Category Archives: Overlord News

News about the criminals who rule.

Did Trump dismiss and misrepresent intelligence that disproves Syrian chemical weapons attack narrative?

In recent days there has been some revelatory material published on the internet about the decision making process leading up to Trump’s Syrian “spasm” which resulted in a shower of cruise missiles hitting an airfield in Homs province last week. When this material is pieced together, it paints a picture of a pig-headed and arrogant Donald Trump knowing better (by TV?) than real-world intelligence gathering, and all for the petty sake of an upgrading of his standing with the US media. Now, Trump’s motivation as just stated could, of course, be interpretation, and if anyone has a preconceived idea about Trump’s vanity and stupidity, they might believe him capable of being influenced by neocon advice and pressure to come around to the thinking of the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham – not to mention Hillary Clinton. The author thinks that underestimation is a terrible mistake, and we shouldn’t make any excuses. In any case, Trump’s motivation is not really the important issue under discussion. The big news is that Trump appears to have been told that the incident at Khan Sheikhu was indeed due to a Syrian plane inadvertently striking a terrorist chemicals store (as the Russians said it was), but decided to ignore the advice, and worse than that – if it is true – may have down played or disguised the advice in a top-level meeting about US reprisals.

The trail starts with former CIA officer Ray McGovern, who appeared on RT and explained that his intelligence and military contacts (former colleagues) are convinced about the inadvertent Syrian airstrike scenario (see the video here). He expressed a desire that this truth find its way up to the President without hindrance by any who would like to see disruption “to get rid of Assad”.

We learnt a little bit more from Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, in a radio interview with Scott Horton (hear it here). The show notes are reproduced here so that the author can save time transcribing huge tracts (which Robert Parry’s “Trump’s Wag the Dog Moment” article does contain):

Philip Giraldi… says that “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” about the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of worse war there. Giraldi also observes that the Assad regime had no motive to do such a thing at this time.

Again, the certainty, of a pertinent section of the intelligence community, as to the blamelessness of the Syrians is reiterated – so much so that we are given to understand that people are being driven to some drastic measures. As dramatic as this all is, the most important quote of all from Giraldi is not mentioned in the above extract.  Giraldi said “Trump completely misrepresented what he already should have known, but maybe didn’t” – and this is appears to be the root of the deep concern held by certain intelligence and military personnel who are familiar with what is meant to be “very clear” intelligence.

So, the claim is that if Trump knew about the intelligence, then he misrepresented it. To whom he may have done this isn’t established in the Giraldi interview, but this might become apparent later. First of all, Trump’s knowledge of the intelligence – or not – must be established.

Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets), serving in the Department of Defense for many years. He wrote an article that appeared at Global Research that implied that Trump did know that intelligence gatherers were certain of the accidental chemicals release scenario. He wrote:

There are members of the U.S. military who were aware that this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack… the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

This is a confirmation of Giraldi’s information, and it starts to explain how military intelligence operatives would know the true nature of the Khan Sheikhu incident. The author infers that the US military knew about a terrorist store in the locality. Lang continues:

This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

And so here is an implication that Donald Trump had been given information pertaining to the true situation at Khan Sheikhu – and he had rejected it. Notice that Lang expresses astonishment at Trump’s staff allowing him to proceed on the basis of faulty intelligence. Well, McMaster is characterised as an “old-line neocon” and so, if we go by stereotypes, we might not imagine that he would try very hard to stop Trump. Mattis has reportedly been at odds with Trump over the range of his power in the role.

As for Pompeo, there is a theory that he actually didn’t agree with Trump’s reaction to a briefing in which Pompeo had set out the true facts of the matter as discussed above. This is all explored in a number of articles by Robert Parry (the following quotes are all from “Where Was CIA’s Pompeo on Syria?” – to be found here), who noticed that Pompeo and other top intelligence officials were missing from a White House-released photo showing President Trump and advisers meeting at Trump’s estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to attack Syria with the 59-strong missile strike. The image chimed with information that Parry had had regarding a “discordant Pompeo-Trump meeting”.  This is what he writes:

A source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA’s belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier.

He continues:

As strange as the Trump administration has been in its early months, it was hard for me to believe that Trump would have listened to the CIA’s views and then shooed the director away from the larger meeting before launching a military strike against a country not threatening America.

Parry’s source could explain:

Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision.

The author infers from this that Trump not only may have rejected Pompeo’s briefing before, but then left him out of the top-level meeting (the larger meeting) to decide on reprisals against Syria. Moreover, according to the source:

The other officials [in the larger meerting] didn’t get the direct word from Pompeo but rather received a second-hand account from the President.

Could this be the misrepresentation referred to by Giraldi? If this is all true, and Parry says that it still remains uncertain that Trump didshunt.. Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack”, we get a picture of Trump being quite a dangerous and conniving character – and for the sake of what? To win the support of the corporate-media (while risking his base; showing contempt for it, in fact)? Or is Trump just conforming to type to get what he wants, irrespective of any remembrance of any election pledge or regard for Constitution that might otherwise dissuade him?

