Category Archives: Uncategorized

“Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”; Part One: “Inductance” for economic dominance

“Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars” was said to be a top secret “Operations Research Technical Manual” that might have been leaked by being secreted into an IBM copier on its way to a surplus sale. It appeared as the first chapter in “Behold a Pale Horse”, by William Cooper, who explained that the document, dated May 1979, tallied with what had passed across his scope of vision during his time in Naval Intelligence. Cooper told of seeing documents that used the term “Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars” and identified it as the name for “the doctrine adopted by the Policy Committee of the Bilderberg Group during its first known meeting in 1954”. We must bear in mind that [while at Naval intelligence] Cooper was also fed a lot of nonsense about UFOs and aliens which led him up the garden path for quite the while. Fortunately, he later recognised that he had been a victim of disinformation, and frequently and vehemently stated his opposition to the pedlars of “Ufoology” and presumably, then, the peripheral, but not unsubstantial space-god fantasy that still serves to minimise and negate the culpability of men that Cooper himself worked to expose. The fiction of aliens was chiefly to help humanity believe that it could go to the Moon.

Operations Research, as the manual explained in an introductory section, was

A strategic and tactical methodology developed under the military management in England during World War II. The original purpose of Operations Research was to study the strategic and tactical problems of air and land defense with the objective of effective use of limited military resources against foreign enemies (i.e., logistics). It was soon recognized by those in positions of power that the same methods might be useful for totally controlling a society.

FBEL has previously, albeit very briefly, and most importantly quite independently, recognised the reality of military methods for occupying the territory of a vanquished foe being applied to “friendly” populations for the purpose of quelling threats to corrupt and abusive government. Before the author ever came across “Silent Weapons…” he understood observationally that corporate-media was a tool of occupation and suppression. So, “Silent Weapons…” serves as independent verification of something that suggested itself as being self-evident in the manner of British Government. This tells us that the document has worth, even if it doesn’t come from the official source that it is reckoned to emanate from.

The framework for social control as taught in “Silent Weapons…” is a model in which the economy is thought of as an electronic circuit. It’s a tricky concept to master in one or two sittings, and there are gaps in the author’s understanding that are due either to the writer of the document overlooking something that might have been self-evident to him, or the author not grasping his own reading fully. However, these are compensated for as best they can be. There is going to be a series of articles (perhaps two) on the work, because it is broader than the impression the reader might have of it by the contents of this paragraph. This article is going to look at the essential elements regarding the concept of electronic-economy. A following article will look at how the system is achieved in real terms through the use of media for creating diversion and confusion, and through the consent of a “docile” public. In the same article, or in a third if there is no room, we’ll be looking at what “Silent Weapons…” teaches us about what can be done to dismantle the system.

There is a power source, and this power source causes capacitors to be charged with voltage. Translating this from electronic to economic terms, this relates to the generation of natural and financial raw material with which to create goods. Hence, the power source represents the people who own the means of production, and it is separate from a consumer horde (which is represented by a separate component that will be addressed shortly). And so, it doesn’t take long when contemplating the economy as an electronic circuit, one suddenly understands why we have seen mega-corporatisation – i.e. the monopolising of industry by a few giant companies. It’s because the system must, by definition, have the holding of capital – or potential – separate to the melee of humanity as a technical requirement for control. The temptation for some people, of course, is to call this corrupt capitalism, but unfortunately for them it has the same hallmarks of the socialist utopia advocated by the likes of H.G. Wells. In the FBEL article on “Rights on Man”, it was noticed that there was an assumption that all people would be employed by government, and the reader is always reminded hereabouts that “government” can come in the form of a body that incorporates big business conglomerates; indeed, socialist “paradise” is  explicitly for the purpose of maintaining the dominance of the very people who set it up.

The really important component in the circuit is the inductor. In simple terms, an inductor can be thought of as an iron core with an electricity-conducting wire wrapped around it. When a charge flows through the coil (when there is a current through it), it causes a magnetic field to flow through the iron. This system has an input at the end of the wire, ahead of the coil, from whence the current is motivated, and an output after the coil where the current continues to flow to. This direction of this flow is going to be referred to as the positive direction (whereas the negative direction flows oppositely). What is happening in this system is that charge is being converted into magnetism and stored in that state.

The magnetic field can be manipulated by increasing or decreasing the flow of charge, or current, and it will grow or shrink accordingly. When the current is increased, the system produces an additional charge, which flows in the negative direction. The work against this pushback translates into growth of the magnetic field. When the current is decreased, the magnetic field shrinks, but there is a production of an additional positive charge that mitigates the loss in the magnetic field in terms of output current. Needless to say, when the current remains unchanged into the system, the magnetic field remains the same size. Hopefully the reader can see that an inductor is meant to be for the preservation of electrical energy whereby there the output is stabilised against input fluctuations. That is the simple idea to grasp (as far as the author comprehends it).

In the electronics-economics model, the magnetic field produced by the inductor represents population. The action of the charge coming into the inductor is production of goods from raw materials, and the charge itself is their monetary value. The inductor also represents the service industry, which we must understand to be the sale of goods (finance products included) to population. The output is also monetary value, which presumably returns to the power source. To cut to the basic proposition, then, the use of the population to those who control the means of production is the kinetic storage of their energy – or the storage of their wealth through circulation in a population as a guarantee against capital input fluctuations. So, what one realises instantly when exploring this idea is that the people who control the means of production view all wealth as their own, and only on loan to what is essentially a “slave-population” at any time. In fact, let that be rephrased: wealth to the sophisticatedly enslaved, and it might typically look like a mortgage, a car (on Higher Purchase?), two holidays a year, is completely illusory. Real wealth lies in the ability to produce real capital (we’ll return to this in Part Three of this series).

If the technical manual does confuse when drawing comparisons between functioning components of electronics and economics, at least there are abstract treatments of the idea which offer the clearest of explanations. The following, for instance, is one such like, and it get to the real crux of the matter with regards the inductor in the circuit:

In this structure, credit, presented as a pure element called “currency,” has the appearance of capital, but is, in fact, negative capital. Hence, it has the appearance of service, but is, in fact, indebtedness or debt. It is therefore an economic inductance instead of an economic capacitance, and if balanced in no other way, will be balanced by the negation of population (war, genocide)…

War is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors (the public which we have taught to exchange true value for inflated currency) and falling back on whatever is left of the resources of nature and regeneration of those resources.

If population is to be thought of as magnetic field, then it would follow that it would need to be reduced if there was a failure of input capital (raw material). Just like the magnetic field shrinks when current is reduced, so must the population shrink when input fails in the economic model. The paper “Silent Weapons” talks in terms of war and genocide as measures for the required reduction of population – and we shouldn’t pass over it without commenting on how shocking it is. There is a temptation for normalcy bias to assert itself, and reject the paper as a fiction – and that would be ok if there wasn’t corroboration from other sources. Another alternative to war or genocide that is virtual (and slow) population culling, rather than actual and fast, is outright slavery where people become raw material, and labour for no material gain – and maybe the UK economy is already verging on it. The FBEL reader may remember that there is a recommendation in “The Report from Iron Mountain” for “a sophisticated form of slavery” as a measure for converting from a war system to the socialist World Pax. The recent FBEL article introducing the book didn’t go into this in detail (something is planned for later), but it was a strand that was gathered up with others whereby we could understand where these ideas are coming from. The Bilderberg Group, Cooper tells us, is the Illuminati, which is a word that conjures up a lot of excitement, but merely refers to a state of being illumined a la the Luciferian religion. As it represents a group of anti-human plotters, it appears to be in its history a cabal that infiltrated Masonic lodges to get to the top, and now is a name for those in the highest echelons across many Mystery School secret societies. The Bilderberg Group is something real, where people in the effective corporate-government of the US, UK and Europe meet to steer Globalist policy. The imminent totalitarian Globalist Government, for which there are plans scattered all around for all to peruse if they only took the time, could well become a reality if it can’t be stopped. These real things aren’t coincidental.

Does the adult “child refugee” travesty continue; any connection to Parsons Green?

There has been a development in the Parsons Green so called “bombing” incident since the last article that appeared on the subject at FBEL. It has its own interest as a stand alone item, but it is eminently more intriguing when one simultaneously tangles with two other issues that are also happening right about now.

Newly released figures show that 425 people, who were there in the capacity of ISIS fighters, have returned to Britain from the “dwindling caliphate” in Iraq and Syria. The source of the figures is something called The Soufan Centre, which of course gives the British state security apparatus plausible deniability; when this sort of data is collected by a private intelligence gathering operation then everyone involved can pretend that

there are fears many [ISIS fighters] have “disappeared” from the view of security services, who will not publicly confirm how many returnees have been jailed or are being tracked.

To help us appreciate the form by which we should have faith in the integrity of anything coming from any Establishment mouthpiece, the Independent, from whence the above quotes come, repeats the big lie that Salman Abedi was intrinsically linked with ISIS (he was connected with the LIFG, which the British authorities allow to live in Manchester). One would have to be very naïve indeed not to realise that the point of releasing this data is to make the prospect of terror attacks in the UK more plausible in the feeble minds of the sheeple – therefore ultimately it must come from those supposedly reticent security services. The talking point that arises is not what should be the obvious scandal (we’ll get to this shortly), but instead it revolves around what treatment that these returnees should expect now that they are back on UK streets. Some people offer a hard core option, which no one should take seriously because it is presented in order to be the unreasonable strawman in contrast to a less shocking alternative. This is from one-time Bilderberg Group attendee Rory Stewart (as quoted in the Independent piece), presumably just doing what is expected of him:

They are absolutely dedicated, as members of the Islamic State, towards the creation of a caliphate, they believe in an extremely hateful doctrine which involves killing themselves, killing others and trying to use violence and brutality to create an eighth century, or seventh century, state… So I’m afraid we have to be serious about the fact these people are a serious danger to us, and unfortunately the only way of dealing with them will be, in almost every case, to kill them.

Of course, this input triggered the “send ‘em to social services” side of the argument, which is supposed to win the debate. This is how the system works.

The whole returning ISIS fighter narrative naturally needs some basis of “fact” or else people just aren’t going to believe that a multi-million dollar security apparatus can’t look at passports and ask a few questions at a limited number of points of entry into a country surrounded by seas, and that is why the Independent leans further on The Soufan Centre (whose website was created in 2016 – just in time for managing perception of the demise of the caliphate):

Research found that not all Isis fighters may be able or willing to return to their home countries, and may travel instead to the group’s emerging bases in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and the Philippines.

