-233x300Britain has decided that Syrian Muslim ‘refugees’ are more important than its own citizens. The NHS has pulled funding for cancer treatments affecting 5,500 patients claiming that the drugs involved, which prolong human life, are not cost effective. However, the £100m decrease from the NHS is the same sum that the Dhimmi Cameron has now pledged to donate to Syria, on top of the nearly £1 billion pounds already thrown down the drain to that country since 2011.


Breitbart  In total the NHS has now halved the number of cancer treatments on offer, citing financial pressures. And it pales in comparison to the £2 billion spent on health tourism, including £388million goes on foreign patients who should pay for their care but are never charged, and a further £300 million on health tourists, who travel to the UK specifically to use the NHS.

A report by Macmillan Cancer Support released in March revealed that cancer survival rates in the UK are a decade behind those of some European countries. In some cancers, the UK had still not achieved survival rates which our European counterparts had attained in the 1990s.


UK Express  While more Britons will now die of cancer, David Cameron has announced that Britain will take in “thousands more” refugees, as well as provide £100 million in aid, after bowing from pressure to respond to the refugee crisis.

Downing Street declined to put a precise figure on the number of Syrians who will be admitted to the country, saying that details of the scheme were being finalised and will be announced next week.

refugee meme


The additional £100million funding pledge for refugee camps on Syria’s borders brings the total contribution from the UK to more than £1billion, making it Britain’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis, said Mr Cameron.

As Europe struggles to deal with what is the greatest migrant crisis in its history, a dramatic East-West split has formed as the EU. Brussels, Germany and France want to force all EU nations – including Britain – to take their share of up to 160,000 refugees.

But Hungary, which has borne the brunt of a recent influx of migrants, and Poland are steadfastly refusing to accept any more, insisting it is not their problem.


The Word “Dollar” and the Dollar Sign $

Origins, History and Geography of Dollar Currencies

See also
History of money     Money in fiction Financial scandals


From Thalers to Dollars

The history of the dollar is a story involving many countries in different continents. The word dollar is much older than the American unit of currency. It is an Anglicised form of “thaler”, (pronounced taler, with a long “a”), the name given to coins first minted in 1519 from locally mined silver in Joachimsthal in Bohemia. (Today the town of Joachimsthal lies within the borders of the Czech republic and its Czech name is Jáchymov). Thaler is a shortened form of the term by which the coin was originally known – Joachimsthaler.

Later on the English version of the name (dollar) was also applied to similar coins, not only ones minted in central Europe but also the Spanish peso and the Portuguese eight-real piece. Both these large silver coins were practically identical in weight and fineness. Today we are familiar with the phrase pieces of eight from tales of pirates in the Caribbean.

Those coins, particularly the Spanish peso or dollar circulated widely in Britain’s North American colonies because of a shortage of official British coins. That is why, after the United States gained its independence the new nation chose “dollar” as the name of its currency instead of keeping the pound.

Later Thalers

Probably the most famous thaler coins were those minted during the reign of Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria and queen of Hungary and Bohemia (1740-80). Maria Theresa thalers were in common use in Aden and some other parts of the Middle East as recently as the 1960s.

The thaler was the unit of currency in Prussia and some of the other German states until the second half of the 19th century. The unification of Germany in 1871 and the adoption of the mark as the common currency put an end to the old units, just as the adoption of the Euro and the introduction of new notes and coins in 2002 put an end to the French franc, the German Deutschemark, Italian lire, Spanish peseta, and other European currencies.

Cover of the book on monetary history by Glyn Davies.
A History of moneyfrom ancient times to the present day, byGlyn Davies, 3rd ed, University of Wales Press, 2002. 720p.

Much of the information in this page comes from the above-mentioned book.

See the website for additional information about the history of money.

Other printed sources were used, particularly in connection with dollar sign, and are mentioned below. There are also links to the most important web sources used.

The Scandinavia Daler

While on the subject of currency unions, before the formation of the Scandinavian Currency Union in 1873 and the adoption of the krone or krona, (the first being the Danish and Norwegian word for “Crown” and the second, the Swedish word) each of the Scandinavian countries had their own version of the “daler” as their currency. Like “dollar” the name “daler” came from “thaler” and provides a clue as to how the word evolved. (The term “daler” was also used in Low German and Dutch). In Sweden dalers were minted from 1534 onwards, and in Denmark from 1544.  As Denmark and Norway formed a united kingdom until the Napoleonic Wars, when Norway passed into Swedish rule, the two countries shared a common currency.

The Scandinavian Currency Union was modelled on the much larger Latin Currency Union which was inspired by France. World War I effectively put an end to the Latin Currency Union. Although Denmark, Norway and Sweden were neutral, World War I put a considerable strain on their economies too, and consequently the Scandinavian Currency Union was officially dissolved not long after, in 1924.

Dollars in Shakespeare

Interesting examples of the use of the word “dollar” in Britain long before the creation of the United States – in fact the English colonisation of North America had scarcely begun – can be found in two of Shakespeare’s plays.

Macbeth Act I, Scene 2


“That now
Sweno, the Norway’s King, craves composition;
Nor would we deign him burial of his men
Till he disbursed at Saint Colme’s Inch
Ten thousand dollars to our general use.”