Parry finishes his article thusly, and it provides a perfect note to end this one:

Such a dangerous deception more than anything else we’ve seen in the first two-plus months of the Trump administration would be grounds for impeachment – ignoring the opinion of the U.S. intelligence community so the President could carry out a politically popular (albeit illegal) missile strike that killed Syrians.

 

Politics explained with Stoke and Copeland as exemplars

The biggest tragic joke in (world?) politics last week wasn’t the news that Germans, when polled, indicated that they would replace Angela Merkel with Martin Schulz. No, it was how an apparently pro-Brexit electorate voted for two anti-Brexit parties in two by-elections; and specifically, it was how people who had previously voted UKIP in 2015 abandoned the party to vote Tory. The reference is to the Copeland contest where Fiona Mills suffered an indignity that should never happen to a UKIP candidate. On the other hand, UKIP leader, Paul Nuttall, merely suffered the usual concerted Establishment conniving so that Labour, who it was so important to have the Tories beat in Copeland, would survive in Stoke to continue to play its vital role in the grander scheme. The results do not accidently reinforce a narrative that UKIP – the party of Brexit – is unelectable and the Tories are the party of Brexit. In fact, it would not surprise the author if the scenario had been planned out by someone deep in the inner workings of the British Government.

If the reader doesn’t know, the British Government controls both sides of the political spectrum – that’s how it ensures it gets what it wants. Be clear, when referring to the British Government, we’re not talking about any particular party in office. We’re talking about the Deep State, the real government in the shadows (in the author’s opinion, the boys from the same old families who are initiated at the same old schools as their Victorian predecessors were – the same who had been royally irked by Georgian social mobility enough to put an end to it forever). The dark government rules the country (or manages it as a fiefdom) by puppeteering political parties and corporate-media on behalf of themselves and others we are only half aware of through the little knowledge we have of organisations such as the Bilderberg Group (we really aren’t supposed to know about the Bilderberg Group). The one thing that the British Government can’t seem to control has been the rise of a real opposition in the form of UKIP (this judgement made by the volume of disruption levelled at it) and that’s why that party is the victim of everything from outright cheating (see the Thanet South election – covered in this FBEL article), to honey trap operations, to Tory infiltration to disarm the party by appealing to the Establishment-wannabee contingent (and Tory infiltration to pull it from the other side), but more usually regularly gets subjected to Nazi-level propaganda (from media that UKIP people will insist on paying for), not only to shut the party out of Parliament, but to give people the impression that it is perpetually on its dying feet.

In the current political landscape that the British Government has created going forward to the 2020 election, nothing has changed. It is structured to make sure that the Deep State doesn’t lose power. The pressure that was building up about EU membership, and driving increasing UKIP popularity, has been released somewhat by the valve of the referendum and the Tories appearing to be delivering on it (the Tories are delivering a faux-Brexit – see here). Labour’s part in the scheme is to represent a threat to the Tories’ “successful accomplishment” of “Brexit”, so that people will be panicked into voting Tory when it looks like Labour may intrude. As such, Labour can’t be replaced in a wholesale way by UKIP – who would only re-introduce pressure for a properly executed departure from the EU. And so, Jeremy Corbyn is for two purposes. Firstly, he appeals to people who have voted Labour and who detect the dead hand of the British Government of and for corporate globalism. These people think that Corbyn is an anti-Establishment revolutionary – a reaction to the Blair corporatism – rather than the Government tool he clearly is. Corbyn demonstrated a disqualifying lack of integrity when he discarded, what we were told were, deeply-held personal convictions regarding opposition to the EU, to oversee an official Labour Remain stance during the referendum on EU membership. But in spite of this, the hoodwink suffers not, and so certain Labour voters won’t abandon the Labour party for UKIP because of Corbyn. On the other hand, Corbyn is the bogeyman that drives would-be UKIP voters to the Tories; the motivation is panic brought on by fear that a party with his demonised-self would rule the country. It’s an age old tactic. And it explains why his leadership receives such a lot of disruption from a wing of the Establishment itself – all part of the ploy to paint him like a latter-day Michael Foot. Lots of people in UKIP mistakenly believe that Corbyn is a boon for their party. The Copeland by-election should put that misconception to bed forever.