If one reads the reports from Syria (see, most ISIS fighters in the East of the country where the group is generally found – if they survived the fight with the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah-Russian alliance – will have escaped via a deal with the US/UK-supervised SDF. Some would have been important enough to get helicopter-lifted out of whichever tricky situation they were in. And so, if we are going to believe that ISIS fighters find themselves wherever they are in the world because of unilateral decision-making, then we’d also have to marvel at the miracle of how they all manage to pitch up to the exact same hotspot that happens to coincide with the current US/UK target for destabilisation. The movement of ISIS, or any mercenary group whatever its current title for the purposes of media smokescreen, is not a casual affair dependent on the whims of individuals. Who can forget the ship carrying mercenaries to Tripoli – on board which the men remarked about going to Syria next? We should strongly suspect that people from the UK who were in Syria to fight for ISIS were deployed there by the British Government – and that should be the scandal as mentioned above.

Of course, getting one’s own boys back should be a doddle, but let us, dear reader, war-game about what would have to be done in order to redeploy an asset into Britain, and to a location whereby he could be found later for further duties, who had been recruited in the field? This person wouldn’t have official documentation, so he couldn’t just be waived through at customs. So, what about getting these characters in through the refugee system?

In 2016, as the reader may know, the British Government produced something called the “Dub Amendment”, which involved a waiving of the rules so that a number of unaccompanied child refugees could be taken out of the infamous camp at Calais known as the “Jungle”. There was immediate scandal when the first batch arrived, stubbled and swarthy, and looking nearer 30 years old than 13. It is a wonder how the Home Office could have been as surprised as it appeared to be; it was a surprise that could have been measured exactly in proportion to the reaction that the public outrage elicited, which was to build a huge fence around the building that would process these “children” so that there could be no further exposure of what was an operation in mockery of public trust. It turned out that in the year to September 2015, two-thirds of all unaccompanied child refugees into the UK had, under questioning, been exposed as being adults.

The Daily Mail, on the face of it doing something useful for once, showed its audience the results of “computer analysis” – presumably using facial recognition technology – of images of some of the “children” who were amongst the first lot to come from Calais under Dubs. The author has inserted into this page as many as he could find: see below.

No wonder the Home Office wanted the big screen in quick order – along with the efforts of TV personality Gary Lineker to shame the evil tax payers into not being angry about being taken for mugs (for all the ridicule aimed at him, Jimmy Hill would have never been such a useful tool). But the Mail reported a detail that seemingly absolutely justified the general public in its ire: one of the children was already on the British biometric database, and he was known to be older than 18. The Mail reasoned that the situation meant one of two things: “he… tried to enter Britain before or has a criminal record”. How does an individual who never set foot in the country before have a record of any sort? Is it possibly anything to do with the fact that the records don’t tell the full story? The Mail also reported that it understood that this individual could have been allowed to remain despite all the glaring problems. It all made it look as though the British Government was banged to rights, but it is more likely that on being discovered, the operation was swiftly converted into a psyop.

In July there was news that not a single “child” has been moved to Britain under Dubs in 2017. Naturally, MPs have been expressing their frustration and dismay at this. However, the author has reason to understand that young men, who are from the Middle East and in the care of social services, are newly applying to certain benefits outlets to claim funding. Moreover, it appears that what could be genuine cases of “Dubs children” are just plain forgotten about. And so the author suspects that the Dubs scheme became a strawman which, in the full glare of the publicity given to it by usually faithful corporate-media, could be smashed up and sacrificed, and thereafter public attention could be guided to a closure moment; i.e. the announcement that the scheme no longer operates. Meanwhile, the Government would be bringing “children” in on the quiet?

And so we come to Ahmed Hassan, the 18 year old who was arrested for the “bombing” on the tube train at Parsons Green. Two months later, and there is still no photographic image of him in the public domain. This is not to say that there has been no limited offering whatsoever; back in October a court drawing (inserted on the right) was published by some propaganda outlets showing an individual, purported to be Hassan, appearing at a pre-trial hearing at the Old Bailey via a video link from a location purported to be Belmarsh prison – according to details in the image itself.

There was previously great incredulity at FBEL about the apparent sudden malfunction by the British security apparatus whereby the face of the enemy hadn’t been produced in corporate-media for the purpose of inducing a hate-fest. There is very likely a technical manual in the possession of high-ranking police and media explaining the crucial importance to the psychological impact of “terror” to have the public identify the culprit. And yet we only have two court drawings.

Naturally the question arises: what is it about this case that means that the playbook is defunct? We do know that Ahmed Hassan was an “orphan” from Iraq who was living with foster parents – although he was 18 when he was arrested (as it clearly states here). The first piece of information suggests that he was an (unaccompanied) child; the second that he was old enough to be a criminally responsible adult. The first piece of information suggests that we might expect him to be afforded some confidentiality; the second piece suggests that we should not expect anything of the sort. The least we can say about this is that it represents the lengths to which the British Government is now going to obfuscate any clear apprehension of the issue of the legitimacy of a certain section of the UK’s migrant population. Could it be that Ahmed Hassan wouldn’t look like an 18 year old in any photograph that the British Government could produce?

Cutting to the chase about Viktor Orban, his ilk, and the facilitating ignorance

Over at Breitbart, the likes of Viktor Orban and Beata Szydło (Premiers of Hungary and Poland respectively), cut quite the heroic figures. Their attraction for the US/UK Alt-Right is obviously their anti-Muslim rhetoric dressed up as defence of a supposed “pan-European culture”. For Breitbart, this is all part of the game of stoking up the Left/Right divide for the benefit of the same Establishment that Breitbart sells itself as a foil to – as has been discussed in these pages before (see here and here). Additionally, given that the Breitbart news organisation was self-admittedly conceived in Israel, (and this needs study and far more space dedicated to it) it’s also reasonable to suspect that there are other motives for the constant Islam-bashing; i.e. the geopolitics of the Middle East. When the likes of Orban and Szdlo frame their nationalism† in the context of opposition to a certain type of immigration, it makes welcome reading for people who don’t want to believe that “Islamic” terrorism is largely the work of Western intelligence agencies, and committed in the name, not of Allah, but as a cattle prod for stimulating public support for war. Other people who have studied the bona fide blueprints of the World State know that “the phantom menace” is both a feature and an absolute necessity. And yet, time after time, the likes of Orban and Szdlo, supposed anti-Globalists, actively reinforce a myth that benefits Globalism. Indeed, their criticism of Globalism is highly selective, because the immigration of millions of the Globalist foot-soldiery from Eastern Europe into the UK is no skin off their noses. They complain about the dangers of multiculturalism, and at the same time, wielding a big lie about a single European identity, deny that the artificially created presence in the British Isles, in their millions, of culturally distinct people who emanate from a strip of land from the Baltic to the Black Sea that is as alien to the Cotswolds, the Dales or the Fens as is Mars, does not amount to the same thing. Unfortunately, when Breitbart exposes the British to the likes of Orban and Szdlo, the accumulative effect is the emergence of a folk tale about a single European culture in reaction to the perceived threat of Islam. This is Globalist Hegelian methodoloy.

Breitbart’s latest retailing of the ongoing Orbanic heroism appeared on the 17th November, and provoked the article you are reading, because at long last, the endless promotion needs to be called out for what it is: disruptionǂ. The headlines of said article announced that the Premier of Hungary was fighting a “Battle for the West” – which, given that the article never once quotes Orban uttering that particular geographic term, looks like an entirely disingenuous piece of reporting designed to make actual Westerners identify with the politics of Eastern and Central Europe without, presumably, having to reveal any disturbing truths. On the other hand, Orban does like to lump all sorts together in an image of European suffering under the Globalist yolk:

We see tens of millions of Europeans working hard and struggling day in, day out to keep themselves and their families afloat. We see how they yearn for security and order. We see how they cleave ever more firmly to their cultural identity, and fight every day for every square metre of their normal European life.

Sticking out like a sore thumb is the reference to “security and order”. This is a nod to the authoritarian government which is the intended solution for the fabricated terror problem. We also have an example of Beata Szydło exploiting false flag attacks – in this case, the one at Manchester Arena to be precise – to promote the idea of European unity as a reaction to Islam:

 It needs to be said clearly and directly: This is an attack on Europe, on our culture, on our traditions.

In the same article from whence comes the above quote is context for Szydło’s statement that informs that a refusal to accept a particular sort of immigrant is perceived in the halls of Polish power as being necessary to the defence of that supposed European culture:

The Polish government is currently locked in a battle with the EU Commission over plans to make each member state adopt the Common European Asylum System.

Let’s be brutally honest, shall we? On the face of it, the governments of Poland and Hungary started having a problem with the EU after it emerged that their countries would have to take some brown people as refugees. We’ll get to more about this by and by.

Back to Orban’s speech, and we learn elsewhere in the Breitbart article that cleaving to the shared cultural identity must have something to do with “insist[ing] on… Christian roots” – which makes interesting reading for an Englishman whose Roman culture was killed off more than three hundred years ago. In the 19th century, the Oxford Movement constituted an effort by a faction of the Church of England to reinstate older Christian traditions of faith – one could call that an insistence on Christian roots. The author, by his own observations, understands the movement to have been quite successful in its aims (this too requires a fuller discussion), and also appreciates it as an arm of a broader movement to reassert state control on a society that had developed such liberty that people had taken up the practise of holding religious meetings in their own homes. The long and the short of it is this: there is no single European culture, and there is no single European identity‡. The author suspects that Orban and Szydło use the word “European” in a racial sense – there are grounds to do so, as we will see.

Finally, the phrase about fighting for every square 3¼ feet of “normal European life” should be galling to any citizen of the UK who has, in the short period of 13 years, found his country inundated with Europeans so that there are some town centres on a Saturday afternoon where there isn’t a square metre of pavement that doesn’t have an EU immigrant in it. Officially, there are 100,000 Hungarians in the UK – but the number is bound to be much larger than that, and whatever the figure is, it is not a problem for Orban, who in January 2016, demonstrated that he too possesses that sense of ownership that appears to be an all too common trait:

We are citizens of a state that belongs to the European Union, who can take jobs anywhere, freely, within the European Union.

But the irony doesn’t end there. Consider this portion of Orban’s heroics (from the Breitbart article):

In Europe’s [multicultural] countries, acts of terrorism have become regular occurrences, crime rates are increasing, violence against women has escalated, and anti-Semitism is emerging again.

