Windows on the World on behalf of Ian Fantom presents
Keep Talking Current Affairs Report for June to November 2016
(Previously known as the ‘Keep Talking / Berkshire 9/11 Truth Movement Analytical Newsletter’)
Please feel free to pass on, or post, as appropriate.
1. Implausible stories
2. The Money Masters
3. Antisemitism campaigns
4. Jake the Fake
5. Who is pulling the strings in this country?
6. A democracy, or a tin-pot dictatorship?
7. The Clown and the Professor
8. And who is pulling the strings in ISIS?
When I started these newsletters nearly a decade ago the country had a very different feel to it. It was still unthinkable that the political class in Britain could be serial murderers, initiating wars on fabricated excuses, and still doing what they were doing in the nineteenth century in expanding the British Empire. Not everything was rosy, of course. Many had concerns about Tony Blair’s claim of a 15 minute warning of a nuclear attack on London from Saddam Hussain, and about his claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, which many thought were discredited. But even so, we still believed that Britain was setting the world a prime example in it’s working of a parliamentary democracy.
1. Implausible stories
Most people believed in the government’s story of how a group of Muslim terrorists took a few lessons in flying a Cessna, then hijacked four commercial airliners on 11 September 2001, and how they used two of these aircraft to demolish three skyscrapers, with pinpoint accuracy, so that they collapsed in seconds onto their own footprints, and how a third aircraft broke through the US military defences surrounding the Pentagon and plunged into the side of the Pentagon at ground level, leaving a round hole big enough for the fuselage, but leaving the windows unbroken where the massive titanium engines would have been, and how a fourth aircraft plunged into the ground in Pennsylvania, leaving only a hole in the ground and no visible debris. But nowadays, most people find that story untenable. Many people I meet have already come to the idea that such a story has to be a fabrication, and those who haven’t thought about it since the heady days of 2001, when their attention was diverted by the sheer horror of the event and the drive for war, are easily convinced of the implausibility of such a story. We still occasionally get called ‘conspiracy theorists’, or worse, but not very often, and mainly, I think by disingenuous people who have something to hide. David Cameron, of course, called us ‘non-violent extremists’, and thereby doubled our attendances at our Keep Talking meetings.
Nowadays we are bombarded with such implausible stories every day by the mainstream media. Even the most loyal followers of the BBC television news know there’s something dramatically wrong in British politics. I’ve been living in Yorkshire for the past seventeen months, and I haven’t yet met anyone with a Yorkshire accent who isn’t very aware of this. Occasionally I meet with some resistance from people with Southern accents. I was in the pub in London a few days ago with some colleagues, when two elderly gentlement enquired who we were, and they were incredulous at some of the things we were saying. Then one of them said, “The City of London was always based on fraud. We’ve benefitted from that. So why change things now?” Perhaps the most direct answer to that would have been, “Because I don’t have a criminal mentality”, but in fact we challenged his idea that “we” had benefitted from it. Many have been sent to their deaths in various unprovoked wars. In fact, the fraud is committed mainly against the ordinary people, who would undoubtedly have a much higher standard of living if we had at the centre of our economy an honest banking system.
2. The Money Masters
A colleague of mine, John Doherty, recently gave me a couple of DVDs loaded with a three-hour documentary called ‘The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America’. It is a documentary by Bill Still, a former US newspaper editor and publisher, and was produced in 1996. He still has a website (http://www.billstill.com), and if you click on ‘Order’, you may be able to purchase the DVD from there. When I tried, I was referred to The Money Masters website (http://www.themoneymasters.com) and was presented with a page stating, “Your access to this site has been limited: Reason: Access from your area has been temporarily limited for security reasons”. I’ve heard stories of The Money Masters being blocked before, and so I’ll just have to leave the reader to search for himself to gain access to it. Otherwise, you may wish to email Bill Still, using the Contact page on his website. I found the full documentary on the ‘ReallyHacked’ Youtube channel, but by the time you read this, it may have disappeared again.
The commentary begins: “What’s going on in America today? Why are we over our heads in debt? Why can’t the politicians bring debt under control? Why are so many people – often both parents now – working at low pay and getting in jobs and still are making do with less? What’s the future of the American economy, and way of life? Why does the government tell us inflation is low when the buying power of our paycheques is declining at an alarming rate? Only a generation ago bread was a quarter and you could get a new car for 1995. The problem is that since 1864 we’ve had a debt-based banking system. All our money is based on government debt. We cannot extinguish government debt without extinguishing our money supply. That’s why talk of paying off the national debt without reforming our banking system is an impossibility. That’s why the solution does not lie in discussing the size of the national debt, rather it lies in reforming our banking system”.