In Copeland, more people voted for UKIP amongst a bigger turnout in 2015 than they did at this recent by-election. Without a doubt, at this by-election, one-time UKIP voters turned out for the Tories. This is incredibly unpalatable news for the author, who thought that people who turned to UKIP understood the futility of voting for any element of the LibLabCon. The message to them in their folly is this: the Tories will never return the favour, and didn’t at Stoke. The major problem with UKIP’s Copeland election campaign, as far as the author could see, was that it was focussed on “beating” Labour, or answering false charges that Labour had levelled at UKIP (the Stoke operation looks, by certain accounts, like it was hamstrung by this specific aspect too), so that “we heart NHS” appears to have been a primary campaign slogan. In the end, surely the only thing that UKIP did effectively in Copeland was motivate people to vote Tory, and the Tories certainly didn’t need any help to beat Labour when the local press, ultimately run by Tory peer and alleged trougher Baron Inglewood, wouldn’t feature UKIP in election coverage (as the UKIP candidate rightly complained about during the campaign).

In Copeland, UKIP should have focussed on beating the Tories. It didn’t matter if Labour won the seat from an incumbent position. A message needed to be sent to the Establishment that the wool isn’t being pulled over eyes, and it won’t get to engineer things the way it wants to. For UKIP, that election, and every election to come, should be about exposing Fake Brexit. Only a matter of hours before polling day in Copeland, David Davies – the actual minister for Brexit – told Estonian press that immigration from Eastern Europe would continue for years (source). What he was doing was ressuring foreigners that their British Milch Cow was not about to dry up – and it was an outright disgrace. The one real duty of Government is to protect its own people – not encourage their continued economic displacement. So there was not, and there certainly will not be any shortage of material for UKIP to campaign on.

In being radical, as many people think the party should be (and as it must), UKIP should be exposing the exact nature of the Establishment stitch-up through topical issues such as Fake News as psychological warfare on Britons, vaccine safety (the link between vaccines and brain damage and other illness) as an example of welfare state health provision as exploitation, not as salvation, and immigration as colonisation by a foreign power (the EU, for Globalism, and so ultimately, perversely, for the UK Deep State) and as economic warfare on Britons (an FBEL article on that subject here). All of these are expressions of the same thing: the Globalist hegemony through collectivism, slavery and annihilation – to the detriment of the national & individual good and general wealth. In taking these issues on, and courting the controversy that goes with them, UKIP will be broaching what one could call the political occult – that which is hidden – and this is a profound point of weakness for people who really do believe that power lies in the ability to hoodwink.

The Stoke by-election could be a case in point (and Snell, the Labour candidate for Stoke, being a Fabian – itself a creation of those abovementioned Victorians – may well have an insiders’ appreciation of the political occult). First of all, it needs to be recorded that the Labour party openly resorted to deception by trying to appear to the electorate in the guise of UKIP itself – as reported by Arron Banks. At a deeper level of trickery was a clearly visible element of psychological operation – that is, a grand deceit to weaken UKIP. To be precise, one could see two parts of a classic three-part exercise. Firstly, approaching election day, the media assault on the UKIP leader was as tremendous as it was malicious – as explained in a previous FBEL article. And then, after the election, corporate-media pundits were quick to promote the idea that such was Nuttall’s failure that his continued leadership of the party must be in question. An article by pea-brained “pundit” Katie Hopkins was particularly appalling, and took the Nuttall-future meme bluntly to a “UKIP is dead” conclusion. (Before this incident, the author thought that she was a gatekeeper at the edges of real controversy – a particularly loud valve to let off steam on behalf of an audience that is, as usual in the UK, comprehensively duped).

So, we could say that two features of a highly disruptive psyop were quite visible. If they were conceived that way by British Government thinkers, and organised to bookend  each other (rather than being organic – and arguably the build-up was too vicious for this, and even Paul Nuttall described it as being coordinated), then, given that the failure in the middle was absolutely necessary for any of it to work, it would suggest that Nuttall’s failure had to be assured – and that would mean cheating in the election.

As it happens, Stoke very well could have previous – as explained here. In the 2015 General Election, in the Stoke South contest, the Tory candidate was all set to win when extra ballot papers – in their thousands – were discovered and brought late to the count. Two ballot boxes had been marked up as being of another constituency, and postal ballots were also introduced at the last moment to give the Labour candidate a victory – by roughly the same amount that Snell beat Nuttall by, incidentally. Of course, we can’t say that this was proof of cheating, but the author, from his study of 2015 GE shenanigans, discovered that it almost definitely happened in other places (to the point of certainty, to be frank), and the purpose would have been to give the Tories a clear majority in the Commons to avoid a Tory-Labour “Grand Coalition” that the Establishment had obviously been very concerned about avoiding.

Generally, the author was interested to see a chart showing betting on the Stoke Central by-election, and it’s a feature of the scurrilous human being’s behaviour that inside knowledge will translate into an attempt to make money. Support for UKIP fell off dramatically at about February 14th. The Establishment had been active in its Alinskyesque assault on Nuttall for a number of weeks prior to this, and apparently it had produced no dramatic effect in terms of betting on the outcome.