We are interested here in the evident accusation that a growing trend in anti-Semitism in Western Europe and Britain is down to Muslims. Is it? The brand new factor in the West that seems to coincide with “emerging” anti-Semitism is that elephant in the room: the unprecedented mass immigration of Eastern Europeans.

A previous article at FBEL started to uncover and examine the apparent deep-rooted cultural anti-Semitism of what was coined “Nazi-dom” – find it here – and it doesn’t take much casting around the internet to find that there are still problems that are very much swept under the carpet – presumably so that the “better than sliced bread” myth about the immigrants from the East can be maintained. Below are a number of quotations from recent stories; please follow the links and make your own decisions.

Members of the Hungarian Jewish community have voiced concern about the divisive public discourse that accompanied Hungary’s referendum on the admission of refugees, with some comparing it to the hate speech directed at Jews in the 1930s.


The Council of Europe has criticized Hungary in a new report, condemning xenophobia and violence against migrants and minorities. The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban denies any wrongdoing.


Rising anti-Semitism in Poland has moved the European Jewish Congress (EJC) to warn it has “grave concerns” over the “deteriorating relationship between the Polish government and the Jewish community.”

“There has been a distinct normalisation of anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia in Poland recently and we hope that the Polish government will stem this hate and act forcefully against it,” EJC president Moshe Kantor said in a statement released Thursday.


On Saturday, November 11, at least 60,000 fascist demonstrators from Poland, Hungary and Slovakia gathered in Warsaw, the Polish capital, on Poland’s “Independence Day” to stage what has been described as the biggest far-right demonstration since the fall of Nazism. Some estimates suggested as many as 100,000 participants.

The rally was organized by a variety of far-right groups, including the Polish National-Radical Camp, the National Movement and the All Polish Youth, all of which are anti-Semitic and white supremacist. The historical antecedents of these forces were responsible for violent anti-Semitic pogroms in the 1930s, and helped the Nazis hunt down Jews during the German occupation, even when they themselves were persecuted by the Nazis.

Slogans at the rally effectively called for an ethnic purge of Europe. Banners read: “White Europe of Brotherly Peoples,” “Europe will be White or Depopulated,” “Pure Poland, White Poland!” “Death to the Enemies of the Fatherland,” “Pray for Islamic Holocaust,” and “Refugees, Get Out!” Marchers waved Polish flags and carried burning torches. Some also displayed the falanga, the main symbol of Polish fascism.


Incidentally, this march was covered at Breitbart – which was at pains to describe the Polish as Nationalists, and some Hungarians amongst their number as “neo-Nazis” – although it did report that “the rally was held under the slogan, ‘Poland for the Poles, Poles for Poland’, in reference to the ongoing the migrant crisis”.

Finally we’ll end on Orban showing his true colours. The story is from February 2017:

“Hungary’s ethnic relations are complex, so this isn’t an easy issue,” [Orban] said, adding that the country’s competitive labor market makes “such ideas completely unimaginable”.

To improve Hungary’s international standing, it must protect its ethnic homogeneity because “too much mixing causes problems.” Being a “single color” was important (the statement released on his website uses the word “egyszínűség”, which in English would translate to the exact opposite of “diverse”), as was strong public safety, and having a “clean, green Hungary”.


Naturally, the Hungarian government did a lot of back-peddling on this one, but it doesn’t matter because the cat got let out of the bag. When Orban speaks of European identity, he is talking about race. Orban reflects a cultural tendency that has no equivalent in Britain. Britain isn’t a province of Nazi-dom, and never has been. That the man is lauded in the pages of a website that has trouble defending itself against accusations of association with white supremacists is the height of stupidity (or is it cunning?)  That clueless Britons, who don’t understand that all those very many people of colour who, across all the years of Empire, amalgamated and blended into the British bloodline may well have done it in their family, cheer this icon of judas-goatery, just provides further evidence of their wretchedness. Let’s be blunt, shall we. The author has an idea that the Polish and Hungarian governments do not want immigration from certain sunnier parts of the globe because then all the true colours will come out for all to see, and they will not be contained – and slick backtracking, blaming mistranslation, will just not cut the mustard. Immigration that even slightly upsets ideas of “ethnic homogeneity” will aggravate sensibilities that have been so diligently and carefully concealed so as not to provoke even greater resistance to that vicious tactic of Globalist economic warfare against free Britons which is mass population movements from Eastern Europe into the UK.

Update: 19/11/2017

In a new article, Breitbart-London, with the help of the Guardian that it is bouncing off, spins the Polish Independence Day march as indicative of the growth of populist politics in Poland – learnt in the West!

In a piece perpetuating the perception of annual independence day celebrations in Poland as a “far right” festival, Britain’s Guardian newspaper has inadvertently identified an unexpected side effect of European free movement of labour — the growth of populist-right ideas among young Poles.

In other words, what was undisputedly a grand display of Aryanism – or Kurganism as we call it at FBEL (white supremacy by Eastern Europeans), is being likened in opposite factions of the British media as akin to the Brexit vote. This is how dangerous Breitbart is.

This piece from the Guardian seems to indicate just how casual the anti-Semitism is:

Every journalism school should show its students the video clip of the moment on Saturday when a chirpy Polish state television reporter asked a man decked out in red and white national colours what it meant to him to participate in a march celebrating Poland’s independence day. “It means,” replied the man, “to remove from power … Jewry!”

Here is another account of the event:

Along with the banners and chants, protesters carried pictures of anti-Semite Roman Dmowski, a leading Polish nationalist in the 1920s and 1930s as well as flags of Falanga, a nationalist group from that era that advocated “Catholic totalitarianism” and taking away rights from Jews.

The headline of the article from whence the above quote comes is “Poland Complains of Unjust ‘Image Problem’ After Racist March”. The author predicts that we’re going to find out that it isn’t just about an image – unjust or otherwise – of racism, but a matter of fact, and Britain is going to see a problem, that should have been entirely avoidable, stemming from it on its streets.


† It appears there has been a great educational failure in Britain (and perhaps a mere failure to grasp the notion where the same tradition of liberty hasn’t existed) with regards the meaning of “nationalism” in relation to a culture that holds as central core values such principles as freedom of religion, and freedom of association. No time now, but this is bound to be addressed in later FBEL articles.

ǂ Disruption is about agitation to cause distraction; sowing confusion; leading and pushing opinion and action into impotent cul-de-sacs; creating problems where there needn’t be any; interfering with the natural course of events or an enemy’s plans, etc.

‡ And Britain is entirely separate on another level. The Romans divided the world into Europe, Asia, Africa, and Britannia.

A report on the “Report from Iron Mountain” – introduction

The “Report from Iron Mountain (on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace)” is legendary – for those who have heard of it, that is. That the very origins of the work are shrouded in mystery assist its status, although they are surely down to the cunning of its author, Leonard C Lewin, who claimed that the bulk of the book was never meant for publication, but had been leaked to him by a person who had served on a secret US government commission. At one time – and this should serve as a clue as to the nature of the work – the book was a New York Times best seller, but now it seems to be obscure and very seldom referred to by the mainstream, so-called, “truth movement”, despite the assertion by the Wiki contributor who wrote the following: “The document is a favorite among conspiracy theorists, who reject the statement made in 1972 by satirist Leonard Lewin that the book was a spoof and that he was its author.” It could be that the post-911 “truth movement” just accepts the book as a hoax, like it has been told to – or the book, more simply, has escaped notice. Maybe it is significant by its absence from the new news-media environment which likes to discuss Globalism as the nemesis of nationalism because the operatives who people that arena are naturally averse to anything tarred with the “conspiracy” brush. On the other hand, maybe mainstream alternative media understands it is not to touch the book with a barge pole, because of how it demonstrates that the geopolitical environment in which we live today was being envisioned a few years before 1967, when the book was published.

The opinion at FBEL is that the “Report from Iron Mountain” is definitely not a hoax, but was actually probably written to manage expectation about the direction of society; to condition its audience, exactly as H.G. Wells’ “The Shape of Things to Come” was a work for establishing normalcy bias in engineered society where personal freedoms were to become restricted in the name of necessary realisation of political science – and progress; (find FBEL analysis here). The comparison with Wells’ work is appropriate on another particular point, because the “Report from Iron Mountain” is an ultra-aggressive version which takes over where “The Rights of Man” leaves off; (FBEL analysis here). Both, then, can be identified as coming from the camp that wants to rule the world because it thinks it is entitled to do it – and for that ends has a socialist utopia that fits humanity like a glove, or a shackle. Of course, the reference is to the Masonic Great Work; the insane insistence on the Hermetic prerogative whereby those gifted with Gnosis should oversee the masses in the task of beautifying the cosmos. All, of course, pretend nonsense coming from deep psychological disturbance, and the original lie that man could be as a god. Psychotic delusion is the religion intended for the New World Order.

From our previous reading, we’d naturally expect that the Special Study Group, that is alleged by Lewin to have collaborated on the production of a report to which the book’s title refers, is made up of university professors, political theorists, economists, lawyers, scientists, industrialists – evidently all of the potential technocratic class, and not one of them a Pascal who recognised that humanity’s ills are all due to an incapacity to sit quietly at home. One is tempted to conclude that this forum was a figment of Lewin’s imagination, but it needn’t necessarily be. As Lewin relates, the commission met first at Iron Mountain, New York – hence the name – and then would meet periodically over the duration of a number of years, once a month, at different hotels, universities or private estates. One cannot help but be reminded of the Bilderberg Group; perhaps the “Report from Iron Mountain” gives us a valuable insight as far as that policy steering committee goes. In turn, does the reality of the Bilderberg Group inform us of the authenticity of the Iron Mountain study group? It is plausible that a “think tank” was formed to produce material for conditioning – the hoax being that it was supposed to be secret, which then becomes a fantastic marketing tool.

The Special Study Group that first met at Iron Mountain sometime in the early 1960s had been tasked at looking at

…the problems that would confront the United States if when a condition of ‘permanent peace’ should arrive, and to draft a program for dealing with this contingency.

There is so much to take from this mission statement. A world without war is one in which there is no conflicting national interests; it is the World Pax, or the One World Government. Featuring in the detail of this outcome in the “Report” is the welfare state and other indicators of the same socialist utopia that was the vision of H.G. Wells in his various Luciferian manifestos. This is important because “peace” has a different meaning in such a context than the reader might have had in mind. In this respect, peace is not about one party doing what it wants on one side of a border, while on the other, another party, with conflicting interests – and both managing to find enough mutual benefits to live peaceably side by side. Peace, in this respect, is submission to a system that its proponents want to impose on others without reference to any other system. The reader might notice that critics of Islam say this about that religion. This is not a simple topic. What we’re actually seeing is how the socialist utopia shares the same Mystery Babylon roots – which form branches within all the main religions.