The Tempest, Act II, Scene 1


“When every grief is entertain’d that’s offer’d, Comes to th’ entertainer –


“A dollar.”


“Dolour comes to him, indeed: you have spoken truer than you purpos’d.”

The last remark by Gonzalo was, of course, a pun since “dolour” is an old-fashioned word for pain or grief, like the modern Spanish word dolor, which also means pain.

Shakespeare’s use of the word “dollar” in Macbeth was anachronistic since the real Macbeth probably died in the middle of the 11th century, nearly 500 years before the first thalers were minted. Nevertheless the use of the word in Macbeth and the Tempest, both of which were first performed in about 1611,  is a clear indication that the term dollar was already in use in English before the the Pilgrim Fathers set sail for America in 1620.

The Aztecs, Incas and the Spanish Empire

The reasons for the adoption of the dollar as the official currency of the US are bound up with events in Mexico, Peru and Bolivia. Small bands of Spanish adventurers had overthrown the empires of the Aztecs and Incas, plundering their temples and razing them to the ground or converting them to cathedrals – Machu Picchu was the outstanding exception, not being “discovered” until the 20th century.

In addition to the treasures they melted down, the Spanish conquerors soon began to produce large quantities of silver from mines in Mexico and Peru. Most important of all were the enormous reserves they discovered at Potosi in what is now Bolivia. Ships laden with silver regularly crossed the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Those crossing the Atlantic were naturally bound for Spain. Others sailed west across the Pacific to China to trade silver for Chinese goods. As the Spaniards controlled the sources of most of the world’s silver their coins were widely accepted, especially in places like Britain’s American colonies where silver was in short supply.

The United States Dollar

During colonial times the official British coinage was in short supply and as a result the a variety of substitutes was used inBritain’s American colonies, including wampum, in some of the northern colonies, and tobacco, or more conveniently, certificates for tobacco deposited in public warehouses, in Virginia. The colonists also used whatever foreign coins they could obtain. At various times in different colonies paper money was issued and disputes with the British government over this were one of the causes of the American Revolution. The rebels financed their war of independence largely by printing paper money notes that were called Continentals. By the end of the war, these had been rendered practically worthless by hyperinflation but financial prudence is a luxury in wartime. The notes had served their purpose and, with the help of their French allies, the Americans won the war.

As Spanish pesos or dollars had long been in wide circulation in North America, some of the paper money issued in some of the colonies before the war had been denominated in dollars. Other notes used British monetary units. During the war too, some Continentals were denominated in British units, others in dollars. In 1792 the newly independent United States chose the dollar, subdivided into 100 cents, as the unit of American currency in preference to the British pound.

Foreign coins were supposed to lose their status as legal tender within 3 years of the US coins coming into circulation. A new mint was established in Philadelphia and started its operations in 1794. The mint was the first purpose-built structure authorized by the United States government. However, because of a shortage of both gold and silver, in 1797 the government extended legal tender status to Spanish dollars for an indefinite period. The discoveries in California, which sparked off the Gold Rush in 1848, led to a massive increase in the production of gold coins by the mint, and in 1857 the United States finally removed legal tender status from all foreign coins. By then, although as necessary to the retail trade as ever, developments in banking meant that coins were just the small change of commerce.

British Dollars

In 1797, owing to a desperate shortage of silver coins, the Bank of England issues altered foreign coins from its reserves. Half a million pounds worth of Spanish dollars issued by King Charles IV were over-stamped with a small engraving of George III. The re-issued coins, with a value of 4 shillings and 9 pence, attracted ridicule. “Two Kings’ heads and not worth a crown”  was one witticism. (A ‘crown’ in this context meant 5 shillings, “half-a-crown”, sometimes colloquially known as “half-a-dollar”, being a common coin before decimalisation in 1971). A cruder, description was “the head of a fool stamped on the neck of an ass”. The issue failed because over-stamping was also applied unofficially to the plentiful supplies of light or base Spanish dollars.

A few years later a more successful issue of dollars was made by the Bank of England. In 1804 Matthew Boulton, the business partner of the steam engine pioneer James Watt, was employed to erase completely the existing design on full-weight Spanish coins and stamp them as Bank of England Five Shilling Dollars.

Dollars in the British Empire and Commonwealth


A great deal of the trade of Canada was with the United States and as a result pressure grew for a switch of currency from the pound sterling to a decimal system similar to the American one. The British government agreed and the Province of Canada gradually changed over to the dollar between 1853 and 1857. Canadian dollars and cents were minted in Britain until the establishment of the Ottawa Mint in 1908.

Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands

In contrast to Canada Australia kept the sterling system for well over half a century after being gaining independence from Britain. Because of the cumbersome nature of the division of the pound into 20 shillings and the shilling into 12 pence there had been many proposals in Britain over the years for the adoption of a decimal system. In Queen Victoria’s time the two shilling coin or florin was introduced as a step in that direction. However it was not until 1971 that Britain finally adopted the decimal system and divided the pound into 100 new pennies. The Australians decimalised their currency five years earlier but, in contrast to Britain, decided to abolish the pound and adopt the dollar. Two new Australian dollars were worth one old Australian pound, i.e. the Australian dollar was the equivalent of ten shillings.