All that being said, if there is no evidence of physical cheating (as opposed to psychological cheating, which there was plenty of) despite us knowing about precedence, then there’s no reason to say, or even suggest that it did happen. While the Establishment has such inertia and will be difficult to overthrow, the losses at Stoke and Copeland were down to a failure to work up enough power behind a rush and push. UKIP has to be yet more doughty, and it starts with finally fixing its internal problem of what the author describes as Establishment-membership wish complex – something that comes out of a notion in certain parts of UKIP which won’t or can’t see fundamental injustice to oppose it, but instead wants to cosy up to it and procreate with it to beget that nasty parasitical, non-producing thing that is a political career.

Snake-oil and psychological manipulation; how Britain was tricked into Cast Iron Dave

Today is the day that UKIP release a manifesto for the 2015 General Election. Reassuringly, it has been audited independently – so it stands up as a set of promises based in reality that potentially can be delivered.

Contrast that to yesterday’s performance by “Cast Iron” David Cameron – so called because of his most infamous failure to keep a promise. There is a plan to publish a critique here in the course of the next few days; but to be going on with, the reader’s attention is drawn to the slickness of the presentation (see featured image on front page), which was published in the MailOnline, and very especially the appeal to nostalgia by the frequent mention by Cameron of the phrase “Good Life”.

At this site, in a bit of a joke, Tory voters have been identified as living in a 1970s sitcom-time-warp-bubble beyond which the UK is fast draining down the toilet bowl – the representation is a condemnation of a delusion that some certain Britons insist on retaining in the face of certain cold hard facts. However, it appears as if the Tory strategists, in all seriousness, have identified their core vote as being these insulated fantasists who rarely see a brown face in the depths of their southern countryside, let alone an Eastern European accent, and are appealing to them via an emotional response associated with the exploits of Tom Good et al to trigger the second coming of Margaret Thatcher. At the end of the day, yesterday, the Daily Mail had even done an interview with a woman that they claimed was the real Margot Leadbetter. If this doesn’t finally suggest unhinged sociopathic minds in government, then one wonders what ever will? As it turned out, the Leadbetter/Good Life meme was a bad move because UKIP were able to reveal that their manifesto had been scrutinised by an external auditor. The Tories, by contrast, had been laughably reduced to only having the “real Margot” vouch for them.

However, if people are wise to LibLabCon indoctrination these days, and can even find a giggle in it, they didn’t always. In 2005, there was a now infamous televised focus group which essentially put David Cameron into pole position for the Tory leadership contest. This would have sealed the UK’s fate if 900,000 (the author proudly amongst them) hadn’t voted for UKIP in 2010. Regarding the leadership election itself, the author made a film about it a few years ago to highlight the fact that people were manipulated so as to choose a card out of a rigged hand – to pick Cast Iron Dave. This video has been released again to YouTube (with a minor tweak). The provocation was very much the high-production value Tory manifesto launch and the extravagant salesmanship of it in the corporate-media. Britons need to be reminded just what sort of a turkey they are being sold.

Please take a look at the video below.

So, who else would the Queen like to have arrested?

Yesterday, another chink of illuminating light broke through the facade of British representative democracy; a facade which may only be paper-thin and increasingly fragile, but nevertheless throws an extensive and pitch-black shadow of ignorance upon the fumbling and groping masses beneath it. Yesterday, we learnt that the Queen contacted a member of the Cabinet to urge action and obtain an outcome that was personally desirable for her (the Guardian described the Queen’s approach as “lobbying”, and the reader will come to note that there are many interchangeable terms and phrases that are used to mean the same thing in terms of the Monarch’s relationship with, and position in the Executive branch of British Government).

We can perhaps safely say that if she did it once – and on the occasion under scrutiny, a few years ago but precisely when is unknown, she took it upon herself to urge whichever Home Secretary it happened to be at the time to bring about the arrest of Abu Hamza – then it’s a good bet that she is “dropping hints”, about all sorts of things that she would like to see done, to Her Government all day, week and year long.

The only way that we now are able to suspect the Queen in this respect is because, as the Daily Mail put it at least, “BBC defence correspondent Frank Gardner broke royal protocol by revealing his private conversation with the Monarch in which she disclosed her feelings”. In a moment I’ll cover the little issue about how the corporate-media likes to style “indirectly issuing instructions” as “expressing feelings”, but first let us comprehend a little fact about this so-called royal protocol.

A particular aspect of Royal Protocol, it seems, permits the Monarch to indirectly issue instructions to members of Her Government without the people – those who are meant to shape Government through democratic tools – ever finding out about it. The BBC called this aspect of Protocol “a breach of confidence” in its grovelling apology to Buckingham Palace, and thus gave us another handle on it; this aspect of Royal Protocol is also conspiracy between the instrument of Establishment power that is the corporate-media, and the Monarch, so that the people never find out that it is the Monarch, after all, who runs the country. The reader will also have heard of Royal Protocol in other forms, such as how commoners are not allowed to touch Royalty as if they are gods who otherwise would be tainted. Of course, it is a strategy to inspire awe and a sense in the commoner of the otherliness of the Monarch; seen through the filter which we should now apply, it is a means to avert a slippery slope which starts at contact, and ends, after discovery that the Gracious Majesty is not only just a human being, but something distinctly morally lower and habitually criminal, with the offering of the monarch up, with commoners’ hands, to the hangman’s noose.