This is not the only thread that brings us to Masonry. Notice that the problems of the World Pax are a burden for the United States alone. This is confirmation that the “Report” is Masonic literature, for here it is talking about the secret destiny of the United States – which is to be the vehicle for the execution of the Masonic Great Work, or a return of the masses to servitude under the Babylonian potentate, but on a world scale. Indeed, the findings of the Iron Mountain commission, which include “a modern sophisticated form of slavery”, serve as an unmistakable thumb print that identifies the culprits behind the production. These findings will be analysed in greater depth in later articles or papers. It suffices at the moment to show how the conclusions of the “Report” are based on false assumptions, or rather, an assertion about the nature of the societies of the world that isn’t necessarily true, but only constitutes a step in logic that the Iron Mountain Special Study Group absolutely requires in order to arrive at its conclusions. the “Report” maintains that societies of men are dependent on war. While this is not a truism, it might have come true in the 20th century only as a consequence of the Masonic philosophy of American Exceptionalism. What the “Report” suggests is that global peace comes from war waged by America.

So, the Iron Mountain Special Study Group predicates the outcome of a socialist World State on the supposed fact that the world runs on warfare systems. This means that everything is about, or geared towards war. According to the authors of the “Report”, this notion forms the pattern for transition from a world invested in war systems, to one that doesn’t need to be. In other words, to successfully enact peace, the war systems must be replaced by substitutions that perform the same function in society.  The reader of FBEL may not be surprised to learn that welfare, for instance, is recommended to replicate the financial waste of war. Furthermore, clinical eugenics is to replace population control through warfare; an emphasis on ecological preservation is to replicate a restriction to individual wealth that was a consequence of how a war system quashed the energy of an economy (Agenda 21, or Agenda 2030); a phantom menace (replacing the threat of other nation states) is required to make the world population sufficiently fearful to acquiesce to authoritarian government,; the “Report” also allows us to understand the meaning of the book “The Hunger Games”: a blood sacrifice is required as a substitute expunging ritual to relieve people of their supposed “individual aggressive impulses”  that would otherwise find an outlet through war.

There is much more to examine (please await further publications), but we’ll limit ourselves for now to an example that shows that the war system pretext for a world government as asserted in the “Report from Iron Mountain” is specious. In the area of its study that the commission groups under the headline “culture”, all Art, believe it or not, is said to be inspired by war. Now, in terminology that wouldn’t be allowed in a formal critique, this is complete pants. The Greeks invented Art, and they were concerned about Man, and what he was capable of, and how he was capable through his physical form. War, like cookery, is merely one of a number of human activities. It is not the be all and end all. It was the Romans who turned Art into a triumphal expression of adeptness at war – which, being somewhat more barbarous than the Greeks, they were more interested in. Indeed, and this is somewhat controversial, the Romans, who could only duplicate what the Greeks invented, should be considered as the first step down into the black waters of the dark ages. Unfortunately, it is from this dead-end-trail tradition where the Iron Mountain special study group evidently found the association between war and Art. But this won’t have been an accident; the Iron Mountain think-tank have picked from history the application of art that supports their scheme – and their pick tells us all about them. In the great struggle that spans human history, Greece is forever identified with Republic, while Rome is associated with Empire. Greece is Renaissance and individualism, while Rome is Medievalism and collectivism.

Priti Patel and the Philosophers of Fire; British Establishment sorcery at its best

When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne was quite the regular feature at the Bilderberg Group gatherings – and never a peep was heard out of the British corporate-media about how the inevitable meetings with foreign politicians – also present – were not disclosed as per the Ministerial Code. The perennial excuse came courtesy of the universal understanding (that corporate-media wanted to impress upon its imbecilic consumership) that Osborne was merely partaking in “informal discussions” – recognise that phrase, Bilderberg watchers? Said meetings never actually happened, therefore Osborne didn’t have to account for himself. Well, what difference now with Priti Patel and her Israeli government friends, whether it be at the hospital that treats al-Qaeda fighters in the Golan Heights, or on the Thames-side terrace at the Houses of Parliament, or in whatever venue served as a place to chat in New York? The answer should be none, except the British Establishment clearly wants to throw her under the bus. Her meetings were not “set up or reported in a way which accorded with proper procedures”.

Make no mistake, Westminster politics – for all its ability to cast spells of awesome and terrifying illusion – is a storm in a tea cup that doesn’t yet appreciate the scale of the mightier tempest that is rising to sweep into London off of scorched provincial streets. However, sometimes we do need to look at the lie of the leaves – or the planets amongst the signs – so as to learn how the Establishment brews the climate under which the body politic feverishy swelters, and to know which characters in particular are doing the cauldron stirring by which our, and countless daily lives suffer.

The first thing to notice is that what is being portrayed in some quarters as a crisis for the Conservative party in office was started with a coordinated attack through the BBC and the Guardian. Naturally, this presents itself as a left versus right contest – but it isn’t that, and this site never deals in that deception. Basically, the whole palaver is an operation to create favourable conditions in Britain for the purposes of the Establishment. The BBC journalist who appears to be credited for breaking the Priti Patel “scandal” is James Landale. However, his article on the BBC website cites a complementary Guardian story that refers back to his. Both were published on the 3rd November, and they informed this author of a joined-up Establishment operation. Let us notice that James Landale was at Eton. He was also at The Times as Assistant Foreign Editor. He is currently directly contributing to the financial impoverishment of millions of victims of the TV Tax fraud in his role as Diplomatic Correspondent for the BBC. In this author’s book, if he isn’t actually British intelligence, then he is as good as (might just well as be). His initial reportage was clearly designed to work on the well-established right/left divisions over Israel that would trigger the political auto-responses of most of his, and the BBC’s, audience. Additionally, The Times looked to supply fodder to those with a more advanced notion of the world by actually mentioning the consequence of Patel’s suggested aid to Israel in terms of solace to “al-Qaeda militants” in Syria. And so, on a basic level, the coverage of Patel’s misadventure was going to create a perception of Tory government incompetence, with people imagining associated nefariousness as they please.

We have been told that neither the Prime Minister’s Office or the Foreign Office knew in the first instance about Patel’s meetings, but we should suspect that this was not in fact the case. Patel herself, at least as she was quoted in the first Guardian article, appeared adamant that the Foreign Office had some prior warning (see how this introduces doubt about the honesty of any Government denials?). Indeed, this was a trap whose only victim would be Priti Patel. It was sprung with a revelation from the Jewish Chronicle which claimed that Number 10 Downing Street had known about Patel’s clandestine dalliances.

This sent the Westminster bubble into a greater lather – which is evidently what the Establishment requires at this time. The objective is to create the perception of a British government in turmoil. If the reader is sufficiently detached from the insistence by corporate-media and Westminster upon the version of reality that they assert, he or she is able to see that this entire issue is a minor flap that shouldn’t cause the least bit of political movement, let alone fill the sails of the State. It is, what we call in the arena of real intrigue, a psychological operation. What is being presented as instability in the Tory party in office is being driven by pure mechanism of theatre. Notions about behaviour that were long ago installed in the British public are being appealed to; certain politicians are acting and reacting as expected – in defence or on the attack; the media snaps at ankles from the ringside (the referee never sees it when it climbs in to thwack Joe Public over the back with a folded-up deck chair). The Idiocracy is animated, and the people pulling the strings will create a sense of disruption. Disruption is great for causing intense feelings of uncertainty. Uncertainty inspires a reaching for a radical solution – see the adoption of the socialist state in Britain in 1945. In this day and age, the Establishment wants to generate a rejection of Brexit.

But of course, there was another player. Ironically, one story after another in the corporate-media regarding the diplomatic misdeeds of Priti Patel showed tweets – many of them – made at the time of the meetings by various Israeli politicians; their content clearly demonstrating that there had been an encounter with the British MP. The Israelis weren’t hiding anything. Indeed, one has to speculate at the role of Lord Polack, the honorary director of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Arguably he was directing her around the mine field – straight into the mines. The author gets the feeling that he might have been viewed by Patel as accompaniment that negated the need for any of the official kind. He could very well have been set up like Patel was. If he was part of the sting, however, then understand he would have been equally guilty as a Baron of the Realm as he would have being an apparent agent for Israel.

Israel is Britain and the USA’s Outreamer – which is the name of the land conquered in the Lavant by the Crusading European powers. As the usage of the old name suggests, Israel is an independent entity, but the relationship between it and the US and the UK is defined by the mutual purpose of globalist policy makers common to all countries. Israel, and thus the British Establishment, is not happy with the outcome of the Syrian conflict. A war in Lebanon is brewing. So, when the likes of the Guardian, in an article that the author was able to find, asks what was in this Patel business for Israel?, the answer is nothing to do with influencing British politics. Israel is in the DNA of British politics in the first instance as a Masonic concept. This is what anti-Israelis, lots of them unconsciously of the Luciferian “left”, don’t understand. Israel wants what the British Establishment wants – acceptance of the radical solution. The war on Hezbollah, and perhaps Iran, is going to be unprecedented.

The incident at Sutherland Springs: who is responsible?

The jury has come back in at FBEL, and the decision is that the shooting at Sutherland Springs, Texas, November 5th, 2017, isn’t right. The author has now seen two versions† of how Ryland Ward was discovered at, or extracted from the scene of the crime. Call it old fashioned if you want, but the author thinks that an actual fact only has one version. Then there is the story, offered by survivors (via CNN), about how the gunman stalked up and down the aisle of the church hunting for hidden prey between the pews. Never had so much depended on not making a noise to attract unwanted attention since Anne Frank had the Nazis prowling about on the other side of the walls. But, ladies and gentlemen, consider the tiny size of the church. Now, look at the image on the right (click on it to enlarge). The fluorescent green dots are physical markers, and are supposed to indicate where bullets were fired into the church’s front door by the shooter. For whose benefit does the reader really think that these day-glo spots have been attached in this way? We are quite ready to stand corrected if anyone wants to tell us that this method is something to do with modern crime scene investigation, but it looks more like a show for stupid people. When a bullet hits wood, it doesn’t always just leave a nice round dent as if a worm munched it out – it tends to splinter the surrounding material. Is there anything actually in this picture that shows that the door was hit by gunfire?