I wish I’d known that in 1996, or earlier, because I used to think I was the only one who didn’t understand how banks work. I was told by an economics graduate that they don’t teach about that in university economics courses. The students are only interested in how they can make money. To me, that’s like doing a Physics degree and not being told about Newton’s laws of motion. But then, I’m old fashioned; it seems that’s the way things are going.
So why don’t governments create the money rather than giving private banks that right, and then borrowing from them and paying back interest? That has been tried, but the people who tried it generally got assassinated, going right back to Julius Caesar. It seems that the only way to change the system is to get this information out to the public, so that all reasonably educated people understand how the system works. Only then can the politicians in charge of our governments change the system without getting assassinated. I have been following the activities of an organisation called ‘Positive Money’, which is attempting to do just that. I went to lectures about it shortly before it was set up, and I would have been an active participant in it had I not been fully immersed in the other aspects of the causes of wars: terrorism and propaganda. They have some good material on their website (http://positivemoney.org), and they have a newsletter you can subscribe to.
Yet the full implications of the current banking system go beyond the wages and the cost of living. Whoever controls the money supply controls the country. Any company larger than a family business will be heavily dependent on the good will of its bank. If the bank manager is so minded, he could quite easily put the business into never-ending debt, or close it down. Banks can control whole industries, such as the arms industry, or the political industry. Investment in a government can be highly profitable, especially if that government is at war, and forced to borrow large amounts of money at high rates of interest. Would it not make sense for such an investment bank to invest in both sides of a war, so that whoever wins has to pay back huge amounts of interest, and whoever loses can be screwed for war damages? Take a look at the Rothschild Bank’s specialities on their website (http://www.rothschild.com) and on their Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.irg/wiki/N_M_Rothschild_%26_Sons), and you’ll see what I mean. Bill Still’s documentary describes how they invested in both sides in the First World War, and in other wars.
3. Antisemitism campaigns
John Doherty told me when he gave me the DVDs that in the days of the old video tapes he’d given a copy to his local Member of Parliament, a certain Jeremy Corbyn. He was very grateful for it. Now Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour Party, and trying to explain to people that austerity is a matter of choice rather than necessity. He has suffered several attempts at political assassination, with false accusations of ‘antisemitism’. That really has been vicious, and wholly unjustified. He has been under constant attack from the Blairite MPs in his own party, and he had to undergo a further election process, which he won with an increased majority. We all know about the shinnanigans goin on in the Labour Party, but the root cause is generally not discussed in the mainstream media. They talk a lot about a ‘party within a party’ when referring to the Corbyn supporters, or to the previous Militant Tendency – a Troskyite group that had nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn – but ignore the Blairite party-within-a-party, which has separate funding and has managed to gain a majority of MPs in Parliament despite being a tiny minority in the party as a whole.
There has also been a wider campaign in the press to make out that antisemitism in Britain is on the increase. A blog by British journalist Jake Wallis Simson in The Times of Israel on 6 February 2016, was titled, ‘Letter from London: In the UK, anti-Semitism is just hiding in plain sight’. It began: “It’s official: last year was the worst in recent memory for anti-Semitic attacks in Britain. A total of 1,168 racially-motivated attacks against Jews were recorded by the Community Security Trust (CST), the highest since records began in 1984”. So who is the ‘official’ body, the CST? Well, they are a charity, registered in 1994, and the report linked to is headed ‘CST Protecting our Jewish Community’ (https://cst.org.uk/docs/Incidents Report 2014.pdf). So they are a Jewish organisation – hardly a neutral official source. So what evidence do they present in their report that the increase in reported incidents reflects the actual numbers in society, and not just an increase in the reporting, as their profile in the Jewish community rises? I can’t find any. How do they define ‘antisemitism’? They give a definition of ‘antisemitic incidents’ in terms of the word ‘antisemitic’, which of course is self-referencing. So we don’t know what they would include and what they would exclude. Is criticism of Israel regarded as antisemitic? Jake Wallis Simmons in his blog focuses in on only one ‘antisemitic incident’. This concerned an appearance by George Galloway, then MP for Bradford for the Respect Party, on BBC TV’s discussion programme Question Time. He had declared Bradford to be an Israel-Free Zone. Jake Wallis Simson wrote: “He was able to defend himself quite robustly against the charge of anti-Semitism by repeating the cant that he is simply against Israel and Zionism, not against Jews in general. And, despite persistent heckling by Jewish members of the audience, he won his argument”. So what? A few paragraphs later he writes: “Obviously I am not suggesting that criticism of Israel should be outlawed”. But that is precisely what he is doing, because there was nothing more to George Galloway’s statements than criticism of Israel. Many Jews are against the leadership of Israel and the murderous actions against the Palestinian people and their illegal settlements on Palestinian land. So it seems that whether or not a gentile is ‘antisemitic’ depends entirely on which Jews he agrees with.