It is, after all, the People, who, by Natural Law ever since God created us (there is no King but God; i.e. the government is the people according to the Law), and by precedence in English law (set 1649: the King is not above the Law but answerable to the people) are sovereign over our own commonwealth. This is the reality of how it should be, but a false legal level has been inserted between us and our sovereignty; and most of us are blissfully unaware. Most of us are led to believe that the bargaining to bring about the Restoration, and measures that were seemingly put into practise in later developments, meant that, even though the Monarch was Sovereign in name, actual sovereignty rested in Parliament because it had authority over the Monarch. The obvious incongruity is generationally shrugged off, and I am certain that most people would say that the Queen has no power at all, and if they know about the Royal Prerogative to dissolve Parliament, they think of it as some technical part of Government that she is isolated from in reality. People also think that because they vote for the Parliament, then it represents them and does their bidding (even when it clearly does not).

Sovereignty does not rest in Parliament, because Parliament does not represent the people. Power, on the other hand, rests in the Executive branch of Government, and with the Monarch. In the British Monarchy, the people, or at least our submission to the system (which is won by wowing us with jewel encrusted vehicles, garments and being able to get soldiers in red tunics to parade across their property, while always, of course, impressing upon us a sense of our own inferiority), are represented by the Monarch. This is the only representation that we have, and it’s thanks to the average Britons’ historical appetite for willing slavery, or so it seems. The Monarch then sustains Parliament, not only as a decoy to placate duped Britons, but also as a means to distribute the trappings of power with individuals and placemen for organisations who otherwise would present a challenge to the Monarch’s hegemony. This is the situation as it stands; this is the legalism that, because it is not Lawful, provokes the Establishment to have Protocol, or conspiracy, or a fudge called an unwritten constitution, so that we, the sovereign people, do not find out about it, and do not worry that we have been usurped by villains.

Speaking of that unwritten constitution, here it is cited as cause, via the Washington Post, by British Government who would not hand over details of Prince Charles’ own lobbying activity when asked for it:

Several government departments had refused to divulge them [letters from Charles to seven government departments], arguing it might breach unwritten constitutional rules on the relationship between the monarchy and the government, and that it would discourage the prince from speaking frankly.

Prince Charles is a notorious meddler as evidenced here. The following is from that linked-to article:

Prince Charles was personally consulted by George Osborne about a controversial change to the law which has significantly boosted the Royal Family’s finances.

The back-story to this is how the Guardian newspaper had taken advantage of a loophole, open since 2005, but now closed because of how the Freedom of Information Act has been made recently not to apply to the Queen, Charles and William, to request details of Charles’ plotting with Government ministers. Obviously, the requests were stonewalled, but as it turns out, the three judges on the eventual FoI tribunal in the case ordered that information be released; they decided that it was in the public interest “for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government.”

Of course it is. And influencing government is what Charles does when he lobbies, or, “speaks frankly in confidence” – which is the euphemism for “making oneself understood” that the Establishment likes to use.

Which brings us neatly back to the point about the corporate-media styling the Queen’s interference as “expressing opinion”. Her involvement in the Abu Hamza case may have been a “who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” moment, but it wasn’t that scene in Blackadder when Brian Blessed, lunching on a horse’s leg, is overheard by two drunken knights as he retells the story of Thomas a Beckett to the Prince Edmund’s mother. Here is the account of events as told by the BBC’s Frank Gardner, as reported by the Mail:

 [The Queen] was upset that her country and its subjects were being denigrated by this man [called Britain a toilet; was incredibly anti-British] who was using this country as a platform for his very violent, hateful views… [and] that there was no way to arrest him.

She couldn’t understand – there was surely some law he had broken. Well in the end, sure enough, she was right. He was eventually convicted and jailed for seven years for soliciting murder and racial hatred.

She spoke to the Home Secretary at the time and said my goodness, why is he still at large?

The Queen, by the looks of it, made a point of telling the Home Secretary that she didn’t like Abu Hamza, and indicated that she thought that he must have committed a crime that deserved his being arrested. Of course none of this looks like a direct order, but that could all be lost in the translation; the way that Frank tells ‘em – as an old comedian used to say. There is, however, something about the story which suggests that the Queen would give orders like a gangster boss being careful to avoid incrimination.