As is usually the case, this evidence is far from clinching. The author was more interested in the way that he found himself having a big problem with the backstory of the shooter, Devin Kelley. Something kept nagging: how was it that he could have been serving in the US Air Force, and at the same time, be confined in a facility for the mentally ill? If the reader doesn’t know, this is referring to the period in 2012 that Kelley spent as a patient at Peak Behavioral Health Services (PBHS) at Santa Teresa, New Mexico. We should note that during this sojourn at the “asylum”, Kelley decided that he’d had enough, and he wandered into the nearest town for to get a bus out of there. This has been portrayed in the corporate-media as the dangerous fugitive at large, Clint Eastwood breaking out of Alcatraz wouldn’t have been such a villain. Kelley was soon brought back to custody by police – who were offered no resistance. So, let the fact register that Kelley couldn’t have been imprisoned at this facility for the emotionally unwell and psychologically disturbed. Or put it another way, he couldn’t have been guarded.

Now we have to reconcile that the following point of fact: while at the mental health facility, Kelley was supposedly awaiting trial for an apparently long-running case of “domestic violence” against his wife and stepson. This idea was the cause of much head-scratching at this end of the internet because if you proceed to the website of PBHS, you will discover what it is that this company does for troubled servicemen. In particular, and by gauging the one thing about Kelley’s condition that PBHS, citing concerns for patient confidentiality, has allowed into the public domain (that he was considered a danger to himself and others), we can find what the alleged Sutherland shooter might have been at the facility for: “crisis stabilization”. Here is what the site says about this service:

This track is designed for those service members who are in need of short-term crisis stabilization who are in immediate danger of harming themselves or someone else. Our goal is to return them to duty quickly with the coping skills necessary to lead and promote a healthy life that reinforces positive relationships and independence.

This course of treatment seems to be all about preventing a descent into self-destruction, but if at this time Kelley was battering his wife and baby stepson, wasn’t he already way past this consideration? Which brings us to this: if Kelley was awaiting trial for various instances of assault and battery, why was he not in the lock-up on the Air Force base?

It makes the author wonder if Kelley’s history is actually true, and if it hasn’t been invented, or tweaked, to suit newly emerged requirements. After all, it is a fact acknowledged by all that the FBI did not receive any information that made Kelley a villain on their books – which would have rendered him unable to purchase firearms. We don’t know, as a matter of fact, why the USAF thought fit to put Kelley in a mental hospital. Could it have had anything to do with the ill-feeling he bore towards his commanding officers? In some quarters of the internet, it is actually implied that he was in the care of mental health practitioners precisely because he tried to sneak weapons on to his base with which to attack superiors. Is it fake news, or is it just untouched by corporate-media. If it is even remotely true, what was it all about?

We keep hearing about Kelley’s bad conduct discharge; his rather tattered military service record – but has anyone actually seen it? From what the author can gather, there is one source of Kelley’s historic circumstances, and that is retired Air Force Colonel Don Christensen. He was the chief prosecutor of the USAF, but his career ended in September 2012. Kelley was convicted in the following November. Of course, there must have been overlap because the process against Kelley would surely have been lengthy, but one has to ask – how much interest does the Chief Prosecutor of the whole USAF, who was also very much involved in a high profile sexual assault case that same year leading up to his retirement, have in the cases of grunts who can’t leave the aggressiveness at work? Consider also where this Christensen fellow is delivering his information. All the mentions in corporate-media that the author has found regarding specifics of Kelley’s domestic violence during his service career refer to Christensen talking to the New York Times (this appears to be the source).  Additionally, there was an appearance on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show.

The author is quite happy to stand corrected in all this – God forbid he doesn’t want to be misunderstood as making excuses for the worst kind of cretinous fellow – but he is also not going to blindly believe what the corporate-media and high ranking ex-US military personnel tell the world either. All of a sudden, are the New York Times and CNN bastions of truth? All of a sudden, are the people who finally won a war – in a manner of speaking – when they killed woman and children at Waco (yes, the US military was involved) even somehow remotely honourable?  If someone can deny that these parties aren’t scientifically peddling the exact kind of information needed to be disseminated in order to achieve a psychological outcome in their audiences, then the author will concede that everything that emanates from them must be the gospel truth. But actually, isn’t it just possible that, after all, what we have got ourselves here is a case of a man who was wound up by his military service precisely in order to enter civilian-street and appear capable of committing mass murder, or to be party (knowing or, more likely, unknowing) to the mere presentation of such an event for political ends. But we won’t ever focus on that menace if we’re always looking at the disinformation that comes from the very people who create the missions for and the required psychological disturbances in their operatives. Although the patsies will come and go, and the faces of the culprits will be forever changing, the menace will never cease.


† Here they are:

Ward ran out of the house barefoot, got in his car and sped to the church, Leslie and Michael behind him. They saw Ryland, 5, outside as first responders began the hell of assessing the human toll.


At least 26 were killed in this small town of just more than 600 people, and dozens more were wounded. One was Ryland. Michael carried his nephew out of the church that morning, just minutes after the shooting stopped.


Sutherland Springs; Curiouser and curiouser

There hadn’t been a plan for an FBEL article on the shooting at the First Baptist Church, Sutherland Springs, Texas – but the reluctant author noticed that the official narrative had a big problem straight off the bat. Devin Kelley had been banned from owning firearms. He had no legal access to the means by which he had supposedly committed his crime.

This was awkward, and so early on too; it was common knowledge by bed time on Sunday – British bed time, that is. It would need some explaining, especially if the atrocity was going to be a spring board for the usual clamour for gun control. The US Air Force duly produced the goods. On Monday, it was announced that Kelley hadn’t been registered on a federal database whereby he would have been prohibited from purchasing four weapons in four years. The sanction had come about “following his 2012 domestic violence conviction”, and was related to his subsequently being dishonourably discharged from the service – but, it appears that the US Air Force had just… forgotten… whatever it was that they were supposed to do in terms of notifying the civilian authorities. All very convenient.

But it wasn’t just that that roused the author’s curiosity. There is a video out there on the internet (that the reader is just going to have to find on his or her own) in which a local woman is talking to an anchor-person for an organisation called Blazing Press News. In the course of the discourse, this woman happens to name the shooter, and she didn’t say “Devin Kelley”. The source of this information was identified by the news channel with one name only (it’s not going to be mentioned here) – which, given that she had freely announced her place of work as being in that small village of Sutherland Springs, could only serve to make her anonymous in the wider world; although, presumably, anyone in the community could identify who she was. And yet, she gave the name of a certain individual as the perpetrator of a particularly heinous crime. She claimed that this man had attacked his own family first, before going to the church to shoot more people.

It’s all very odd. Basically, on the surface of things as we are told they exist, this woman just decided to air a slanderous piece of town gossip, on an (out of nowhere) media outlet that was apparently doing live rolling news coverage, about someone who would also know who she was – and presumably wouldn’t take kindly to the things being said. Why on Earth would she do that?

Now, we’re not going to join in with the defamation to name this individual ourselves, but we do need to discuss this aberration. Even before the author started to search for this named individual on the internet, it occurred that he might find that the supposed victims amongst this man’s family would appear in the list of people who had been killed or injured as part of the church congregation – and indeed, this did turn out to be the case. (This has a significance, but it’s preferable not to discuss it).

It is imperative to point out that also on the internet are vigorous denials that this named individual had anything to do with any act of violence against anybody. We should accept this information on its face value. However, this doesn’t mean we should stop digging, either. The aim is not to further injure any maligned innocent; it is to find evidence of any greater, wider crime; to find the real story. And so, when investigating the chorus of denial, the author came across one piece that was extremely puzzling in particular. It mentioned that the individual had indeed been accused of being the shooter (we’re going to swap names out for letters; X being the individual, Y being a relative of X):

In the first hours after the shooting Sunday, some media erroneously reported X was the shooter. Y said his [relative] wasn’t angry about the mistake, he was too worried about his family to care.

However, it didn’t mention that in fact this individual had been accused of murdering his own family. Surely he would care about that?

The article in question was executed as if it was for a lifestyle magazine; which made it appear strange considering the grief would still have been red-raw for the people who constituted the subject matter. It certainly seems to have been written just after the evening of the Sunday on which the incident occurred – because it describes events taking place at that time. It was apparently written by someone who had gained access into the home of a relative of the individual (the “Y” of the above quote) – a photographer even took shots of this relative in his grief (to qualify: with his hand over his face obscuring both his features and actually, his emotions). It meant the worst kind of imposition and intrusion to produce – and yet, this strange piece of writing was produced and published within 24 hours of a personal disastor for the people it studied. What could possibly be the meaning of such bizarre timing for a human-interest angled “Hello!”-style piece of journalism related to this incident?

Well, at one point, it does give the accused individual (X) an alibi:

Y’s house is just a few blocks from the church… Z, his wife, was setting up a yard sale when she heard the first shots Sunday morning.

“Bam bam bam bam!” the shots came so fast, Z said, it sounded like something from a machine gun. Word sped fast in the small town — there was a shooter and he was inside the church.

She ran inside and woke a napping Y. His [relative] X, whose family often attends services there, wasn’t answering his phone so the two hopped in the car and sped to his house to check they were safe.

“He was pissed at me,” Y said. His [relative] didn’t think it could be true — not in their small town. He thought Y must be wrong, he had to be mistaken. X works the night shift and had stayed home that morning, but his wife and children were at the church. “I said, ‘I’m not lying to you, X, they’re all shot.”

It’s such an incredibly weird thing to say: “they’re all shot”. How could X’s relative possibly know at that stage exactly what had happened in the church?

One can’t even try to account for how peculiar all of this is. And we shouldn’t try, because we might impute diabolical wrongdoing against an innocent man, and we certainly don’t want to do that.

As for the incident as a whole, it is giving off a stench that is all too familiar. There is another video on the internet taken by what is presumably a woman on the scene. She captures a much-too sterile environment; first responders ambling about; a good deal of loitering by the church entrance; in short, no sense of urgency on display from any quarter. She reports that she has been there for 10 minutes, with the incident having happened about 50 before her arrival, and she hadn’t seen any victims coming or being taken out of the church. Incredibly, she reports that the neighbours she had spoken to had not, in all the intervening time since the incident had occurred, seen any victims either.

In which we observe H G Wells agitating for a New World Order in 1940

This is the second part of an analysis of H G Wells’ “The Rights of Man” (1940) – the first part being here.