New Zealand followed Australia’s lead and replaced their own pound with the New Zealand dollar in 1967. Fiji and the Solomon Islands both adopted the dollar as their national currencies. Some of the smaller island states such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and Nauru continue to use the Australian Dollar.


One of the very few former colonies in Africa to use the dollar is Zimbabwe. Some years after unilaterally declaring independence from Britain, Rhodesia replaced the Rodesian pound by the Rhodesian dollar. After majority rule was introduced the country changed its name to Zimbabwe and changed the name of its currency accordingly. South Africa still uses the rand. Most other former British colonies have adopted African names for their currencies. Kenya and Uganda use the shilling.

The Caribbean

In 1935 the British government introduced a new currency, the British West Indies Dollar, in many of the British colonies in the Caribbean. Previously, in some of those colonies the US dollar had circulated in addition to the pound sterling. Later, after gaining independence, the former colonies adopted their own versions of the dollar as their national currency. Of the remaining British colonies in the Caribbean, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands use the US dollar as their currency but the Cayman Islands have chosen to issue their own dollar.

The Far East

In the British colonies of Malaya and Singapore the official currency was the Indian rupee but the general public kept their accounts and made most of their payments, including taxes, in dollars and cents. Therefore in 1867 the public’s preferences were recognised when legal tender status is given to various foreign coins such as dollars from Hong Kong, Mexico, Bolivia and Peru. Subsequently, in 1874, the British authorities in Singapore also made the Japanese yen and US dollar legal tender.

Competition was provided for these foreign coins twenty years later in 1894 when British dollars were first minted for the colonies in the Far East. Most of these “British” dollars were actually minted in Bombay in India. A much bigger step towards the replacement of the foreign dollars was taken in 1902 when the Straits Settlement (Singapore) dollar was introduced, and two years later legal tender status was withdrawn from the foreign coins.

Of course a currency does not have to be official for it to be acceptable to traders. In his reminiscences about World War II an American sailor described how a shipmate once bought a basket containing a live cobra at Candy on the island of Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), then still a British colony, because he laughingly offered two “dollars Mex” (i.e. two Mexican dollars) to the young street peddler. See playing the game for his account of the incident.

Foreign Dollars in China

The Chinese had used base metals for their coins ever since they invented them, independently of but probably slightly later than the Lydians and Greeks. For large transactions base metal coins were not very convenient and silver, in weighed quantities, was used. Another alternative was paper money, which the Chinese invented centuries before it became common in Europe but abandoned after about 1455.

Not long after that, Spanish galleons laden with silver began to sail regularly from Acapulco in Mexico to Manila in the Philippines where the silver was used to buy Chinese goods such as porcelain and silk. Supplies of silver from the Americas started to dry up towards the end of the Ming dynasty and were probably a significant factor in the economic crisis China experienced at that time. Subsequently supplies picked up again as new mines were developed. After the Opium War China was forced by Britain and other countries, including France, Germany, America and Japan to open up major harbours as treaty ports and to cede land to those countries as foreign concessions. As a result a large variety of foreign silver coins, particularly Mexican dollars, circulated widely in China.

Prior to 1890 the Chinese had rarely minted precious metal coins but in that year they started to produce their own silver coins. In the early decades of the 20th century output of silver coins from Chinese mints increased but political stability prevented the complete replacement of foreign coins.

The fate of Gareth Jones, the Welsh journalist, illustrates how Mexican dollars continued to be important in China even in the 1930s. Jones had been the first person to report the terrible Soviet famine in 1933, caused by Stalin’s policies. A couple of years later, in the spring of 1935, Jones travelled to Manchuria, or Manchukuo as the Japanese called the conquered province, but was captured by bandits and held for a ransom of 100,000 Mexican dollars. After 16 days in captivity he was murdered. The bandits had been coerced by the Japanese military which was holding their families hostage as it did not want Jones to expose the army’s actions in Manchuria.

The successful Communist Revolution finally brought an end to the chaos of currencies that had long afflicted China.

The Dollar Sign $ – Theories of its Origins

Since the symbol is more recent than the name, and the origins of the latter are well understood, one might expect that the origins of the sign would also be known for certain particularly when the origin of the British pound sign, £, which is far older, is well-established. However that is not the case with regard to the dollar.

Perhaps this is less surprising when there has been controversy over the origin of the sign for the European euro, €, a currency that did not come into existence until 1999. (It has been claimed that the euro sign was invented by Arthur Eisenmenger more than a quarter of a century before the currency was introduced). Nevertheless a number of theories about the origin of the dollar symbol have been proposed.

The United States Abbreviation Theory

One of the most popular theories is that the dollar sign is derived from the initials of the United States. If you superimpose a capital “U” on a capital “S” then drop the lower part of the “U”, what you end up with is a version of the dollar symbol with two strokes. This theory was endorsed by the American libertarian philosopher and staunch defender of capitalism, Ayn Rand, in her novel Atlas Shrugged. Chapter 10 is entitled the Sign of the Dollar. Rand claimed the dollar sign was the symbol not only of the currency, but also the nation, a free economy, and a free mind.