So, there is a question that we have to ask ourselves – if we can get past the simplistic narrative being ladled out by corporate-media, and commentators within it, that Abu Hamza is a nasty Islamic type and the Queen a mouthpiece of the common people (Abu Hamza fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, which itself suggests that he may have been an asset of the Queen’s own intelligence agencies – but that is something to be investigated in these pages later). Abu Hamza is not the real issue here. The question that we have to ask is this: who else would the Queen like to have arrested? I suppose that she would count criticism of the Monarchy as an act of denigration of thqueen_polle country, so are opponents of the Queen on a wish list for internment? Are they unwittingly careering towards a day when they will have been deemed to  have “must have broken the law by now”?

Finally, please consult the graphic on the left that demonstrates the shocking ignorance of Telegraph readers; people who are supposed to be thinking consumers of corporate-media. Surely, by now, a reality should be self-evident to such people that gives an account as to why the Queen, even though she appears to be committing treason, doesn’t have a problem with signing off all the EU treaties (she wants Britain to be in the EU). Sadly, instead, everyone seems to think that the Monarch – and the Telegraph uses an amusing version of the official euphemism which pretends that MPs have expertise in soundly running a country – can “speak in confidence to experts about her concerns”. Everybody loves dictatorship.

 

 

Logically, sleazy Middleton’s mammaries must provoke the end of consent for Monarchy

When the bedraggled Mary Queen of Scots appeared at a window with her chemise torn so that the jeering crowd below, who she seemed to be appealing to for help, could see her exposed breasts, it was a moment of humiliation. Prior to that, when her husband, Henry Stewart, was found in his night shirt at Kirk o’ Fields after being strangled while fleeing from an attempt on his life, it was a moment of humiliation – even though he had departed the earth. When powerful people are discovered in a condition that represents a departure from the concept of authority through dignity, then they are forced to be perceived as feeble, and subject to ridicule, and to give the impression that they have or had no clout; are and were weak, and not to be, or never should have been considered as leaders.

These things are cosmological truths that are reflected in the British constitution according to Bagehot. As I keep reporting, the Government has a dignified part – the Monarch – and the efficient part – the Parliament. The Government is given authority through adulation of the Monarch by the people, and it spends the authority through the Parliament. The Monarch generates adulation by being dignified and rarefied to the umpteenth degree – at least in a public persona. Once they are seen as to be as if normal people, then the reason and right to rule must evaporate.

I think that we’ll find that few national leaders have voluntarily allowed themselves to be perceived in a weakened state that undermines their right to rule, but Kate Middleton has joined that exclusive band in a spectacular fashion by being the first prospective Queen of Britain to appear in public with her knockers out and on display since Mary Queen of Scots.

Nakedness is a particularly debilitating form of denudation because it reminds the observer that the human without clothes is an animal more than it reminds that the Prince or Princess, who should be venerated, is a normal man or woman. Human endeavour for civilisation has involved creating the finest apparel in order to further distance ourselves from the animal; clothes are a signature of our Godliness. So, for Kate Middleton to appear naked in order for a photographer to become able to take images of her is a complete disaster for her, and for the Monarchy. That Middleton was not forced into complete capitulation is even more spectacularly catastrophic. We cannot have a Queen of England who has been compromised, just through stupidity, like Kate Middleton has. Full stop. Buckingham Palace knows it full well, that is why it will exert its control over the British corporate-media to prevent images of Middleton’s naked butt being rubbed down by William – and others in the same vein – being published in this country, and it will go to foreign courts to penalise publication elsewhere. Buckingham Palace, being in the game of ruling for its own benefit, will hope that Britons will not notice that the Monarchy has lost its dignity, and the Government has lost its authority.

I think that their hope rests on some good solid ground. A great deal of the public think that we only know what Middleton’s chebs look like because her privacy was invaded. This is complete codswallop. Historically speaking, the principle defining the design of the western place of abode – one’s home – is all to do with show. In other words, houses have always been about displaying the owner’s wealth. This culture intrinsically involves others looking on to the house. If the owner wants privacy, then he has to have a space where the gaze of onlookers cannot penetrate to. Kate Middleton, as she ‘enjoyed’ the chateau owned by the Queen’s nephew, Lord Linley, could be seen from a public road. I don’t care if she could only be seen through some enhancing technology, the view had been left open. The onus of ensuring privacy belongs to the person who wants to be private; the house owner, or his tenant, not on outsiders who are able to see into the property. This means that if there isn’t a wall, bushes or a bank of trees, blocking a natural vista onto a supposedly private area, then people using that area should act as if in public. The only way that Middleton’s privacy could have been intruded upon was if the photographer had put a ladder against an obstacle designed to spoil a natural view; the distinction should be easy to see. When a man puts up a wall above head height, he is making a statement about his expectations for privacy. When someone else climbs the wall to look in, then he is disobeying that express command.