If one didn’t know about it already, one discovers that the likes of H.G. Wells were agitating for a socialist state to be instituted after the Second World War just as soon as the conflict started. “What are we fighting for?” demanded Wells in “The Rights of Man” – as did he and others elsewhere, apparently, because there seemed to be a concerted movement. Wells suggested that it should be for the New World Order – yes indeed. And why would this be a surprise. In his 1933 Luciferian manifesto, “The Shape of Things to Come”, he “predicted” a war that would start over German grievance about land gifted to a newly recreated Poland. Post 9/11, and thanks to the work of Milton William Cooper, who exposed the globalist Masonic western government and its heritage, we can classify Wells’ work of “prediction” as a masterpiece of psychological conditioning – expectation management – based on insider knowledge of a scheme in pursuit of globalist goals.

It is no wonder that in 1945, as soon as the possibility arose, the British voted for a Labour government – which duly nationalised various industries and services; its jewel in the crown the immediately insufficient National Health Service; no wonder because the likes of Wells had spent the war years filling heads with the notion that although Britons may be fighting Nazis on the physical battlegrounds, they were actually winning a collectivised utopian World Pax. There was a big problem, though, for the fight was against one of the two great models† of socialism in the world – the corporate-government system of Germany. And so Wells constructs an idea that the Nazis did not represent proper collectivism; it was the “outrages upon human dignity” that rendered them slightly “above the level of an exceptionally spiteful ape” – as if his version of socialism would ever result in any different outcome. A particular fault of the Nazis was the “concentration camps and the refugees”; very early references to atrocities against the Jews. Wells reports that in his discussions with Tommy in the Ranks, Joe Public, and whoever else he talked to, it was that the Germans were “too bad” which made Britons understand that they faced a gruelling, unremitting fight to force unconditional surrender. A “lynching spirit” had been stirred up – “the young Germany of Hitler, wearing its thick boots (that have stamped in the faces of Jewish women)” was going to be on the receiving end of a different type of British opponent as it had faced in the first outing: “the bayoneting this time will be done in a different spirit”.

And so, the holocaust – although it would have been impossible to yet understand what was going on in Germany in those terms – would nevertheless very early on provide the inspiration for fighting for a collective against a collective. This is incredibly significant. We used to be told that the British didn’t know very much about the persecution of the Jew at the start of the war. Nowadays, we more commonly see stuff like this (source):

[communication intercepts show]  that the British knew that Jews were being targeted for atrocities as early as September 1941 — more than a year before Britain or the United States publicly acknowledged the plight of the European Jews.

Even before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Polish resistance and Jewish groups had been telling Britain and its allies of atrocities against civilians in occupied Poland.

We don’t want to get too sidetracked by this, but there is something important to be imbibed from the detail of this issue. Wells clearly indicates that when he and others were loudly demanding “what are we fighting for?”, and while he couldn’t extract a public official statement of “War Aims” from British Government, the word on the street was about avenging the boot in the face of the Jewish woman – in 1940. In 1940, how are the British people hearing about Nazi atrocities? Could it possibly be on the end of those stories coming out of Poland? Now the author would like the reader to consider lessons learnt from Syria, and to think of the White Helmets in particular; the organisation that fronted as providers of humanitarian aid, but that – as much evidence suggests – was basically a foreign intelligence outfit that staged false flags to provoke intervention by the US military. Think of the lad in Coventry who called himself the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, whose stated aim was “to document alleged human rights abuses in Syria” (as Wikipedia puts it), and from whence he might have got his anti-Assad intelligence – which was then relayed as fact to the public via propagandising state controlled media.

If Britons really wanted to know why they were fighting a war with Germany in 1940, the worst thing they could have done was become interested in Wells’ provocateuring for the New World Order with letters in the Times, and his “The Rights of Man” and other agitprop produced by either him or any of his confederates. Wells had written about the war in 1933, and specifically about why it was necessary: to cause terrible chaos out of which a socialist world state could emerge. Moreover, from our post-9/11 perspective, we may suspect, and find evidence, that the real truth about the question of why the war was being fought was this: Germany had been humiliated in 1918, and then certain powerful people in the USA and Britain, who would prosper from war, engineered a government that would try to rectify that situation militarily.

Wells’ position in the light of what we do know about a contrivance to bring about a World War Two is repugnant.  From “The Rights of Man” we know that while he thought that war needed to be waged against the Nazis and not the Germans per se, he still thought that the German people deserved a lesson for what he portrayed as their responsibility for bringing the war about:

There are, I say, many excuses for the Germans, Versailles and the strangulation after 1919-20, etc, etc, – we all know how sound their excuses are, we concede them almost excessively, we over-do it; none the less they have been made excuses for abominable behaviour – and I am convinced that vigorous bombing and bombarding, town-wrecking and the like, would be an entirely wholesome and chastening experience for the German ‘soul’…

Germans have to see and feel for themselves as recipients, the heroic blonde mothers and that heroic blond little boy, the Nazi-kicker of tomorrow, have to feel in their own skins what sort of war they have made and applauded in Poland.

May the author suggest that Wells shows us what a spiteful Luciferian looks like when he can’t get his own way, or when the danger he wants for others, so as to advance his agenda, instead starts to threaten him. Malevolent and cowardly – despicable and ignoble. An animal, not a god. Wells cannot help but admit that environmental factors engineered by the victorious powers in 1918 were a major cause of the Second World War – he can’t help but admit it because it was the truth. And yet according to him average Germans should have their towns bombed out from beneath them. And in fact, it’s not just the average Ger-man who needs to suffer; Wells specifically wishes death on women and children.

Wells’ hypocrisy regarding this idea of innocents paying for the war in Poland gives off a particularly rancid stink even after 70 years. In “The Shape of Things to Come”, he wrote of war between Poland and Germany as being a conduit for progression into the socialist modernity. In Well’s imagination, these two countries slugged it out for years – while Blighty, with its fat ration-guzzling ruling class – sat safely on the sidelines selling arms to both warring parties. The author suggests that Wells was not happy about the Germany of reality – the Germany which did what it wasn’t supposed to do, and blitzkrieged itself into a position whereby it could wrap up the mould-breaking transformative European conflagration well before it had created very much chaos – if any – from which a new world order had to emerge. In fact, the author thinks that there wasn’t one member amongst the Masonic World State planners of the governing classes of Britain who would have been happy with Germany’s successes in 1939 and 1940. The realisation must have dawned upon them, as Hitler took a day trip to a completely undamaged City of Light, that Britain would have to be in the war in more than just name in order to do some town-wrecking; to set Europe into disarray. And let’s dig down deeper into the hateful desire to see women and children killed, and look at what the act would mean from a Masonic perspective: the author suggests that when Wells talks about children dying for the restitution of a Germany that would be fit to join his World State, he is plainly talking of the sacrifice necessary for the purpose – a sacrifice which the sanctimonious British would have to perform. The RAF started bombing Germany in March, 1940.

Ironically, it has been a vehement opponent of the British devastation of Germany by Lancaster and Wellington, Bishop Bell of Chichester, who has recently had his name blackened with a posthumous and apparently unsubstantiated allegation of child molestation. For more detail of the defence of Bell, the reader should look up Peter Hitchens’ coverage (even the most dangerous of gatekeepers are sometimes good for something); the author only has this to say: the cave-in by the present Cathedral administration without even trying the case against Bell makes the “unpersoning” of the Bishop look like a scheme towards some greater agenda. Bell’s relatively low key memorial monument has been at risk of being removed from the Cathedral – which would be the height of his disgrace. The author thinks that it is proof of Wells’ social engineering success that modern Britons don’t think it fitting that his bones aren’t dug up for the crime of agitating for the actual murder of thousands of children.


† The other was the Soviet Union. In “The Rights of Man” Wells appears to be disappointed that it had given up being a champion of international collectivism when Molotov declared that the USSR had no interest in interfering with the internal ideologies of other nations. This was probably convenient, because then Wells could complain about the “mental and moral deterioration of the Soviet government”.  The problem for the Russians was that they had arrived at collectivism along a culturally inferior route: “The collectivism that is rolling down on us from the East knows nothing of the tradition of personal rights. There have been no Magna Cartas east of the Rhine”. It’s not that Wells was confused, dear reader, and didn’t understand that Magna Carta doesn’t feature in the heritage of any shade of socialist state, it was that he was a Luciferian, and for such a man, routine deception is a means to the ends, which justifies the means, and many a promise can be made, for the advancement of one’s own purpose, that is never meant to be kept.

The socialist “Rights of Man” – towards a New World Order

As a follow up to the previous FBEL article on the grand deception that is the globalist apparatchik, Jeremy Corbyn, this article will be the first in a two part series on the one-time Fabian Society member, H G Wells’ “The Rights of Man” (1940). We are going to start with looking at some of the clauses, or the separate pronouncements, that together constitute a “declaration of rights” document, and in a second article we are going to examine the conversational part of the book which discusses and frames the clauses, and which actually makes up the major part of the work. It should be pointed out that the “rights” clauses are the creation of a group that these days might be called a think-tank, and Wells, as he himself explains, is the editor rather than the author.

This article can also be counted as being part of an overall ongoing re-evaluation of the works of the anti-competition Victorian ruling class that conceived the project to return the masses to an equivalent of the monument-building slaves of ancient days – as per the dictates of their Masonic perspective. Any other outcome for humanity would be intolerable; the profane masses must be ruled by Hermetic technocrats who (think they) are achieving godhood. And if we but look closely and see the dead hand that controls western government in the 21st century, we can detect the reality of a control structure that has tentacles in all aspects of the body politic to the point of being able to wage psychological warfare on Britons as if they are have been conquered by force of arms: that it smacks of the occult society – secretive, and ruthlessly effective at keeping itself secret. Additionally, when we consider the shape of the political environment we live in, we can see the desired Luciferian “utopia” is very near completion, and we can detect signalling in mass culture which is intended to indicate who has been organising its manifestation (see “Interstellar”).

The back cover of the Penguin Special (2015) edition of Wells’ “The Rights of Man” spouts the following to establish the works’ significance:

The fearlessly progressive ideas… [Wells] set out were instrumental in the creation of the UNs Declaration of Human Rights, the EU’s European Convention on Human Rights and the UK’s Human Rights Act [1998].