The Peso Abbreviation and Piece of Eight Theories

However, a more widely accepted theory nowadays is that the sign owes its origins to the Spanish peso.

One version of this theory is that the standard abbreviation of “peso” was simply “P”, but the plural form was a large “P” with a small “s” above it and to its right. This was simplified by retaining only the upward stroke of the “P” and superimposing the “S” upon it. Hence the symbol of the dollar.


Dreyfuss, Henry Symbol source book : an authoritative guide to international graphic symbols. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1972.

If the peso abbreviation theory is the correct one why is the US dollar sign sometimes written with two vertical strokes? A possible explanation is that the best known Spanish Peso coin had two pillars engraved on the reverse side to symbolise the “Pillars of Hercules” at Gibraltar and the words “Plus Ultra” indicating that beyond the Pillars of Hercules there were other lands. That coin was called the Pillar Dollar in the British colonies in North America and the two pillars may have become the two strokes in the Dollar sign.

For brief information on the “Pillar Dollar” see:

Nussbaum, Arthur A history of the dollar. New York : Columbia U.P., 1957.

There is another version of the theory linking the sign to the Spanish peso. As mentioned earlier the peso was subdivided into eight reals, hence the name piece of eight. This was represented as P8 or /8/. Eventually it became customary to write the oblique strokes across the figure 8. In the past precious metal coins were sometimes split into pieces to provide small change. The use in America of the expression two bits for 25 cents is a legacy of this since if a Spanish dollar or peso or piece of eight was split into quarters each part would consist of two of the original eight pieces or reals.

The 8 with two strokes became a letter S with two strokes since S looks like an 8 that has been split, as when a peso was broken to provide change in reals. Eventually a further simplification was introduced by dropping one of the strokes.

The Potosi Mint Mark Theory

Adherents of this theory also believe that the source of the dollar sign is to be found in the Spanish peso but they would attribute it specifically to coins minted in Potosi which was, as mentioned above, the world’s richest source of silver. The mint mark of the Potosi mint evolved to become a monogrammed PTSI with all those letters completely superimposed so that the symbol looked like an S wrapped around a T. The resemblance to the dollar sign can be seen from the images of the Potosi Pillar Dollars. Click on the image for a larger picture. The mint mark is near the date.

The Shilling Abbreviation Theory

There is a view, held by some typographers, that the dollar symbol derives from the abbreviation for the shilling, s, which was used in Britain, both as a coin and as a monetary unit, until decimalisation in 1971. A stroke through a letter was sometimes used to indicate that the letter was an abbreviation. The classic example of this is the British pound symbol £ which is a cursive capital L with a stroke through it. The pound symbol is derived from the Latin word for a pound weight, libra, since a pound of silver was the standard on which the monetary unit was based. In the case of the shilling the stroke through the s would have had an added significance.

Until 1971 when Britain divided the pound into 100 (new) pennies and abandoned the old sub-units, two different methods of representing the shilling were used; one was simply the letter s and the other was the oblique slash / which is also known as asolidus, the name of the Roman coin from which the shilling is derived. Actually the slash or solidus was used to separate shillings from pence when sums of money were written down, e.g. 4/6 for four shillings and sixpence. (For an amount consisting of an integral number of shillings a dash indicated zero pence, e.g. 3/- for three shillings).

If you make the slash or solidus vertical and combine it with the S you end up with $ – the dollar sign.

It may seem strange that having thrown off British rule and rejected the British pound in favour of the Spanish dollar, the Americans should adopt a symbol based on the abbreviation for the British shilling but during colonial times they had used British units for financial calculations even when they used substitutes, such as the Spanish dollar, as currency. Even today Americans still often refer to cents as pennies.

Furthermore, shillings had been produced in the colonies without authorisation from the British authorities. In 1652 John Hall set up a private mint in Massachusetts and produced coins known as pine tree shillings because of the picture of a pine tree stamped on them. His mint was forced to close in 1684, but because of it the word shilling would still have carried patriotic connotations a century later.

The Portuguese Cifrão Theory

Even though Arabic numbers are used all over the world today, there are still differences in the way in which numbers are represented in different countries. In the English-speaking world a period is used to separate integral numbers from decimal fractions whereas in continental Europe the comma is used instead of the decimal point and either a period or a space is used for thousands and other groups of three digits. In the past the Spanish used a symbol called the calderon to separate the thousands, and the Portuguese used one called the cifrão. As the cifrão was also used to separate numeral expressions of different denominations and it consisted of the letter s with two vertical lines it has been suggested that it gave rise to the dollar symbol. (Über die Herkunft des Dollarzeichens, Christian Weyers, Zeitschrift für Semiotik, vol 13, no. 3-4, 1992).

