Just quickly: When others say; ” we shouldn’t attack others” or ” that’s just infighting” or “we’re in this together”…When this country, indeed most if not all of the west has the enemy inside the gates, Are we supposed to let sayanim, knowing or otherwise, away with their antics?
I didn’t believe Albert Burgess was intentionally misleading the truth movement in this country as are I believe, that little clique. In researching recently for a book I started 3 or 4 years ago that’s just sat in a draw since, I discovered that in Burgess’ book: The Laymans Guide To The English Constitution, Albert misses out English kings and events very much relevant to any ‘Laymans guide’.
From my book…one day….
Albert Burgess in his book: Laymans Guide To The English Constitution, mentions the ealdorman as an eldery man who, “could not or would not learn, would be replaced by a younger man”, Burgess, again oddly to me at least, also jumps from Henry III to Edward II, why miss out the King who formed the first modern parliament, who brought the knights, clergy, nobility, as well as the lords and commons together for the first time, he defeated the Welsh and was known as the ‘Hammer of the Scots’, he was a statesman, a lawyer and a soldier? Now I’m not bigging him up, this is longshanks of Braveheart infamy (Hollywood I know, we’ll get to that) but yes, the English did some terrible stuff to the other peoples of these isles, no nation in history has been saintly, but when you intend to lead the charge against the traitors in Britain today, Burgess ought to be a bit more precise and objective; missing out Ed I was a mistake? I think not.
Staying with said book, it also manages to jump from Henry I ( 1100- 1135) to John (1213) missing out Stephen (1135-1154) and again coincidentally misses out Henry II (1135-1189), nearly 80 years of monarchs and related history bypassed, so ‘Laymans’ guide seems almost a euphamism.
During those missing years the ‘Layman’ may not know under the reign of Stephen: regarded by historians as a weak king, there was civil war throughout his reign, during this hegelian conundrum , jews; who Stephen had a fondness for, flourished; communities grew in Norwich, Cambridge and Oxford. Again under Henry II, Albert Burgess’ other missing monarch; jewish communities were found at Lincoln, Northampton, Thetford and Bungay, in Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Wiltshire, London, Norwich, Cambridge and Oxford, (See From Domesday Book to Magna Carta,)
By the time of Henry III, jews and their hatred of Christians,usury, coin clipping and lest we forget; child sacrifice, had spread to include: Bristol, Canterbury, Colchester, Exeter, Hereford, Stamford, Winchester and York, (This is proved by Transactions, xi 99-111, Jewish Hist. Soc., which were lists of taxation of Jews.) and (Geoffrey H Smith and Arnold S Leese)
Perhaps Albert decided the layman didn’t need to know those facts, or that Edward I, just a minor point; expelled the jews from Britain with the Edict of Expulsion of 1290?: Update for the Layman; The edict still stands!
William the Conqueror, aka: William the Bastard, with this battle of Britain by defeating Harold at Hastings in 1066, was an invasion of jews from Normandy. In todays cultural marxist politically correct world, to say such is ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘racist’, convenient don’t you think!
Never the less true: There is little evidence to suggest that Jews settled in England in any large numbers until after the Norman Conquest. It was in Normandy, at Rouen, that a large Jewish community had existed since the Gallo-Roman era (see Gesta Regum Anglorum ii, 371n). William of Malmesbury stated that the Conqueror brought the Jews of London from Rouen. Thus it was armed might, not democracy, which led to England being occupied by Jews.(Geoffrey H Smith and Arnold S Leese)
Burgess’ William the Conqueror is a different beast: “ William chose to maintain the Laws of Edward the Confessor (which were Alfred’s Laws), rather than introduce laws from his native Country of Normandy” (page 4)
Other sources would beg to differ from Burgess’ convenient perceptions including myself, and though I hate to admit it; Wikipedia: The first Jewish communities of significant size came to England with William the Conqueror in 1066. On the conquest of England, William instituted a feudal system in the country, whereby all estates formally belonged to the Crown; the king then appointed lords over these vast estates, but they were subject to duties and obligations (financial and military) to the king. Under the lords were further subjects such as serfs, who were bound and obliged to their lords, and their lords’ obligations. Merchants had a special status in the system as did Jews. Jews were declared to be direct subjects of the King, unlike the rest of the population. This was an ambivalent legal position for the Jewish population, in that they were not tied to any particular lord, but were subject to the whims of the king. This could at times prove advantageous and at other times disadvantageous. Every successive King formally reviewed a royal charter granting Jews the right to remain in England. Jews did not enjoy any of the guarantees of Magna Carta of 1215.
Coincidentally of course; Albert also forgets to mention one English Civil war and one Oliver Cromwell, who also happened to let the chosen ones back into England.
Funny that, dontcha think?