If the reader is aware of it, he will also notice that Theodore Roosevelt’s “Second Bill of Rights” looks awfully familiar to Wells’ production. Little wonder, for Wells’ work was intended to be used as a tool of worldwide agitation for the creation of a “new world order” – yes, Wells used this phrase in 1940. When we know Wells’ Bill of Rights for what it is, these “sleeve notes” are telling us that socialism has been institutionalised in Britain. There will be no revocation either while people continue to vote for the LibLabCon; the Tories’ proposed UK Bill of Rights appears to be intended as some subsidiary of the ECHR. That things have got so bad in the country of Common Law is thanks to the realisation of Wells’ “rights” – as we shall see – so that government can make good drones for the socialist beehive; people are not aware of their real individual rights. As we go through these clauses, the reader needs to remember that “rights” which would mean a person drawing on welfare are not rights at all. Welfare inevitably means taxation, which means the infringement of the real individual right to one’s own property and capital.

The first clause tells us the extent of the world welfare state envisioned by Wells et al:

Every man without distinction of race or colour is entitled to the nourishment, covering, medical care and attention needed to realise his full possibilities of physical and mental development and to keep him in a state of health from his birth to death.

It is clear that welfare covers everything that a man could ask a government for, from the cradle to the grave, because the recipient of the entitlement gets it without discrimination – he is “every man”. He could be jobless, and therefore contributing nothing himself, but it would still be his right to enjoy the things mentioned in the clause. Indeed, Wells suggests that a man in the new world order, if he wants to, wouldn’t need to do anything in return for his entitlement. But by his other writings we know that Wells’ was aware of the impracticalities of Malthusian “useless eating”, and from his “Declaration of Rights” itself, also clearly understands that a welfare state relies on taxation, and so underneath the soundbytes, we find that the socialist Bill of Rights denies the life of leisure that it appears to promise‡. No surprise, as casually disposed-of deception is at the heart of socialism. We’ll discuss this some more as we deal with the second clause:

[Every man] is entitled to sufficient education to make him a useful and interested citizen…

This very first line gives us a clue about the real nature of entitlement to welfare. The citizen is educated so that he is “interested” – meaning that he doesn’t become disillusioned with the system. This means that the system wants to have “every man” fully invested in it. The purpose for which will become clear. The clause goes on…

…that… [every man] should have easy access to information upon all matters of common knowledge throughout his life and enjoy the utmost freedom of discussion.

At first glance this looks great – it seems to suggest free speech. But look again. The subject matter of unlimited discussion is restricted to that which is “common knowledge”. Obviously, the government would control this because of a lack of competition in the system (which has yet to be discussed, but for the moment, the reader should trust that it truly would be the case). No competition in terms of cultural leadership would mean that “common knowledge” would only work to further the interests of the system. Indeed, that this idea appears in a clause which talks about education is precisely to do with the fact that “common knowledge” would be the continued propagandising that an individual would receive after school and throughout his adult life (we should recognise that this has been instituted in 2017 UK from its cultural environment). Education is for making a man useful to and invested in the system.

Now, in further pursuit of the answer to why every man should be fully invested in the system, we skip to clause (5)

That… [every man] may engage freely in any lawful occupation, earning such pay as the need for his work and the increment it makes to the common welfare may justify. That he is entitled to paid employment and to a free choice whenever there is any variety of employment open to him. He may suggest employment for himself and have his claim publicly considered.

Notice the choice of words, for it is deliberate. A man earns pay when his produce is owned by another – or, when he is in the employ of another party. When a man produces his own goods to sell, he is not paid, but instead has a turnover – expenses versus income from sales. Indeed, the later overt use of the word “employment” makes it clear that in the socialist “utopia”, every man is working for someone else. So there is a problem, because if every man is earning pay, who, then does that leave to offer employment? Well, it is the government, of course – and it is imperative to understand that when we’re talking about governmental control of the means of production – which we are – then there is absolutely no difference between pure government, and several corporations incorporated into government (which is how the present UK government is constituted). It is only the names given to the types of socialism that differs: one is communism, the other is fascism. Above all else, here we see why the State would be interested in wanting people to be healthy from cradle to the grave, and to remain engaged and useful – to be a good human resource; to serve the collective underneath the government.

Please notice that in this clause about employment in return for pay, there is nothing about a right to withhold labour as a means to obtain a better rate. This would be perfectly acceptable under a scheme of real individual rights, but in the socialist “utopia” it must qualify as being disillusioned with the regime. We must come to this conclusion because of how, in principle, there should be no such thing as industrial dissatisfaction in the socialist “utopia” because of how it is arranged so that anyone can leave a job and subsist on welfare – or demand another job. It would follow that anyone who thought that they needed to strike for a pay rise would run the risk of slipping into a new classification of “criminal” that the socialist “utopia” by necessity must invent in order to maintain the illusion of its infallibility: the dissident. We’ve hinted at this sort of person already in this article: the man disillusioned with the system; the man who reacts against his conditioning – or “education” – that is supposed to make him useful. We’ll return to this person momentarily.

Notice that there are two considerations for how much pay an employed individual is to receive: 1) the demand for the work being done, and 2) how much tax (which is what is meant by “increment”) that must be produced by the employment to support the collective. In the social “utopia”, only the government employs – so that it can rake back to pay for the State. Where does the wealth come from so that it can be distributed for the people who are specifically told that the socialist “utopia” is their great hope? We need to consider another related clause in order to proceed:

(7) That… [every man] shall have the right to buy or sell without any discriminatory restrictions anything which may be lawfully bought or sold, in such quantities and with such reservations as are compatible with the common welfare.

This clause† is redundant. It is just dressing to lure the unsuspecting in to a trap. It looks like it is talking about individuals with turnover, but that cannot be the case, since everyone gets paid as an employee. There is also a huge self-contradiction regarding the claim that there would be no restrictions on trade – except those that the State would place on them to enforce compatibility for the common welfare. And the State would undoubtedly discriminate, because what is good for government is for it to face no competition. So, the clause is a complete deception. The only thing it can possibly be talking about is how people cannot be prevented from buying from State-owned shops where management is nothing to do with ownership, but is there to facilitate the restocking of State-supplied products (as we shall see, the State monopolises natural resources and their production into saleable items).

And so, with no economic competition, and with government in full control of production, it would be able to execute a centrally planned economy where it decided what the people wanted to buy. Now, historically, such things have failed because people don’t want the same thing as government wants for them. However, with the ability to control cultural consumption – “common knowledge” – government would be free to direct demand according to a political agenda – and this is what it does in our current time with the drive towards “sustainability” (Agenda 21) and the propaganda regarding climate change, or with the big lie that the NHS is the best medical care system in the world. The bottom line is that true demand is a disruptive factor in centrally controlled economies unless it is manufactured by aligning public taste with political agenda. In this case, in no sense of the word would people be free. To add insult to injury, the State would deem a product that was in demand to be rich pickings in terms of tax, and so, there won’t be a benefit in terms of net pay – especially for people who work in less valued roles within the process of producing particularly in-demand goods or services. On the other hand, more valued servants of the State in positions integral to the workings of the system would be permitted a high gap between income and tax to encourage a belief in the success of the system – to foster personal investment in it so that they don’t become disillusioned. The bitter truth of the matter is that the socialist state can only survive if it creates the sort of “have and have-not” economics that the likes of Jeremy Corbyn are always rebuking to foment and manipulate their political base.

This brings us to this:

(6) That… [every man] may move freely about the world at his own expense. That his private house or apartment or reasonably limited garden enclosure is his castle, which may be entered only with his consent, but that he shall have the right to come and go over any kind of country, moorland, mountain, farm, great garden or what not, where his presence will not be destructive of some special use, dangerous to himself nor seriously inconvenient to his fellow-citizens.

Because the segue demands it, let’s deal with this first: it is eminently evident that it must be the upper echelon – those who are “bribed” to support the system – who would get to travel around the world. They could afford it – “every man” would not be able to. Pure deception. The second thing to talk about is how this clause is absolutely the Agenda 21 that has been rolled out globally at the end of the 20th century, where the great outdoors is State-owned; notice there is nothing about “he shall have the right to come and go where his presence is not objected to by private landowners”. Furthermore, citizens have to live in restricted living spaces with little or no capacity to produce their own natural resources. This means that natural resources all belong to the government. Farms are State owned. It is a reiteration of the reality of the centrally planned economy in the socialist “utopia”. And it makes the author wonder if, through a study of the plan for and implementation for the socialised state, we haven’t discovered the real reason that agriculture has been subsidised these many long years (one in five of the biggest recipients of EU subsidies are reportedly billionaires). The general aim must be to help keep land in the hands of a relative few, who are beholden to government, and who don’t then have to sell piecemeal to individuals who could afford it (although big construction companies are sold swathes of land to create more restricted living spaces).

Now we finally return to the topic of what happens to those who don’t remain interested in and committed to the system; those who would react against their conditioning for making them useful – in short, any who would show the socialist “utopia” as flawed:

That a man unless he is duly certified as mentally deficient shall not be imprisoned for a longer period than three weeks without being charged with a definite offence against the law, nor for more than three months without a public trial. At the end of the latter period, if he has not been tried and sentenced by due process of law, he shall be released.

Forget all the pretence of being concerned for habeas corpus, for it doesn’t apply for the real criminals in the socialist “utopia”. Justice only applies to those who haven’t been declared mentally deficient by the State; obviously it is imperative to deny a day in court for political criminals in order to save the image of government infallibility.

This brings us to this clause:

That… [every man] and his personal property lawfully acquired are entitled to police and legal protection from private violence, deprivation, compulsion and intimidation.

There are two things to notice here. Firstly, the private person and his property is only in need of protection from private crime. The government can never commit crime against the person or his property, that is to say, when government causes injury against those things, it isn’t classified as criminality. The legal system is not there to protect a private individual from crime by the government. Secondly, the emphasis here isn’t on a householder protecting his own person or property (which is the fundamental stuff of individual liberty) – instead it is on abdicating that right and handing it to the police and the legal system. When you abdicate to the government a right to protect you, you give it an excuse to identify you as its property. In this clause, abdication has been assumed, and Wells is insisting on the government protecting its own assets. In the socialist “utopia”, there is no such thing as a private individual after all. And one is not guaranteed safety no more than one is guaranteed health in a national health service, for the contract leaves one open to not being protected because police might have to prioritise to 1) deal with “crime” against government (committed by dissidents who, for various reasons, become disruptive figures to the socialist “utopia”) – or political crime, and 2) deal with crime against those more valuable to the State. This is pretty much where we are at in Britain today, are we not?


‡ The late-20th century socialist State actually found a way for the welfare client to be a resource. Whole service industries, paid for by tax payers, are built around administrating welfare recipients.

† Wells claimed that this clause was aimed at preventing profiteering by forced scarcity – storing up goods to reduce supply, and artificially create demand and therefore increase the price. However, this can only be done by an individual or company with a monopoly, or who is conspiring with others to achieve an effective one. But when the government owns everything exclusively, who else can create forced scarcity?

The real and complete Corbyn delusion

This site has long been detailing – predicting – how the Tories would deceive about Brexit to produce a mother of all fudges (search in the box at the top of the page for “Fake Brexit”). Labour too will have a big part to play – in fact, the Tories are relying on it. As such, one of the most dangerous men in Britain in relation to its survival as an independent nation state, and indeed anything else related to the protection of individual liberty, is Jeremy Corbyn. There is a very sizeable element of the British electorate that can comprehend the EU as a component of global corporate-government – and they object to it. These people see the evils of corporate-government in any case, with or without reference to the EU, and in recent years they have increasingly become detached from the traditional two-party politics which has been the bulwark of Establishment control for decades. Corbyn has been stationed as Labour leader to frighten some of these voters back to the Tories, and also to funnel other support back into the Labour party. And, we must add, he is ably assisted by a plethora of cheerleading British alternative media – who thus suggest they are shilling for the Establishment, or are very badly mistaken. Either way, they are worthless as leadership. In this article we are going to look at how the origins of socialism, which Corbyn openly advocates, are in the Mystery School for ancient technocrats, and how the Labour party was cut from the same cloth as the Nazi party via a connection with Helena Blavatsky. Ultimately, we will observe that Corbyn is an inevitable agent of the New World Order. We also note which side of the fundamental conflict for the human future his supporters are really on, despite whatever else they profess to be.

The British Government has cottoned on to a movement that becomes visible when one reads most of the alternative media in Britain or in North America. In this journalism, capitalism† is clearly a dirty word. It is seen as the source of all the world’s ills. Enter Jeremy Corbyn; the following is taken from his speech to the Fabian Society in January 2017:

The people who run Britain have been taking our country for a ride. They’ve stitched up our political system to protect the powerful…

The truth is the system simply doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. Labour under my leadership stands for a complete break with this rigged system.

We will hand back wealth and control to people and communities.

We’ll look at Corbyn’s utterances in more detail in another article, but for the time being note that he can’t stop at just returning wealth and control to people; the collectivised unit has to have its share too, meaning that in fact anything “returned” to individuals is meaningless (this will register to the reader as a fact in due course). Obviously, the headline issue that stands out in this extract is the need to deal with corporate-government, which is characterised, in the circles Corbyn’s message appeals to, as a consequence of capitalism. The answer, says Corbyn, is socialism. His support in the “alternative” faction of the body politics would seem to agree, given the disdain there for capitalism. But the big problem and the inconvenient truth for all of these people is the plain fact that ours is not a capitalist system. We are already socialised. We have been slowly and surely socialised for over a hundred years. And yet the solution, apparently, is more of the same.

The real solution to the monopolism that Corbyn appears to set himself against is capitalism. Socialism is the ultimate in monopolism: ownership, or control, by the state. Capitalism involves the diametric opposite: it means competition. Some readers may recognise Ayn Rand in the following: There are only two economic rights, and they are not a right to a council house and a welfare cheque. The two economic rights of man are a right to own property, and the right to free trade – involving the concept of an individual being able to own his produce, or his capital: that which he can trade or invest without any interference from any other party looking to earn off the transaction. Moreover, these economic rights reflect the idea that property is an extension of one’s own person (property is made by the individual, or obtained through the trade of other property).

When a government, whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of man, taxes an individual and makes it compulsory on the pain of imprisonment, then it commits an infringement of the very rights it is supposed to protect. A man has a right to his capital as an extension of his person. Taxes were historically levied by a class that ruled through force to further the interests of that rule. Things haven’t changed even though on the surface, these days, taxes, are to pay for the collectivised welfare state as well as the stuff that connects to that which was historically subsidised like military or the administration of government. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is the socialist mantra which perfectly illustrates the conflict with capitalism. The idea is that in a collectivised system, enough will be produced to satisfy the needs of those who don’t (this is flawed, but it’s subject for a fuller discussion at another time).

Let’s look at this the other way around. If taxes are necessary to sustain a welfare state, then it follows that a welfare state provides a pretext for violating individual rights. When individuals don’t have rights – whether they have had them taken away, or they abdicate them – then they become held a hostage to fortune, and to whatever is deemed to be “good for society”, or for the common good. What the common good equates to is pronounced by the rulers of society. They are now above the moral code that existed by necessity between individuals for exchange of capital; who would knowingly trade with a crook? – and this gets to the bottom of who would be motivated to rule collectivised society: those who could not prosper honestly. What is “good”, then, becomes infringing upon the rights of individuals so that they cannot prosper and they cannot threaten as serious competition. The welfare state, and socialism, is for shoring up the rule of criminals.

We were about to ask, what is the driving force? – and we already partly answered the question: criminality. Certainly, this explains ancient potentates – we’ll get to them momentarily. The ailing Victorians who instituted British and American socialism could not compete with a buoyant middle class. Seeing superiority where there is none (in order to rationalise moral, intellectual or physical inferiority as quite the opposite) has to come from a fantasy – and it’s always been the way. The technocrats of ancient civilisations taught religion to the masses to justify their dominance. It was the duty of mankind to continue to beautify the universe as a reflection of the godhood that permeated man and made him a creator and administrator:

The Earth is kept in order
by means of humanity’s knowledge
and application of the arts and sciences
for Atum willed that the universe
should not be complete
until man had played his part

…It is man’s function to complete the work of Atum

…There are some whose name will live on
through the memorials
of their mighty handiwork
but the names of the many
will fade into darkness

…Most are led and driven by the gods
which govern earthly life
using our bodies
of the instruments of destiny.

The Hermitica (“lost ancient Egyptian knowledge – rediscovered by the Greeks”).

In ancient Babylon all this translated into organising the population to build a huge temple (the tower), as it did in Egypt (the great pyramids), as it did in the British Isles (stone henges), but these endeavours are really about constructing a sense of awesomeness about the ruling class. Religion for the masses taught subservience to the political scheme whereby this sort of thing was achieved.  Normal people were controlled by the movements of the planets and constellations such that their destiny was already programmed and they were bound to be collectivised. But there was a class of a few great men who could break free of the cosmic puppet show; their destiny was to direct the beautification effort while it was the duty of the masses to bend their backs and do the work. On top of this, the political scheme on earth mirrored the cosmic one, and if the masses rebelled, the universe would also similarly become unpredictable and chaotic. Religion as taught to the masses was a scam. As for the ruling class, it believed in something “real”.

Luciferianism: the obtaining of knowledge such that the recipient will eventually achieve godhood. In the Hermetic accent, man was able to evolve into oneness with the god in the universe, and is able to do this through his fifth element – that part of him that is free of the influence of the zodiac (as covered to fuller extent in advertising material for the game Mighty Hunters, see here).

The knowledge was largely useless as real science, but prehistoric science it was nevertheless, and hidden from the profane. The author is still not clear about how much the initiated at various levels of the Mystery School religion believed that they would physically become gods, or whether that process was always understood as being part and parcel of ruling the masses, but at the heart of the religion was the central deception: in the end there was no secret to becoming a deity except that the entire system was for creating a control structure for power over men. The method survived through the Masonic brotherhoods, and it is the one that the Government of the west employs. Like their ancient predecessors, the modern pharaohs still rely on “magic”, or psychological manipulation and downright deviousness, to rule.

In Britain, the Labour party has been a necessary tool for “magic” for a century. Indeed, we could say it has been a Popular Front movement since its inception – meaning, it has taken on the clothes of other political parties and movements to further the socialist agenda of the Victorian ruling classes that founded it (via the Fabian Society – which has as its emblem a wolf in sheep’s clothing). After decloaking in the 1970s when the British ruling class mistakenly thought that the country was demoralised enough for its purpose, it had to adopt new incarnations. First, under Blair, it pretended to be for the middle classes, and now under Corbyn it pretends to be against corporate-government.

Which brings us back to Corbyn, and a comment he made in the same speech that was referred to at the top of this article – but just before that, a small diversion. When one does a search for the Fabian Society, such prominent names present themselves: George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, and Annie Besant. These names do well enough to tell you all you need to know about the Fabians. Wells’ Luciferian manifesto has been studied here at FBEL (see here), and Shaw will receive the same attention when the author gets around to it. Besant‡ was at one time the President of the Theosophical Society, which has survived into current times, and whose website announces that the society “is a worldwide body whose primary object is Universal Brotherhood” – for “brotherhood” always read Masonry. The society was founded by Helena Blavatsky, who was the subject of a lecture by prolific Masonic writer, Manly P Hall. He talks about Blavatsky and what she claimed as a mystical acquisition of knowledge in terms of Masonic mythology: a lost ancient “formula which explains his own existence”. They are both talking about the evolution into godhood. Of course, Blavatsky was the inventor of the Aryan race rubbish; Luciferianism is racist at its heart (as discussed previously at FBEL).

Here is Corbyn’s quote:

The Fabians were famous for their belief that there should be a “slow, gradual transition and expansion of socialism”. I would suggest that today’s demands and challenges require us to go a little bit faster!

What he is referring to in this extract is the “magic”; the tool of Luciferians. British socialists achieved their goals by stealth and deception because no one would have accepted the small incremental changes if they had been proposed in one fell swoop. But at this stage Corbyn wants a rush towards the laying of the cap stone, and of course he does. The challenges he talks about are a people waking up; he should know since he was set up as a gatekeeper for it.


† Capitalism gets confused for Crony Capitalism, or corporate-government (or fascism). Corporations merge with government to own and control means of production. Legislation is produced to disadvantage competition, create and maintain monopolies. Serendipitously, Jon Rappaport has also just published an article along the same lines as this one, and writes

Don’t get caught in the word game which confuses Communism, Socialism, the Corporate State, Fascism, and Crony Capitalism.

When you put all these terms through the wash, they come out looking the same. They mean power at the top, disguised to appear as popular movements.

Read it here.

‡ Besant was a 33rd Degree Co-Freemason (wiki page); she founded the Order of Universal Co-Freemasonry in Great Britain and the British Dependencies.

Bill Cooper talks about Besant (and Blavatsky’s “The Secret Doctrine”) in this episode of Hour of the Time (citing sources):

 (visist the FBEL main site version to hear – link).