Whether or not the CST report was an honest piece of work, it is clear that Jake Wallis Simons’ blog was a piece of disingenuous propaganda. The problem I think is not so much with the individuals as with the war mentality. These people think they are in some constant war against the rest of the humanity, and when people are in that mentality they can justify absolutely anything to themselves. People in a war mentality will have no problem in falsification, criminal activity or mass murder.
4. Jake the Fake
We met Jake Wallis Simons at our November Keep Talking meeting. We didn’t know who he was until the end, when he told our speaker that he was a journalist from the Daily Mail. The speaker was Piers Corbyn, a climate scientist, with a first class honours degree in Physics and an MSc in Astrophysics. The talk was about Physics, and the evidence that the climate was governed mainly by astrophysical cycles, and not by man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He showed how the carbon dioxide levels lagged behind the Earth’s temperature changes, not the other way round, and so that it was an effect rather than a cause. He also presented a thermodynamic argument that the greenhouse effect would not change anything in any case: the Earth is not a greenhouse. But he began his talk by saying that if the press were to attack him, it would be to smear his brother, Jeremy Corbyn, whom the Blairites have been trying to smear ever since he was elected as leader of the Labour Party.
During the question time, a guy sitting on the front row, who later turned out to be Jake Wallis Simons, asked for Piers’s views on 9/11 and the Holocaust. We knew immediately that he had to be an agent provocateur. Piers was guarded in his response. The conversation went as follows:
Jake: I just wanted to ask. I mean it’s fascinating to hear how climate change is basically a big con. And er I erm thought you know, you’ve got the two gentlemen here at the front. One’s got a T-shirt about 7/7 and 9/11 being a big con basically all being staged, and the other one’s got some interesting books over there about y’know different narratives about the holocaust and things. I wondered if you had any views on what they thought? [Long Pause]..and their work?
Piers: Sometimes it’s best not to have views in public on some things. I think the stuff about 9/11 is pretty convincing. I mean I know a lot of scientists in America. In fact I was invited over to America at one point in fact to talk about climate but the second agenda they had in mind was to talk to me about 9/11. There’s stuff which makes no sense to a rational mind. Y’know.
Ian: I think Trump knows it as well.
Piers: I think, frankly, they all know it. I think a whole number of things will blow if Trump wins, which he’s very likely to do. And that’s one of them.
Piers was very precise and correct in his response, and there was nothing that could reasonably be pinned on him. Jake’s wording reminded me of the Demos people we had managed to persuade to come to one of our meetings to demonstrate how their ideas of ‘open infiltration’ would work. They spoke, erm, you know, as if they weren’t quite sure, erm … epistomologicially speaking …
Yes, I was wearing a T-shirt. On the front was printed: “I am a non-violent extremist”, and that was a direct response to David Cameron’s speeches to the United Nations, in which he stated that he wanted to close groups such as our down by labeling us as ‘non-violent extremists’. On the back were the words: “9/11 and 7/7 were staged”. Of course they were staged. How could they not have been staged? The question should be, who staged them. I used that wording because it was the wording used by David Cameron in his speech to the UN Security Council. Yes, Nick did have some copies of his book on the Holocaust for sale, but don’t shoot the messenger. If anyone’s a Holocaust Denier it’s MI6 for putting stories about following their decription of the Enigma code. Incidentally, we do have a wide variety of political views amongst our attendees, just as the Daily Mail has a large variety amongst its readership, no doubt including rapists and murderers, but we don’t attempt to smear the Daily Mail because of that. Piers Corbyn’s speech did not touch upon such issues.