The Hand Counted Paper Theory

The management of Em Letterpress, a firm based in New Bedford, Massachusetts, pointed out in May 2008 that the dollar sign is used in marking hand counted sheets of paper, e.g. 7$ would indicate seven sheets. Em Letterpress suggested that the most likely reason for that would be that a hastily scrawled ‘S’ would too closely resemble a numeral 5, so ‘SH’ was used, abbreviated over time to an imposed SH, and then the H’s crossbar eliminated resulting in the $ symbol but with a double vertical stroke. Paper money being counted in sheets could have used same symbol.

The Slavery Theory

There have been claims that the dollar symbol, $, is derived from the words for “slave” and “nail” in Spanish (or in Latin, according to one version of this theory that posits an earlier date for the invention of the symbol). The shackles worn by slaves could be locked by a nail which was passed through the rings or loops at the ends of the shackle and bent while it was still hot and malleable. The Spanish for slave is esclavo and for “nail” is clavo. Therefore the “S” with a nail, $, or S-clavo = esclavo or slave.

Slaves constituted a store of wealth and as a result the abbreviation for slaves that slave-owners used in their account books came to represent money.

This seems like the kind of explanation that would be popular with conspiracy theorists. It does not seem to be very popular in printed sources, at least not in English language ones, but I (Roy Davies) have seen it on the Internet and was also told it by someone who said he had heard it from a Latin-American economist and an American history professor.

One-fifth of incoming UN Security Council has no ties with Israel



Israel is losing a good friend on the council with the exit of Australia.

The United Nations, in an annual exercise, voted in five countries last week to begin serving two-year stints on the Security Council, beginning on January 1. Although there was some good news for Israel in the results, most of it was bad.

The good news is that the Turkey of Israel-bashing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan failed in its bid for one of the five rotating, non-permanent seats, losing in balloting to Spain. The bad news is that of the five new members, two of them – Venezuela and Malaysia – do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.

What that means is that when the members of the new council take their seats in January for a year in which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is likely to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a major agenda item on the council’s schedule, fully 20 percent of the 15-member body are so hostile to Israel as to refuse to have diplomatic relations. (Venezuela and Malaysia will be joining Chad – which still has another year to serve on the council – in this dubious distinction.) In 2011, when the Palestinians tried unsuccessfully to secure the nine votes on the council needed to gain membership as a UN state, only one of the 15 countries – Lebanon – did not have ties with Israel.

Even if the Palestinians do get nine votes, the US can – and probably will – use its veto to quell the type of resolution that the Palestinians are now considering: calling for a strict timetable for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines if an agreement is not reached within a year. But not only does Washington not want to have to use this veto – which would seemingly pit it against the opinion of the world – but Israel does not want to put the US in the position of having to do so.

The Palestinians are likely to wait until the new Security Council to push through their measure, because the incoming class is considerably more favorably inclined to them than the outgoing one.

In addition to the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council – the US, China, Russia, France and Britain – the outgoing, 2014 council includes Lithuania, Chile, Jordan, Chad, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Luxembourg.

The last five countries will be replaced in Jan uary, with Rwanda being replaced by Angola, South Korea by Malaysia, Argentina by Venezuela, Australia by New Zealand, and Luxembourg by Spain.

Israel is losing a good friend on the council with the exit of Australia.

Australia under Prime Minister Tony Abbott is outspokenly supportive of Israel; New Zealand is not. Still, if the US, Australia and the EU are opposed to a Palestinian resolution – and apply pressure on Wellington – it is difficult to imagine New Zealand bucking the pressure and voting with the non-aligned and Muslim blocs. But, as one source in Jerusalem said, if Israel could rely on Australia with its eyes closed, it can rely on New Zealand only with its eyes open.

Rwanda, one of Israel’s strongest friends in Africa, is being replaced by Angola, a country with which Israel has strong business ties – Israeli firms are active in developing Angola’s vast infrastructure – but not nearly as close as a relationship as it enjoys with Rwanda. In 2011, the refusal of Gabon to back the Palestinian move in the Security Council helped sink it, a role Angola could play in 2014 – but a role it is not guaranteed to want to play.

Spain is replacing Luxembourg as Europe’s non-permanent member of the council, and there is unlikely to be any change of voting patterns with this development. Both countries are considered to be tough toward Israel inside the EU, with Luxembourg even worse than Spain when looking at – and ranking – Israel’s friends and critics inside the EU.

Spain’s government has been more understanding toward Israel in the last couple of years, even though Spanish public opinion is overwhelmingly negative. In any event, Spain – like Luxembourg – is unlikely to vote independently on high-profile Israeli-Palestinian issues, but rather follow the EU’s position. Luxembourg, one source said, is a self-righteous, moralizing, lecturing little country. Spain, he said, is a self-righteous, moralizing, lecturing big country.

Another incoming member, Venezuela, is a stridently anti-Israeli and anti-US country that is aligned with Iran and Cuba. It will replace Argentina. Truth be told, Argentina could not be counted on to support Israel in Security Council votes, so it is unlikely this is a swing vote. But there is a difference: While Argentina might have gone along with a pro-Palestinian campaign in the council, Venezuela will likely lead it.

The biggest change in terms of losing one friendly country that would give Israel a fair hearing in exchange for a hostile country that will not, is the replacement of South Korea with Malaysia.