So, a large section of the British public think that Middleton and William are victims. They don’t understand that the couple’s predicament, which is one for the entire Establishment, is entirely of their own making. Indeed, it is quite a testimony to the general stupidity of British people that they blame paparazzi and magazine editors, who ironically have a job only because they feed the desire for gossipy celebrity worship that British people will not disabuse themselves of.

Moreover, and it is unfortunate that they cannot because it renders them a particularly loathsome type of willing slave, the British people cannot work out that as soon as they believe that a future King and Queen of England should be able to risk getting naked in public as a reflection of some newly acquired quality of normalness, then this is the very point that they should reject that mere legality that is the British Monarch’s claim to own and represent the state. We don’t accept the claim of Mrs Wiggins from down the road, for instance, when she declares that she owns parcels of land in our neighbourhood. Why should we accept the claim of the exceptionally normal (except for her wealth, which is sucked from us) Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Imposter-and-Criminal? If we don’t accept the claims of King or Queen, then we don’t accept the entire system of government that has been cobbled around it. As the title states, logically, Middleton’s knorks must provoke an end to consent for the British Monarchy.

However, logic and rationalism has long since departed these islands, and the boundaries of my astonishment at our nation’s enthusiastic progress to barbarity, ignorance, bondage and slutty, slavering animalism is daily extended, it seems. I also have come to realise that perhaps the most significant element of this entire story is how it has smoked the little blighters out. Prince William has added insult to injury by making it known through the British corporate-media that he is of the opinion that the people who were involved in exposing his own unfitness to rule should be slung in jail. In other words, as the Daily Mail put it: ‘ furious Prince William revealed he wants those responsible for taking and printing the pictures of his wife to be jailed.’

People, take very careful note. Here is a telling expression of the view from within the Establishment; the Civil War may as well of never have happened. Those who threaten the hegemony are merely candidates for prison. And yet, the British people adore the Royal Family – that is to say that they adore them as normal people who are special as celebrities, of course, not as the dignified part of Government. We know this to be the case, because if people used the Queen as she is meant to be, then they would object to her taking part in a piece of Olympic theatre co-starring James Bond. The trouble is, even if the Monarch wasn’t loved in any way, and this is something that should be dawning on the reader by now, even if the people didn’t want the Monarchy, there would no getting rid of the Royal parasites very easily. Whenever we wake up to the fact that we have a form of government that we don’t want, then we come around to the fact that we have open dictatorship, and a few boobs here and there would be the very least of the ruling class’ indiscretions. Perversely, at least when these people are ruling autocratically in the open – throwing people in jail who do not consent to their mastery or disagree with the political orthodoxy (we are nearly at that point, are we not?) - and the myth of representation by voting is exploded, then it will be a good start to acquiring our real freedom.

With rumours of ‘intimate’ images of Royals, is UK at risk of being blackmailed?

see-thru-nightee

Previous: Kate Middleton’s infamous see-thru-nightee; a garment that supposedly caught the Prince’s eye

After the French magazine, Closer, published images of Kate Middleton’s imprudent display of nakedness in full view of a nearby Provencal public road, its editor, Laurence Pieau, has hinted at the existence of other photographs of an ‘intimate’ nature. The revelation has prompted some to contemplate the possibility that the future King and Queen of England have been caught on camera having conjugal relations. Furthermore, that Pieau has sought to make it clear that the extra images will not be published has also caused widespread speculation – and even reminds of a possible, yet more sinister reality that is hardly considered in all the conjecture.

Arguably, material that is intensely damaging for the status of the British Monarchy, but that lies in the hands of a malicious business organisation or foreign rival, has more power if it remains covered-up because of the leverage it could purchase. Naturally, because Britain is organised to service the Monarchy and the State, not the other way around as many suppose, if the Monarchy ever became compromised so that it can be blackmailed, it would mean the British, as much as they are already, would be ever more liable to the whim of unrepresentative and secret powers.

The French edition of the Closer magazine is published under licence by Italian firm Mondadori. Owned by the family of Silvio Berlusconi, the company’s native title, Chi, is set to publish a 26-page spread with illustrative images in the near future. Because of the mention of Berlusconi’s name, conspiracy websites have characteristically supposed that the compromising photos of the royal couple owe their existence to a turf war between the British Monarchy and the Vatican – the latter which they link (supposed Papal Knight) Berlusconi to.

However, a rational approach to the events can still consider them in not too dissimilar terms; the British Monarchy, after all, can very well be thought of as a front for, and affiliate of a monopolising gangster ‘family’ – a mafia – that has trucked and desired no competition in the British Isles for at least one hundred years. The British Establishment, the ‘family’ in question, is puppetted by the US/UK financier class based out of Wall Street and the City of London, and in Italy, because their reach is such, Berlusconi was recently replaced by their placeman, Mario Monti – a man with Goldman Sachs credentials. On resigning as the Prime Minister of Italy so that appointee Monti could implement what essentially was an Austerity scam, Berlusconi vowed that he would still be a force to reckon with in politics.

All kinds of peripheral detail in this case projects the investigator into a world of murky possibility. Valerie Suau, the paparazzi member who captured images of the unwise Kate Middleton from just over a half mile away and through a telescopic lens is now claiming that she did not shoot her prey in a full state of undress. If she is to be believed, it means that someone else harvested all the material that is creating the current furore, and Suau may have been cast as patsy. Who would be behind this particular frame-up, and who the real photographer would be are then secrets intrinsically locked up with the real purpose of the appearance of the images – all matters that cannot be guessed at. The only fact of the case that may be relied upon is that even the photos that are circulating now are incredibly destructive, no matter how St James’ or Buckingham Palaces – or Kate and William in all their shamelessness – nonchalantly play them down. There is no doubt whatsoever that snaps of the future Queen’s breasts are potentially explosive for the British Establishment. The British Government is supposed to receive authority from its subjects through the dignity of the Monarch; when the Monarch is a laughing-stock, the Government has no authority. This is why the British corporate-media, which is usually a veritable corrupting freak-show, will not touch pictures of a naked Kate Middleton (nor even of her wearing a see-thru nightee, it would seem).

The trouble for the British Establishment, of course, is that media in other countries, and especially that belonging to possible rivals, are out of the reach of their control, and if the currently published snap of William apparently fondling his wife’s semi-naked backside is suggestive of the content of the as-yet-unpublished photographs, then the British Government would be very worried indeed about their ever becoming available on British laptops with the simple press of a key. It should be clear that an organisation in possession of such images of the future King and Queen (and Chi may very well have hundreds) would suddenly become enormously threatening to the British Establishment; hence, it would seem, the Royal excursions into legal territory to procure damages (as a deterrent) and  injunctions against publication.

Indeed, starting to make sense in this context is all the chatter around the recent debacle in Las Vegas involving the imbecilic Prince Harry (who was sent to Afghanistan lauded as a hero in an attempt to rehabilitate him, but, in the publicity that heralded his deployment, only proved to be a magnet for a Taliban attack that killed two US soldiers). There were many stories on the internet about this Las Vegas event that only get a passing mention, if they get a mention at all, in corporate-media. One story said that the party was cocaine-fuelled – although no one accuses Harry of taking drugs – and that prostitutes had been hired to provide what the very sordid would call entertainment. When a witness described Harry as ‘naked for a long time’, it either inferred madness amongst decent people, or rampant sexual activity at an orgy. An incredibly significant story alleged that Harry had been ‘tricked into [a] naked honeytrap’. A number of girls had especially targeted him according to a plan to get into his VIP suite. Furthermore, the hotel owner, Steve Wynn, had even been accused of links with the American Mafia. At such information, alarm bells should have been set to ringing – even amongst the liberals who maintained that nudity by the Royals is defining a new kind of trendy Monarchy. Armed with such information, it should then have come as no surprise to learn that there was a concern on the part of the Prince, for a little while at least, that more photos, and even a deeply embarrassing film would be released, with the assumption being that all would show exactly how Harry enjoyed himself that night.

As it turns out, there has been no film and no further photos; which allows for a few distinct possibilities. Either the material never existed, or the person who had the material has now been dispossessed of it, or the material is being held as leverage over the British Monarchy. When staff at the Wynn Hotel were pressured to keep quiet about the incident, it might as easily have been motivated by a desire to control valuable information as it was by a wish to respect a rich patron.

On this side of the Mid West, the truth of Harry’s disgrace was skilfully controlled by the British Establishment when the Sun newspaper published the less-harmful image of a choice of two so that disappointment and amusement – verging on affection from a thoroughly morally bankrupt British population – could be generated in even measure. The picture that didn’t receive much coverage because of this decoy – the one showing the Prince as if mounted upon a female (explained away, when it was mentioned, as a bear-hug, or ‘strip billiards’) – obviously pointed to all the other things that were supposed to have happened at this party, just like some of the Kate Middleton photos that also contain William, suggest other things.

The concept that the British Monarchy has let itself become vulnerable to people who would materially gain by blackmailing it is not a wild one, it shouldn’t be dismissed entirely out of hand; there are more things in heaven and earth, as the saying goes. The possibility is entirely feasible, and this understanding should resonate in the mind of an inquisitive watcher of the news who suddenly sees two incidents, one on the heels of another, in which figures in the British Monarchy have potentially become compromised. The danger of the possibility of blackmail becoming a reality should be self-evident; the much deceived British people will further lose any real power over their own destiny – they will be further removed, in the real scheme of things, from their own sovereignty. The ruling class would indeed be completely corrupt and not fit for purpose because of the total absence of honour; ruling to sustain the rule, and not to best represent the aspirations of a country; a tyranny, that even now, as far as anyone on the outside can be aware, is long overdue for removal.