The following day, Piers received an email from Jake Wallis Simons, saying: “We met briefly at your lecture last night. Thanks for speaking to me afterwards. I am planning to write a story about how you gave a speech at an event organised by Nick, a prominent Holocaust denier, and Ian, a leading 9/11 truther. I am going to describe how you argued that climate change, 9/11 and the moon landings were cons, though you refused to be drawn on the Holocaust or whether Jeremy shares your views. Would you like to give me a statement in response? If so, I’d be grateful if you could get it to me by 11am. With thanks, Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Global Editor, MailOnline”.
Piers Corbyn replied:
What you (in draft) write below is inaccurate, gratuitously damaging to myself and (potentially) my brother and misrepresents what I said. I strongly request, nay insist, you publish my comment as follows:-
“I speak to a very wide range of organisations across the political, business and international spectrum who invite me to talk about weather and climate; my attendance does not in ANY WAY imply, or is ever taken to imply, I support anything they or their members do or think. I was invited by Ian, no-one else, convenor of the ‘Keep-Talking’ organisation which entertains a wide range of speakers and my attendance was never suggested to imply agreement or not with any view he or anyone involved or present may have.
In my presentation and in public questions through the chair of the meeting I explained why we at www.WeatherAction.com strongly find that the idea of Man-Made ClimateChange fails. I was asked an irrelevant question about 9/11 and nevertheless said there are certain (expertly reported) problems with what we are told – as indeed there are many problems with what we hear from the White-House! Some in the audience appeared to want my comments for reasons known only to themselves, on a number of other matters which were not relevant and so were ignored by the chair and not taken.
On my brother I support his leadership of the Labour Party 100% and while we agree on most things we do not expect to agree with each other on everything, even football! I object to attempts to damage Jeremy by indirect association with people with whom I may accidentally have been present at the same meeting in Pimlico or anywhere. I and anyone have the freedom to attend or not any public meeting I am invited to irrespective of who else may be present unknown to me without fear of ‘stasi style’ spying or reportage.
What anything the attendee you describe as NIck or anyone else there thinks on any matter is nothing to do with me any more than the religious views of others present on the bus home.”
Jake the Fake then followed this up with further questions: “Piers, if possible could you tell me how you know Ian, how you got involved with his group, roughly how many meetings you have attended, and how well you know Nick Kollerstrom? Just for clarity’s sake — I want to make sure we are accurate. Many thanks again”. Piers responded:
I have never attended these meetings before and am not ‘involved’ with his group.
Ian phoned me a week or two ago asking me at short notice. I think he came across me by watching some of my video recordings or know about me addressing the International Climate Realists conference in September at Conway Hall but to my knowledge I don’t think he was there or if he was I didn’t know of him. My number is easy to get via www.WeatherAction.com
I find your line of questioning somewhat McCarthyite. I speak at quite a few metings and I think Nick heard me at one or more such astronomy – science type meeting / forums maybe in Imperial College, The Royal Society or other more local events. Whether this constitutes me ‘knowing him’ I know not but you seem to know him better than I do, similarly Ian.
I find your line of off-subject questioning – without revealing that you were a journalist – at the meeting was subversive, provocative and agitational rather than professional observation and reportage.
The event was NOT a press conference on me or my brother and Ian had assured me of safeguards against such trouble and diversion. Had you prefaced your questions with announcing you were a journalist he might have asked you to stick to the subject and say no questions allowed from the Press unless on topic.
We are reviewing the video of the meeting to see exactly what you said in the formal (chaired) part of the meeting.
For the record a number of pople posed themselves for photos beside me and I do not know who any of them were or have anything to say on anything they may think or do. Also for the record I first met my brother a long time ago.