Whereas Israel could expect South Korea to abstain in significant votes on its issues in the Security Council – partly because it does not want to follow China’s lead, and partly because it keeps an eye on how Washington votes – Malaysia will surely vote against Israel, and, like Venezuela, likely lead the campaign in the council against it.

While the Security Council will in 2015 be more tilted toward the Palestinians, this does not mean that the game is over and the Palestinians have their nine votes to force a US veto in the bag. It does mean, however, that they are closer to that goal. And one of ramifications of this is that Israel will be more reliant next year for Washington to “save” it in the Security Council than it was in 2014.

Britain will be considered a ‘rogue state’ if it creates GM people, MP warns

Allowing mitochondrial replacement therapy to prevent the birth of children with incurable diseases could lead to people being created for ‘harvesting their parts’

Three parent babies could be created by using the DNA of a 'second mother' to fill in defective genetic material in an egg

Three parent babies could be created by using the DNA of a ‘second mother’ to fill in defective genetic material in an egg Photo: ALAMY

Britain risks being considered a “rogue state” if it pushes ahead with developing “genetically modified people”, MPs were told.

Conservative former minister Sir Edward Leigh also questioned how many more problems would emerge in the future if society is divided between the “modified and unmodified”, as he warned against adopting mitochondrial replacement therapy.

The procedure, which aims to prevent the birth of children with incurable diseases, could lead to humans being created for the “sole purpose of harvesting their useful parts”, the Gainsborough MP added.

Speaking during a backbench Commons debate, Sir Edward told MPs: “There’s been a great deal of controversy over the past few decades regarding genetically modified plants and crops.

“Through the march of applied sciences, advances in agriculture we have managed to feed billions of people.

“But I’m sure all members of the House will agree that we’re dealing with entirely separate issues when we talk of genetically modified food and what we’re dealing with now – genetically modified people.

“We’ve only in the past 100 years come to terms with the debilitating, restrictive and oppressive results of centuries of racism that was buttressed by pseudo-scientific notions since proved entirely false.

“How much more of a problem will we be confronted with when humanity is divided between the modified and the unmodified?”

If new regulations to allow mitochondrial DNA transfer are passed, Britain will become the first European country to legalise the process and more than 100 “three-parent” babies could be born in the UK each year.

Under the technique, parents at high risk of having children with severe disabilities such as muscular dystrophy will be offered donor DNA from a “second mother” to fix genetic defects.

Mitochondria act as the ‘power packs’ of cells and Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, has likened the process to “changing a faulty battery in a car”.

About one in 6,500 babies are born with a mitochondrial disease each year.

The Department of Health claims that the new technique does not amount to genetic modification.

Sir Edward insisted supporters of mitochondrial transfer were asking for the UK to disagree with opinions from every other country in the world.

He went on: “In this age of globalisation we would be divorcing ourselves from the entire community of nations in terms of bio-ethics, and do we really want to become a rogue state in terms of bio-ethics?

“No-one can deny the debilitations and hardships these diseases cause. No-one is seeking to downplay that suffering.

“But this is not about a cure. This would neither heal or no cure a single human being who is currently suffering from these diseases.

“What’s worse is when we’re talking about pronuclear transfer, is it effectively requires creating human beings for the sole purpose of harvesting their useful parts – is it really the sort of society we wish to live in, where persons, individuals are created, their parts harvested and then destroyed merely to provide for other human beings?

“There is no way that this can be considered ethical whether in terms of purely rational deductive natural law, nor by the system of Christian ethics by which in this country we have traditionally relied.”

Israel Grants Oil Rights Inside Illegally Occupied Golan Heights Syria: To Rupert Murdoch And Jacob Rothschild.

By :

Constructing A Palestine, Israeli False Flag Campaign!

The Rothschild zionists along with their coconspirators, The British government, and British royalty confiscated Palestine for Rothschild, and the Georgian Khazars who are no more Hebrew Jewish than the man in the moon.
  1. Israel Has Lots Of Oil ~ Washington Times!
  2. Israel Richest Oil Country In The World ~ Omega Letter
  3. Israel’s Giant Off-Shore Oil and Gas Field Israel National News!
  4. USGS identifies potential giant oil and gas fields in Israel/Palestine

Levant_Fig1_Press release


  1. The Cyprus Bailout Pits East vs. West: European Union Is All About World War III.
  2. U.S. Can Learn From Cyprus Environment Commissioner: National Launching Of GMO-Free Zone Campaign
  3. Rothschilds Attacks Russian Cyprus Holdings: Russia Launches Surprise Large-Scale, 36 Warship Military Exercise In The Black Sea

They have no religious, or other background to make claim on the land, but Rothschild and the British knew about the oil and made sure they supported Rothschild in his claim for Israel.

They never do anything for just one reason, so add to the fact that International Khazar Jewrys’ influence in America was great and Britain needed America in the war as its [bulldog]…. THE LIED TO CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES DO THE BIDDING OF THE RICH AND SHAMELESS!