I arrived home from the London meeting on the Thursday and reviewed the correspondence. I’ve had experience of such a thing before. What happens when an agent provacateur fails to provoke? Does he go to his handler and admit failure, or does he press on ahead regardless of the fact that the bait hasn’t been taken, and just fabricate the story? In 2008 the President of Esperanto Association of Britain, Professor John C Wells, published a denunciation of me in the association’s news periodical, EAB Update. There he accused me of committing the horrendous crime – in the eyes of the members, but no-one else – of criticising his friend Dermod Quirk in a communication I had sent out on a quite different issue. I was supporting the Friends of Wedgwood Memorial College in Barlaston, in lobbying against the closure of the college. The Friends association were asking for absolutely everyone involved with the college to support their appeal, but the Esperanto association, whose headquarters had moved to the college, were strangely silent. I think some of the people involved were complicit in the closure of the college by the local council, in what the Friends of the college suspected was an asset stripping exercise. I had to be silenced. Some time earlier, the association’s legal advisor, who had been strangely marginalised since 1999, phoned me to ask about a letter that had appeared from Dermod Quirk in EAB Update, saying that he had been passed over as librarian, and had offered to house the library in his home. I replied that I knew nothing about it, but that it could just be intended as a provocation, since he had admitted to being an agent provocateur in 1973 in the downfall of the President of the Universal Esperanto Association, Professor Ivo Lapenna, something I had suspected at the time. I would therefore not respond to that letter, and advised the solicitor, Rik Dalton, not to respond either. For me to give advice to a solicitor may have seemed a little strange. He did respond with a query, and his letter was edited before publication. The result was a massive dispute between him and the President, Professor Wells, in which Wells suggested that Rik was in a conspiracy with me. Then his denunciation of me appeared, as if I had responded to the provocation in the first place. So the provocation had failed, but they went ahead anyway. It seems that this is now what is happening with Jake the Fake.
So I thought I would bait Jake the Fake. I wrote to him: “I think to ask for comments on an article without showing us the wording of the article is unfair. Will you please send us a copy of the proposed article so that we can make a fair assessment of it”. As expected, he replied: “I understand your point of view, but like all newspapers, we almost never release a story before it is published. If you would like to make a comment based on my summary, please do so and I will endeavour to include it. We are aiming to publish later today”. So I sent him a piece aimed not primarily at his readers, but at his own sub-editor:
Here is my statement, which I request be printed IN FULL:
I have not yet seen the text of this article, and so I refuse to make comments on it as the author has invited me to do. However, I will say that as soon as this guy asked Piers Corbyn for his views on the Holocaust it was obvious to many of us that he was an agent provocateur, and that Piers’s comment at the beginning of his talk about the possibility of there being set up by the press in order to smear his brother was spot on. He had not declared himself as a journalist, but told us only afterwards.
I do not believe that he would have been put up to doing that dirty trick by the staff of the Daily Mail, because they have been campaigning against Tony Blair and his deception for years. Why would they want to join the Blairites in their dirty tricks? An excellent analysis of the behind-the-scenes collusion between the Blairites in the Labour Party and the Progressive Conservatives of David Cameron has actually been published in the Daily Mail by their columnist Peter Oborne. So I had to wonder just who this guy is who says he was representing the Daily Mail, and where his loyalties lie.
I arrived back home only on the following Thursday, read the correspondance, and quickly found some answers. Former diplomat Craig Murray – who is now a persona non grata amongst the British Establishment for his exposure of British complicity in torture in Uzbekistan during his period as ambassador there – has written a detailed blog about this guy, and his distortions . I suggest that that is essential reading for anyone reading this article in the Daily Mail. Craig Murry reports how this guy’s loyalties are more with Israel than with this country. Peter Oborne produced an excellent television programme on ‘The Israel Lobby’, and it seems that that is where this distortion and manipulation is coming from.
It appears that Jake the Fake is a mole in the Daily Mail. If he doesn’t publish this text in its entirity, I shall.
 ‘Fighting Back for the Right to Support Palestine’ 2 May, 2016 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/fighting-right-support-palestine/)
Jake the Fake wrote back: “Many thanks for providing this statement. I’m afraid we won’t have space to include it in full, especially as we are already including Mr Corbyn’s statement. However, I will endeavor to represent your position and use some key quotes, if the editor agrees. For a variety of reasons, I’m not sure it’s wise to use Craig Murray’s blog post as a source. If you do decide to publish your statement in full, however, will you include a response from me, if I were to provide one?”
So he had even confirmed to me that this had to be submitted to the editor. I replied: “I would like to know what the ‘variety of reasons’ is that you deride the use of Craig Murray’s blog post as a source. Please do send me a statement, and I shall decide whether I have space to print it in full, especially as we will already be including Mr Corbyn’s statement, and I still have no idea what you are going to write in your article.”
Then the correspondence went dead. His article didn’t appear on the Mail Online website that day – it was by now Friday – and there was nothing in the Daily Mail’s paper edition on the Saturday. I think the message had got through to the editor in a more effective way than if I’d written a formal letter of complaint. I presume that they noticed I had copied in both Craig Murray and the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
5. Who is pulling the strings in this country?
I have described this incident in some detail because it touches on the fundamental question of who is pulling the strings in our supposedly democratic country. It also illustrates the point that I have been making since I started participating in the truth movement nearly a decade ago, that in order to understand the sorts of shinnanigans that are going on at the centre of our Establishment, it’s necessary only to look around at what is happening across the board in membership associations and movements for social change. It’s easy to dismiss these things as parochial, but when you realise what you are seeing in the tiddlywinks society, or whatever, is what others are seeing in other groups, you realise these things have to be taken seriously. In fact, being targeted in a small group of friends and colleagues can be more devastating than being targeted at national level, because of the sense of alienation and loss of identity that than can bring about. Harold Wilson, who was forced to resign as Prime Minister by MI5, Jeremy Corbyn, who is under similar attack, and many others at the centre of politics, at least do retain some friends who will speak up for them in public. In a tiny membership association that you’ve dedicated your life to there can be a strong feeling of isolation. The case of Jake the Fake is in both categories. He had entered a small group of us – I counted 57 people present at that meeting – with the intend of smearing the leader of the parliamentary opposition, in order to stop him becoming Prime Minister. That demonstrates my point that the sorts of people I’ve been encountering in my own small world were the same sorts of people, using the same sorts of dirty tricks, as those undermining the very heart of our democracy.
It is now very clear that our democracy is being taken over by people who don’t have loyalities to this country. The recent referendum on the European Union wasn’t fundamentally about our place in Europe; it was about whether we should be governed by corporations and their bankers. These institutions have taken over control of the European Union; if they hadn’t, then we would probably not have voted to leave. Many of us in the truth movement have been sceptical of the idea that Britain would leave the EU whatever way the referendum vote went. On BBC 2’s Question Time on Thursday I could see unprecendented anger on the faces of some of the people in the audience, as they perceived obstructionism in the implementation of Brexit.
6. A democracy, or a tin-pot dictatorship?
I have been constantly amazed that no-one in public office seems to understand that we don’t need to negotiate Brexit. Our leaving the EU is not conditional. It has been decided by Parliament, subject to the result of the referendum. That is a commitment given by Parliament to the British people, and should be considered to be enshrined in law. Our relationship with the EU and other states following Brexit is a different issue, and that is what the fuss is about now. As regards the arrangements for the UK following Brexit, I think it’s quite simple; they will negotiate wider trade deals, such as TTIP and the recent CETA, so that in the end whether we are in or out of the EU will make little difference. The great objection to TTIP was that corporations would be able to sue governments, and that they would be in charge.
Yes, there is a strong case for a debate in Parliament over that issue, but by conflating the two issues one group of Remainers, the People’s Challenge (https://www.bindmans.com/news/concerned-citizens-launch-peoples-challenge-to-government-on-article-50), has managed to get a court ruling that the issue of Brexit should be resubmitted to Parliament. Nigel Farage has warned that there could be violence in the streets if the referendum result is thwarted (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3hshxFhHM4dKd3px6Q3NzRF/transcripts), and I think he’s right. It’s what happens when democracy is seen to break down. In the same discussion, on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said, talking about the Prime Minister, “The case is that she cannot use something called the Royal Prerogative to do it because we do not live in a tin-pot dictatorship”. But hang on, the Royal Prerogative is regularly used to take this country to war. Does that not mean that we live in a tin-pot dictatorship? Of course it does. We’re run by the banks. We are said to have no written constitution, and so the courts claim to be working off precedent. In other words, Parliament has no formal say in going to war, because that’s how it’s worked in the past, but where there is no precedent, such as in a referendum in which the people vote the wrong way, the law can be whatever they want it to be.
If David Cameron had got the formalities right, then surely there would be no need even to seek the Royal Prerogative, because Parliament had already decided, subject to the will of the people. As it is, if the Prime Minister cannot use the Royal Prerogative for Brexit, and feels it would be a betrayal of the British people to go back to Parliament for them to take the decision all over again, then there is only one way that I can see of leaving the EU, and that is for Britain to declare war on the EU. Then the Prime Minister could apply the Royal Prerogative. Of course, the Prime Minister and the monarch would take such a decision very seriously and would seek advice from their advisors. An advisor to the Cabinet, and possibly the most powerful advisor to the Cabinet, is the Rothschild Bank, and an advisor to the monarch, and possibly the most powerful advisor to the monarch, is Lord Rothschild. Surely they would do all in their power to help Brexit along under such terms, by issuing war loans to both sides. The EU would be happy because they could push Greece into further debt, and drag a few more countries with it. The judiciary would be happy because they would be following precedent, as laid down in the events of 1914. A few pacifists and left-wing radicals wouldn’t be happy though, because they are in principle against bankers’ wars. Well, if they really want to curtail the powers of the bankers, then the place to start is with the Royal Prerogative. That could be removed entirely with a simple act of parliament. In the wake of the current fiasco, such a move might even have a chance of succeeding. That would mean that no war could be started without the expressed approval of Parliament. It’s strange, though, how those who oppose such abuse of power are maligned as Left-Wing Radicals. Yet the political left, as well as the peace movements, are generally rendered ineffective by strange people within, and the press will describe them as dreamy utopian idealists, as they did with the Esperantists. Why, for instance, does the Stop the War Coalition have to be left-wing? Why don’t they welcome anyone who is against the wars, including members of Nigel Farage’s United Kingdon Independence Party (UKIP)? Why won’t they discuss the Clean Break document of 1996, in which plans for the invasion of Syria were raised? They know they will only ever appeal to a minority of the population when they do that, especially if they conflate the issue with that of unilateral nuclear disarmament, as they are now doing. All such movements seem to be similarly affected. Peter Neathey has written and produced an excellent play called ‘I.S.I.S.’ to illustrate how such infiltration takes part, and how a small group of activists can be reduced to quarreling by infiltrators. ‘I.S.I.S.’ stands for the name of the secret services operation, ‘Intelligence, Surveillance, Infiltration, Subversion’. The final performances of this play will be in December, before he moves on to his next play. See it at the Etcetera Theatre on 5, 9-11 December (http://www.etceteratheatre.com) and at the Elmwood Theatre Club on 15-17 December (http://facebook.com/peter.neathey).
The real opposition to the bankers’ wars nowadays seems to be coming from anyone but the Left – with a few notable exceptions, of course. The main opposition in mainstream politics seems to be coming from the Libertarians, who are considered right-wing. Strangely, their cousins the anarchists are considered to be left-wing.
The iconic Libertarian in the UK is of course Nigel Farage, who over many years led the United Kingdom Independence Party, which spearheaded the move to leave the EU. During the United States presidential election campaign he appeared on a platform with Replublican candidate Donald Trump, to lend his support. It took me a while for me to figure out Donald Trump’s campaign, and I have to say that most people in the UK still think he’s crazy.
7. The Clown and the Professor
In the early 1970s, when I was running the press and public relations for the British Esperanto Association, I would explain to people that to run a really good publicity campaign you need two people: a clown and a professor. The job of the clown would be to attract the attention of the press, so that the professor could follow up with something intelligent to say. Of course, you can’t usually do that; you have to use whoever you have, such as the President. So you start off with a bit of clownery, but follow up quickly with the real message. That is exactly what Donald Trump is doing in the US. The difference is that nowadays the mainstream media are in even fewer hands than they were then, and those corporations are probably in the hands of even fewer bankers. In the US it’s dire, and as seen through British eyes pathetically ludicrous. The US Establishment is virtually entirely against him. So he has to get himself reported with some crazy stuff before he can even start to say anything sensible that will get reported. But the crazy things he has been saying have always been tempered with a follow-up phrase that means it won’t quite happen like that. I came across this statement of his, taken from his speech in Florida on 13 October 2016 (http://archive.is/NeRkC):
This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged. This is reality, you know it, they know it, I know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it. The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.
They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and your family, they will seek to destroy everything about you, including your reputation. They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that, they will do whatever is necessary. The Clintons are criminals, remember that. They’re criminals.
I’ve seen first hand the corruption and the sickness that has taken over our politics. You’ve seen it and I’ve seen it and we’re all watching together.
They knew they would throw every lie they could at me and my family and my loved ones. They knew they would stop at nothing to try to stop me. But I never knew, as bad as it would be, I never knew it would be this vile, that it would be this bad, that it would be this vicious.
Nevertheless, I take all of these slings and arrows gladly for you. I take them for our movement so that we can have our country back.
Our great civilization, here in America and across the civilized world has come upon a moment of reckoning. We’ve seen it in the United Kingdom, where they voted to liberate themselves from global government and global trade deal, and global immigration deals that have destroyed their sovereignty and have destroyed many of those nations. But, the central base of world political power is right here in America, and it is our corrupt political establishment that is the greatest power behind the efforts at radical globalization and the disenfranchisement of working people. Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited….