Richard Henry Lee


Roman Catholic opposition to Rothschild’s Israel contributed to the Rothschilds violent hatred of America’s, China’s, & Russia’s large Catholic Christian populations.  Catholic Church vs New World Order

Hubert Herring in his book “And So To War” sums up the price the U.S. had to pay so that the Rothschild Zionists & Britain might have Palestine:

  1. “We paid for the war. We paid with the lives of 126,000 dead, of 234,300 mutilated and wounded. 
  2. We paid with the dislocated lives of hundreds of thousands whom the war wrenched from their accustomed places in a peaceful world. 
  3. We paid in the imponderable damage to our national morale through the lashings of war hysteria. 
  4. We paid with a period of economic confusion from which we have not yet escaped. The direct bill for the war reached the figure of fifty-five billions of dollars. The indirect bill can never be reckoned.”

The Roman Catholic Pope was against this entire mess [Letting Rothschild Create An Israel]. He knew full well, the Rothschild Khazars hated Christians and that was proven out in the 1917 Rothschild/Lenin Russian Revolution where Christians were slaughtered by the millions by the khazar barbarians.


The International khazar Jewry cut a deal and the Balfour Declaration was the result. What Balfour left out was that nothing the British did or said could obscure the fact that Palestine was not theirs to give, nor did the British Government have the slightest right to secure a mandate for Palestine.

But Balfour, backed by Nathan Rothschild, pressed ahead anyway, as if the two men had an inherent right to act in the arbitrary manner which they saw fit.

Vatic Project


palestine land

Rothschild’s Black Gold Empire: Shut Down America’s Oil Production And Buy From Rothschild.

The victims of Gaza: A list of Palestinians killed in Rothschild Israel’s ongoing assault

By: Chloé Benoist
As Israeli forces began their assault on the Gaza Strip, Israel’s leaders and media ramped up a rhetoric offensive, using dehumanizing discourse to garner support for deadly military action in the besieged Palestinian territory.

Operation “Protective Edge” – Israel’s latest military offensive to be given a name with nurturing undertones after “My Brother’s Keeper” and “Pillar of Defense” – has already killed at least 43 Palestinians and bombarded more than 400 locations in the Gaza Strip in less than 48 hours.


Netanyahu: I Won’t Be Silenced On Rothschild’s Security.

Despite the intensity of the Israeli assault on Gaza, Israel’s politicians are framing the military operation as one they entered against their will. An estimated 200 [NWO Hamas] rockets have been fired from Gaza [To Foment Destruction Of Palestine For Rothschild Control] since Tuesday, but there have been no recorded Israeli casualties.

Despite the intensity of the [Rothschild] Israeli assault on Gaza, Israel’s politicians are framing the military operation as one they entered against their will.

“We are not eager for battle, but the security of our citizens and children takes precedence over all else,” NWO Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday.

An Israeli official quoted by The Jerusalem Post lamented that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas could not “influence his [NWO Muslim Brotherhood] Hamas partners to exercise restraint and stop kidnapping and murdering Israeli teenagers and sending rocket barrages into Israel.”

“That sort of restraint would have prevented the current crisis,” he added. *Yawn*

Memories Of History: When The People Get Fed Up!

  1. Out Of Chaos: Comes Dead Conspirators!
  2. The New World Order is “Communism”: Also Known As Rothschildism Or More Bluntly Robbery!

The implication of these statements are that [Rothschild’s NWO] Hamas has forced Israel into launching a full-scale military operation against them, conveniently ignoring the recent crackdown on the West Bank after the disappearance of three Israeli youths, which Israel blamed on Hamas without providing evidence to back its claims.

In an op-ed titled ‘Send Gaza to the Stone Age’ published on Wednesday, Israel Hayom’s Editor-in-Chief Amos Regev praised the Israeli government for “the levelheadedness, restraint and sound judgment it exhibited before ordering the Israel Defense Forces [sic] to launch Operation Protective Edge,” calling for a ground operation in Gaza to be “carried out with determination and clenched lips, with the knowledge that this is a war of no choice.”

Israel, its leaders would have you believe, is reluctantly entering an open conflict out of a sense of duty, once again indulging in the self-victimizing rhetoric that all Israeli military actions are defensive or retaliatory.

Israel’s enemy, once again, is Hamas, and Zionist political figures have stepped up their eliminationist discourse.

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon called for the destruction of Hamas.

“We are continuing to carry out attacks that are exacting a heavy price from Hamas,” Yaalon said. “We are destroying its arms, terrorist infrastructure, command and control systems, institutions, government buildings, terrorists’ homes, and we are killing terrorists in the organizational high command.”

Other politicians echoed the sentiment.

“A sovereign state cannot allow for a bunch of terrorists to run its life; we must cut off the head of the snake and for every Hamas man to know that his blood is upon his head,” Shas party leader Aryeh Deri tweeted on Wednesday.

Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon took it one step further, calling on Israel Wednesday to cut off fuel and electricity supplies to the Gaza Strip.

Neither Yaalon, Deri or Danon have acknowledged the human cost of such actions on Gaza, an enclave already suffering because of the crushing Israeli siege and already struggling with fuel and electricity shortages.“It is inconceivable that on the one hand we fight Hamas and on the other we provide fuel and electricity that are used to transport missiles that are fired at us,” Danon said. “We are in a campaign against Hamas, which is firing missiles at Israel’s citizens.”