In my former life I was in insider, as much as anybody else. And I knew what it’s like, and I still know what it’s like to be an insider. It’s not bad, it’s not bad. Now I’m being punished for leaving the special club and revealing to you the terrible things that are going on having to do with our country. Because I used to be part of the club, I’m the only one that can fix it. I’m doing this for the people and for the movement, and we will take back this country for you and we will make America great again.
The corrupt establishment knows that we are a great threat to their criminal enterprise. They know that if we win their power is gone, and it’s returned to you, the people, will be. The dark clouds hanging over our government can be lifted and replaced with a bright future. But, it all depends on whether we let the corrupt media decide our future, or whether we let the American people decide our future.
Of course, it was overshadowed in the mainstream media by his denial of sexual impropriety, but it was picked up on 29 October by Nick Kollerstrom in a blog on his Terror on the Tube website, under the rather optimistic title ‘Home Run for Trump’ (http://terroronthetube.co.uk/2016/10/29/hour-of-glory-home-run-for-trump).
8. And who is pulling the strings in ISIS?
Yet Julian Assange, who is still a held up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, has stated that Trump would not be permitted to win. On Satdurday, 5 November, a broadcast went out on RT in which Julian Assange was interviewed by fellow Australian journalist and documentary film maker John Pilger, in what they describe as “one of the most incendiary interviews ever” (https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assange-pilger-full-transcript/). John Pilger commented: “You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is Wikileaks doing? Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?'”, to which Julian Assange replied, “My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he’s had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies … big foreign money … are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media aw well, media owners and even journalists themselves”.
He also gave details of how ISIS and the Clinton Foundation were funded by the same people, the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. John Pilger commented: “The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahranis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia”. Julian Assange replied: “Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled”. John Pilger: “Of course, the consequences of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIL or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation”. Julian Assange: “Yes”. John Pilger: “That’s extraordinary”.
Yes, it is – or it would be if some of us hadn’t already guessed that something like that must have been going on. The Islamic State, as they called ISIS then, suddenly appeared shortly after the House of Commons vote advising the government not to bomb Syria. It was only advisory, because the definitive decision could only have been taken by Royal Prerogative. Nevertheless, they needed a pretext to overturn that advice. ISIS would clearly provide them with that pretext. So how could such a massive military force, which could defy the greatest superpower on Earth in a sustained war over a large area in the Middle East, and then mysteriously appear in Northern Africa with no obvius supply lines, have acquired its weapons? Could massive weapons factories have spontaneously sprung up in the area? Or were they being supplied by some other power? If so, which? The only substantial supplies of weapons in the area were from Russia – in Syria’s military base – Israel and NATO. Of course, Israel and NATO were in league in weapons supplies, as were many of the Arabian states. The Russians would have had no interest in destabilising Syria, and they would have been outgunned by NATO in any case, without a mobilisation. It was clear to me right from the start that we were being asked to believe in a fantasy.
The Russians played the game very well, by calling NATO’s bluff, in launching a bombing campaign against ISIS. The Americans kept protesting that the Russians were bombing ‘moderate’ terrorists, and the Russians kept asking them for clear definitions of who was a moderate terrorist and who was an extreme terrorist. Of course, the Americans could never give that definition, because they were all working it together, and the Americans could never admit that publicly. The game is now up, nearly, and hopefully the Americans and their ISIS friends will quietly withdraw from Syria without the need for further bombing. Of course, the UK government has been complicit, too.
The full text of that interview is given on John Pilger’s website (http://johnpilger.com/articles/inside-the-invisible-government-war-propaganda-clinton-trump). The interview also describes how the destruction of Libya was Hillary Clinton’s war, and how most of Barack Obama’s cabinet was drawn from CitiBank.
The Establishement is getting jittery. We could well see a period of repression in both the USA and Britain. In Britain their main instrument could well be the Non-Violient Extremism legislation, which still hasn’t reached Parliament, and we should do all in our power to make sure it doesn’t. In For the British it’s normal to greet each other by talking about the weather. From our experiences last week, it seems that even that is under threat. But do keep talking. If we can’t talk about the weather in Britain today, then what can we talk about?
Keep Talking administers an English-language email discussion group, ‘911keeptalking’, and monthly meetings in London. Email me for further information.