Neither Yaalon, Deri or Danon have acknowledged the human cost of such actions on Gaza, an enclave already suffering because of the crushing Israeli siege and already struggling with fuel and electricity shortages. Nor did they mention the loss of civilian life which is the inevitable consequence of wide military actions in such a densely populated territory.

Israeli leadership, however, has repeatedly emphasized the plight of Israeli civilians. Israeli news outlets have dutifully reported every siren sounded in Israeli towns since the beginning of Operation “Protective Edge” and lamented the closure of some Israeli summer camps.

Cara Lebenzon, a blogger for The Times of Israel penned a post berating those who have spoken out against Israel’s attacks, saying “I would actually argue we are TOO nice to Hamas and the people of Gaza. I’ve never heard of a single country on earth that supplies their mortal enemies with water, goods and electricity on a daily basis, have you?” For these folk, Palestinians are not people entitled to basic human rights, and an assault on Gaza is not only warranted, but long overdue.

Meanwhile, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) have bombarded Twitter with stylized graphics trying to garner sympathy for the fearful Israeli population who must run to bomb shelters — conveniently ignoring Palestinians’ lack of shelters during its deadly air raids.

The IOF has also shared an image which it claims is representative of Hamas’ own visual campaign to convince civilians stand in as human shields. The graphic, available only on IOF social media platforms, could have been created by the IOF’s own design team, purportedly standing as “proof” of Hamas’ treachery instead of showing actual existing Hamas posters.
The argument about Hamas forcing people to stand as human shields is one Israel regularly trots out, despite the fact that such claims have been dismantled in the past, and that the IOF is itself guilty of using such tactics repeatedly.


Last Lap Dance Of Obama, Gorbachev, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, And The 5-Year Plans Of Banksters!

But the “human shield” argument is a convenient excuse for Israeli forces to continue with tactics that they know full well will lead to many civilian casualties while rejecting any responsibility for these deaths. Palestinians living in Gaza are not granted the luxury of being considered innocent civilians in Israeli rhetoric; dead Palestinian men, women and children are all guilty of standing in the way of Israeli weapons, despite the fact that there is nowhere to run in the open-air prison that is Gaza.

Dehumanization of Palestinians and demonization of the Palestinian struggle are essential tools of the Israeli military machine in order to continue justifying expansive military action while maintaining its discourse of victimization.

Follow all the latest updates on Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip.

English Al-Akhbar

Israel Grants Oil Rights Inside Syria To Murdoch And Rothschild

Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy. Major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel – include Rupert Murdoch and Lord Jacob Rothschild. This from a 2010 Genie Energy press release:

Claude Pupkin, CEO of Genie Oil and Gas, commented, “Genie’s success will ultimately depend, in part, on access to the expertise of the oil and gas industry and to the financial markets. Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch are extremely well regarded by and connected to leaders in these sectors. Their guidance and participation will prove invaluable.”

Rothschild Mafia Family

“I am grateful to Howard Jonas and IDT for the opportunity to invest in this important initiative,” Lord Rothschild said. “Rupert Murdoch’s extraordinary achievements speak for themselves and we are very pleased he has agreed to be our partner. Genie Energy is making good technological progress to tap the world’s substantial oil shale deposits which could transform the future prospects of Israel, the Middle East and our allies around the world.”

For Israel to seek to exploit mineral reserves in the occupied Golan Heights is plainly illegal in international law.

Japan was succesfully sued by Singapore before the International Court of Justice for exploitation of Singapore’s oil resources during the second world war.

The argument has been made in international law that an occupying power is entitled to opeate oil wells which were previously functioning and operated by the sovereign power, in whose position the occupying power now stands. But there is absolutely no disagreement in the authorities and case law that the drilling of new wells – let alone fracking – by an occupying power is illegal.

Rothschild Standing Kissinger Sitting Far Right. Antitrust their currency hoarding.

Middle East Rothschild Banking Puppet Regimes Are Collapsing: Kissinger’s Petrodollar Going Down!

Israel tried to make the same move twenty years ago but was forced to back down after a strong reaction from the Syrian government, which gained diplomatic support from the United States. Israel is now seeking to take advantage of the weakened Syrian state; this move perhaps casts a new light on recent Israeli bombings in Syria.

In a rational world, the involvement of Rothschild and Murdoch in this international criminal activity would show them not to be fit and proper persons to hold major commercial interests elsewhere, and action should be taken.

Craig Murray – Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist –


  1. The Syrian Golan
  2. Why Rothschild Hates Syria ~ Oil In Syria’s Golan Heights ~ Which Was Illegally Annexed By Rothschild’s Israel Forces.
  3. January 22, 2014 “Information Clearing House – Israel has granted oil exploration rights inside Syria, in the occupied Golan Heights, to Genie Energy. Major shareholders of Genie Energy – which also has interests in shale gas in the United States and shale oil in Israel – include Rupert Murdoch and Jacob Rothschild.
  4. President Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian Army Crushes Rothschild’s NWO Terrorists In Aleppo; More Areas Liberated.

British Petroleum Orchestrated Oil Chaos!

Related Articles: