Britain on the Leash with the United States – but at Which End?

James George Jatras, October 13, 2018, via Strategic Culture

The “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom is often assumed to be one where the once-great, sophisticated Brits are subordinate to the upstart, uncouth Yanks.

Iconic of this assumption is the mocking of former prime minister Tony Blair as George W. Bush’s “poodle” for his riding shotgun on the ill-advised American stagecoach blundering into Iraq in 2003. Blair was in good practice, having served as Bill Clinton’s dogsbody in the no less criminal NATO aggression against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999.

On the surface, the UK may seem just one more vassal state on par with Germany, Japan, South Korea, and so many other useless so-called allies. We control their intelligence services, their military commands, their think tanks, and much of their media. We can sink their financial systems and economies at will. Emblematic is German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s impotent ire at discovering the Obama administration had listened in on her cell phone, about which she – did precisely nothing. Global hegemony means never having to say you’re sorry.

These countries know on which end of the leash they are: the one attached to the collar around their necks. The hand unmistakably is in Washington. These semi-sovereign countries answer to the US with the same servility as member states of the Warsaw Pact once heeded the USSR’s Politburo. (Sometimes more. Communist Romania, though then a member of the Warsaw Pact refused to participate in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or even allow Soviet or other Pact forces to cross its territory.

By contrast, during NATO’s 1999 assault on Serbia, Bucharest allowed NATO military aircraft access to its airspace, even though not yet a member of that alliance and despite most Romanians’ opposition to the campaign.)

But the widespread perception of Britain as just another satellite may be misleading.

To start with, there are some relationships where it seems the US is the vassal dancing to the tune of the foreign capital, not the other way around. Israel is the unchallenged champion in this weight class, with Saudi Arabia a runner up. The alliance between Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) – the ultimate Washington “power couple” – to get the Trump administration to destroy Iran for them has American politicos listening for instructions with all the rapt attention of the terrier Nipper on the RCA Victor logo. (Or did, until the recent disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Whether this portends a real shift in American attitudes toward Riyadh remains questionableSaudi cash still speaks loudly and will continue to do so whether or not MbS stays in charge.)

Specifics of the peculiar US-UK relationship stem from the period of flux at the end of World War II. The United States emerged from the war in a commanding position economically and financially, eclipsing Britannia’s declining empire that simply no longer had the resources to play the leading role. That didn’t mean, however, that London trusted the Americans’ ability to manage things without their astute guidance. As Tony Judt describes in Postwar, the British attitude of “superiority towards the country that had displaced them at the imperial apex” was “nicely captured” in a scribble during negotiations regarding the UK’s postwar loan:

In Washington Lord Halifax
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
“It’s true they have the moneybags
But we have all the brains.”

Even in its diminished condition London found it could punch well above its weight by exerting its influence on its stronger but (it was confident) dumber cousins across the Pond. It helped that as the Cold War unfolded following former Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s 1946 Iron Curtain speech there were very close ties between sister agencies like MI6 (founded 1909) and the newer wartime OSS (1942), then the CIA (1947); likewise the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, 1919) and the National Security Administration (NSA, 1952). Comparable sister agencies – perhaps more properly termed daughters of their UK mothers – were set up in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This became the so-called “Five Eyes” of the tight Anglosphere spook community,infamous for spying on each others’ citizens to avoid pesky legal prohibitions on domestic surveillance.

Despite not having two farthings to rub together, impoverished Britain – where wartime rationing wasn’t fully ended until 1954 – had a prime seat at the table fashioning the world’s postwar financial structure. The 1944 Bretton Woods conference was largely an Anglo-American affair, of which the aforementioned Lord John Maynard Keynes was a prominent architect along with Harry Dexter White, Special Assistant to the US Secretary of the Treasury and Soviet agent.

American and British agendas also dovetailed in the Middle East. While the US didn’t have much of a presence in the region before the 1945 meeting between US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi King ibn Saud, founder of the third and current (and hopefully last) Saudi state – and didn’t assume a dominant role until the humiliation inflicted on Britain, France, and Israel by President Dwight Eisenhower during the 1956 Suez Crisis – London has long considered much of the region within its sphere of influence. After World War I under the Sykes-Picot agreement with France, the UK had expanded her holdings on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, including taking a decisive role in consolidating Saudi Arabia under ibn Saud. While in the 1950s the US largely stepped into Britain’s role managing the “East of Suez,” the former suzerain was by no means dealt out. The UK was a founding member with the US of the now-defunct Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1955.

CENTO – like NATO and their one-time eastern counterpart, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) – was designed as a counter to the USSR. But in the case of Britain, the history of hostility to Russia under tsar or commissar alike has much deeper and longer roots, going back at least to the Crimean War in the 1850s. The reasons for the longstanding British vendetta against Russia are not entirely clear and seem to have disparate roots: the desire to ensure that no one power is dominant on the European mainland (directed first against France, then Russia, then Germany, then the USSR and again Russia); maintaining supremacy on the seas by denying Russia warm-waters ports, above all the Dardanelles; and making sure territories of a dissolving Ottoman empire would be taken under the wing of London, not Saint Petersburg. As described by Andrew Lambert, professor of naval history at King’s College London, the Crimean War still echoes today:

“In the 1840s, 1850s, Britain and America are not the chief rivals; it’s Britain and Russia. Britain and Russia are rivals for world power, and Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which is much larger than modern Turkey — it includes modern Romania, Bulgaria, parts of Serbia, and also Egypt and Arabia — is a declining empire. But it’s the bulwark between Russia, which is advancing south and west, and Britain, which is advancing east and is looking to open its connections up through the Mediterranean into its empire in India and the Pacific. And it’s really about who is running Turkey. Is it going to be a Russian satellite, a bit like the Eastern Bloc was in the Cold War, or is it going to be a British satellite, really run by British capital, a market for British goods? And the Crimean War is going to be the fulcrum for this cold war to actually go hot for a couple of years, and Sevastopol is going to be the fulcrum for that fighting.”

Control of the Middle East – and opposing the Russians – became a British obsession, first to sustain the lifeline to India, the Jewel in the Crown of the empire, then for control of petroleum, the life’s blood of modern economies. In the context of the 19th and early 20th century Great Game of empire, that was understandable. Much later, similar considerations might even support Jimmy Carter’s taking up much the same position, declaring in 1980 that “outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” The USSR was then a superpower and we were dependent on energy from the Gulf region.

But what’s our reason for maintaining that posture almost four decades later when the Soviet Union is gone and the US doesn’t need Middle Eastern oil? There are no reasonable national interests, only corporate interests and those of the Arab monarchies we laughably claim as allies. Add to that the bureaucracies and habits of mind that link the US and UK establishments, including their intelligence and financial components.

In view of all the foregoing, what then would policymakers in the United Kingdom think about an aspirant to the American presidency who not only disparages the value of existing alliances – without which Britain is a bit player – but openly pledges to improve relations with Moscow? To what lengths would they go to stop him?

Say ‘hello’ to Russiagate!

One can argue whether or not the phony claim of the Trump campaign’s “collusion” with Moscow was hatched in London or whether the British just lent some “hands across the water” to an effort concocted by the Democratic National Committee, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and their collaborators at Fusion GPS and inside the Obama administration. Either way, it’s clear that while evidence of Russian connection is nonexistent that of British agencies is unmistakable, as is the UK’s hand in a sustained campaign of demonization and isolation to sink any possible rapprochement between the US and Russia.

As for Russiagate itself, just try to find anyone involved who’s actually Russian. The only basis for the widespread assumption that any material in the Dirty Dossier that underlies the whole operationoriginated with Russia is the claim of Christopher Steele, the British “ex” spy who wrote it, evidently in collaboration with people at the US State Department and Fusion GPS. (The notion that Steele, who hadn’t been in Russia for years, would have Kremlin personal contacts is absurd. How chummy are the heads of the American section of Chinese or Russian intelligence with White House staff?)

While there are no obvious Russians in Russiagate, there’s no shortage of Brits. These include (details at the link):

  • Stefan Halper, a dual US-UK citizen.
  • Ex-MI6 Director Richard Dearlove.
  • Alexander Downer, Australian diplomat (well, not British but remember the Five Eyes!).
  • Joseph Mifsud, Maltese academic and suspected British agent.

At present, the full role played by those listed above is not known. Release of unredacted FISA warrant requests by the Justice Department, which President Trump ordered weeks ago, would shed light on a number of details. Implementation of that order was derailed after a request by – no surprise – British Prime Minister Theresa May. Was she seeking to conceal Russian perfidy, or her own underlings’?

It would be bad enough if Russiagate were the sum of British meddling in American affairs with the aim of torpedoing relations with Moscow. (And to be fair, it wasn’t just the UK and Australia. Also implicated are Estonia, Israel, and Ukraine.) But there is also reason to suspect the same motive in false accusations against Russia with respect to the supposed Novichok poisonings in England has a connection to Russiagate via a business associate of Steele’s, one Pablo MillerSergei Skripal’s MI6 recruiter. (So if it turns out there is any Russian connection to the dossier, it could be from Skripal or another dubious expat source, not from the Russian government.) Skripal and his daughter Yulia have disappeared in British custody. Moscow flatly accuses MI6 of poisoning them as a false flag to blame it on Russia.

A similar pattern can be seen with claims of chemical weapons use in Syria: “We have irrefutable evidence that the special services of a state which is in the forefront of the Russophobic campaign had a hand in the staging” of a faked chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018. Ambassador Aleksandr Yakovenko pointed to the so-called White Helmets, which is closely associated with al-Qaeda elements and considered by some their PR arm: “I am naming them because they have done things like this before. They are famous for staging attacks in Syria and they receive UK money.” Moscow warned for weeks before the now-postponed Syrian government offensive in Idlib that the same ruse was being prepared again with direct British intelligence involvement, even having prepared in advance a video showing victims of an attack that had not yet occurred.

The campaign to demonize Russia shifted into high gear recently with the UK, together with the US and the Netherlands, accusing Russian military intelligence of a smorgasbord of cyberattacks against the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and other sports organizations, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH-17 over Ukraine, and a Swiss lab involved with the Skripal case, plus assorted election interference. In case anyone didn’t get the point, British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson declared: “This is not the actions of a great power. This is the actions of a pariah state, and we will continue working with allies to isolate them.”

To the extent that the goal of Williamson and his ilk is to ensure isolation and further threats against Russia, it’s been a smashing success. More sanctions are on the way. The UK is sending additional troops to the Arctic to counter Russian “aggression.” The US threatens to use naval power to block Russian energy exports and to strike Russian weapons disputed under a treaty governing intermediate range nuclear forces. What could possibly go wrong?

In sum, we are seeing a massive, coordinated hybrid campaign of psy-ops and political warfare conducted not by Russia but against Russia, concocted by the UK and its Deep State collaborators in the United States. But it’s not only aimed at Russia, it’s an attack on the United States by the government of a foreign country that’s supposed to be one of our closest allies, a country with which we share many venerable traditions of language, law, and culture.

But for far too long, largely for reasons of historical inertia and elite corruption, we’ve allowed that government to exercise undue influence on our global policies in a manner not conducive to our own national interests. Now that government, employing every foul deception that earned it the moniker Perfidious Albion, seeks to embroil us in a quarrel with the only country on the planet that can destroy us if things get out of control.

This must stop. A thorough reappraisal of our “special relationship” with the United Kingdom and exposure of its activities to the detriment of the US is imperative.

James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nov 28, 2018 9:02 PM

This is the least of our worries.
Looks like we’re on the verge of war, from today’s (28/11/2018) ukcolumnnews:

Led by Dr Stangeloves like Edward Lucas and Jens Stoltenberg, May has agreed “Plan four 30s”- 30 troop battalions, 30 aircraft squadrons, 30 naval ships, within 30 hours – together with the US and the EU, to take on Russia over Kiev’s assault on the Kerch Strait.
ukcolumnnews confirms it can be activated in 48 hours.

Yet there is no discussion in Parliament.

MPs are being kept out of the loop and Parliament suborned.

We rely on Parliament to control the armed forces, not the other way around.

It seems neither the UK nor the US is on a leash. They are both mad dogs – out of control.

Nov 30, 2018 2:07 AM
Reply to  Einstein

Have we (the UK) even got that many active service ships, squadrons and soldiers available to be deployed at 30 hours notice? I would be extremely surprised.

Nov 27, 2018 7:26 PM

The British “Institute of Statecraft” and its “Integrity Initiative” (MI6 for short) are the British deep state and use the Fed and CIA to further their Anglo-Zionist world banksterism. They made the mistake of betting on Hilary and tried to “assist” with the Skripal-Steele-Mueller fiasco.
Trump hasn’t forgotten this and threatens to order release of the papers which would expose the Mueller “investigation” as an MI6 operation – which would mean Theresa May would go down the tubes. The loss of this convenient puppet would be a blow to MI6’s plans so they’ve asked the Fed to hike interest rates and warn Trump they’ll drown him in a recession if he releases the papers.

Nov 27, 2018 6:20 PM

I believe that the UK deep state has billions if not trillions sent to offshore tax havens, which have then been invested throughout the world making the UK extremely powerful. Some of the funds have been acquired through all kinds of frauds operated by their intelligence services within the country and abroad.

Nov 27, 2018 7:29 PM
Reply to  thorella

In case the reader forgets ‘Uk’ here is a shorthand term for certain interests based in or associated with British corporations and institutions.
It gets harder to talk about specifically – for the web of influences is not all obviously visible, and the very nature of politics or indeed toe human imagination is such as to muddy the water with every kind of partial, erroneous or false information.

The infotainment of narratives that take or become dominant may be very much influenced by the blind spots of the current time, including a sense of a right to identify in blanket judgements that suit us.

There is information that suggests that British elitists decided to persist undue international influence at the end of the Empire through soft means – such as law, finance, and capture of key points of influence to establish networks of control that left the peoples of such places under an apparent independence.
Whether these British elitists were themselves captured assets is the conundrum of how deep one digs. Many operate in the outer circles of such agenda with good intentions and a sense of serving a worthy goal. Everything runs on a need to know basis with insider information kept from public account by a range of applied incentives.

In a biography of Nikola Tesla it was mentioned in passing that The Rothschild Bank bailed out the US just before the 20th C began – but operated through JP Morgan as a front so as to avoid anti-Semitic reaction. Morgan himself operated an extensive and often hidden influence. And the networks of such influence were ‘insider dealings’ of common interests. Power is in some sense like lightning. Its path is also from the ground up – and once the circuit is established the discharge can effect multiple times along an already established path

“The year 1895 was a peculiar one. The U.S. government was nearing bankruptcy. In the Panic of 1893 bondholders had wished to secure gold instead of paper money, and the mint had made good by depleting its reserves. By January 1895 the United States was within days of being unable to meet its debts. Quietly, President Cleveland had asked August Belmont, a wealthy Jewish businessman (and backer of the Westinghouse Company), to meet with the European Rothschilds to secure replacement gold reserves. The reality of the day, however, included an unfortunate worldwide wave of anti-Semitism. Only the year before, in a famous trial in France, the Jewish captain Alfred Dreyfus had been convicted on a “trumped up charge of treason.” The Rothschilds were Jewish. How would it look to have Jewish financiers bail out an entire nation? It was for this reason, according to Morgan biographer George Wheeler, that J. Pierpont Morgan, an upstanding Episcopalian, was brought into the picture. Morgan, with Belmont’s help, was able to secure $60 million in foreign gold reserves, and the country was saved from insolvency. The incident also marked the anointment of Morgan as King of Wall Street.”

Excerpt From: Marc Seifer. “Wizard.”

Nov 30, 2018 2:23 AM
Reply to  binra

I have not yet been fully convinced that “The Rothschilds were Jewish.”

The name appears to have derived from one of their original european building/offices which was identified by a red shield as a motif. As to the ‘family’ that took on that name, a clearer history would be welcome.

It is despicable how some of the global robber barons hide behind a fig leaf of ‘Jew’ to claim victim status. They had no interest in the religion or most of its followers – mostly poor as anyone else.

The facts of the banksters that you identify on the other hand are fully proved. Including how the privately owned Fed came into existence – there were some proxy midwestern banks supported by the big one to lend authenticity to multiple governors.

Nov 30, 2018 10:13 AM
Reply to  DunGroanin

One of the traps I see is of presuming that those who use ‘identity’ politics represent such and identity rather than cultivate and manipulate it.
Those who ostensibly claim to represent or protect us may use any and every appeal to sympathy or threat to induce compliance or at least undermine active dissent. Plausible deniability is ‘doubt’ and the sowing of doubts is the basis through which to ring the bull.

People are humans being – whether they are currently compassionately humane or anti-human.
While both are within us, the latter is by far the dominant, but contained or held in check by mores, rules and laws that limit or inhibit the expression of hate without addressing or undoing the causes of hate.
While the many embody or are conditioned to obey such rules as a core social norm even if their identity expression exaggerates overt differentiations, the few see them only as a framework of appetites and fears by which to be manipulated.

Power by deceit is not specific to Jewish people, but for a variety of historical reasons, the quota of cleverness in Jewish people is significantly higher along with the ‘can do’ or indeed ‘chutzpa’. Perhaps in part because of marrying the daughters of the rich to the sons of the Rabbi over two millennia.

‘Jewish’ identity itself is a minefield. Gilad Atzmon’s The Wandering Jew makes many worthy points. The origins of the East European Jewry stretch back to a Khazarian Empire that was attacked and destroyed by both its neighbours. The then ‘Holy Roman Empire’ and the ‘Holy Russian Empire’. My sense of Family Constellations is that that still fuels vengeance down the generations regardless the earlier patterns are covered with later reiterations of deep racial enmities.

The fear of being singled out and killed for being ‘different’ is not unique to Jews, (being a key element in the human condition) but it is uniquely cultivated as a means of holding a diaspora of otherwise extremely diverse and independent peoples in that identity as one that turns to its leaders for protection and offers then support or at least refrains from active opposition. ‘Unifying’ AGAINST is characteristic doublethink of the power by deceit – and the way to protect the hate and division under guise of a special ‘love’ of mutual reinforcing identity that joins only to protect separative specialness.

I often quote that fear is a self-fulfilling prophesy – when kept hidden, protected and allowed to run in the unwatched mind. The pursuing of self interest is absolutely necessary for any continuity of identity and experience, but the nature of what is identified ‘self’ varies from the compassionately humane to an anti-human hate – and is confused by the masking or hiding of the hate in forms of special ‘love’, claimed victimhood in appeal for sympathy and right of vengeance, and ability to propagate such division in others to manipulative advantage while holding a discipline that can operate compartmentalized contradictions without inducing self-doubt.

Again in articulating this is a picture that anyone can use to reflect their own consciousness, but in most the hate is specifically and temporarily triggered and then has no context to hold, giving way to guilt, anxiety and depression. In those who have had to find it, hate and fear in distrust have become the very means of survival, and remain hidden but activate in any triggering condition.

So I tried to articulate something of why we generally cannot articulate ‘Jewish’ identity – unless of course we are Jewish and speaking together. (I am not – as far as I am aware of Jewish descent). But what I find is that I am looking at my own mind. So the ‘Jewish problem’ is not Jewish at core, but my own relational integrity or self-honesty amidst a world that can and does trigger reaction by which I am then deceived.

What I do not desire in myself is the willingness to engage in an ‘arms race’ of deceit, but simply to withdraw allegiance or investment from it where I notice it in myself and bring active curiosity as to why I resist or persist in what isn’t true rather than release it for a true freedom of being. In other words I accept the journey of a willingness to be undone of self-deceits that uncovered are seen as self-hates. But who hates who within YOU? Doublethink is holding two apparently opposing polarities in the mind and shifting extremely quickly in thought between them as if to play the division as real and co-opt or use others to support it.

Our relationship with hate is being brought into the open, but being hateful, triggers every kind of wish to get rid of it, lid it over or escape it by dissociation. We are not so loving as we think – but nor are we what we think in hate. Thinking itself becomes the object of a witnessing awareness instead of the filtered and distorted ‘news’ narrative.

Dec 1, 2018 8:14 PM
Reply to  binra

B, you make a grand point thanks.
I fail anyone for logic that tends to equate a religious belief with a ‘race’ or ethnicity.

Most religions have ‘ethnic’ variations. Hindu and Budhist being as clear as some Christian/Muslim and jewish variants.

I have no problem with that – or that they end up representing sime specialist function in civilisation. Priests will beget priest, just as doctors, accountants, lawyers..carpenters, teachers etc – it’s a family affair traditionally, especially when it took a lifetime of learning, it was best done at your mother and fathers feet.

As such there is absolutely nothing wrong in any sect being proficient and occupying the majority in certain professions.

The zionist project on the other hand is a longstanding plan within the aristocratic warmongering global robber banker class (who of course are also in constant turmoil to be KingRat).

But if we can see their great efforts, intellectual ones, to divide and conquer and see their apparatus and apparatchiks from history to the current day. We can believe without doubt that they plan decades ahead!

The system of world government that they operate on the planet has a name, apologies if you already are aware, but for any reading this it is a

It is peopled and run by PSYCHOPATHS.

They are recruited at an early age by being identified by their psychopathic tendencies and then hot-housed and nurtured to provide a service to the Pathocracy, serving as the ‘faces’ of their tyrannic institutions.
Rhodes was one, JP Morgan etc most rulers were including many US senior staff, Clintons, Blairs…

It is behind such great towers of power that any self protection from them is turned into a ‘wolf’ cry of AS or ‘is it cause i is jewish?’

The French are on the march again, as I predicted, when the Psychopath ingenue, Macron, was annointed the new empror in waiting of a EU deprived of its grandest aik of closer economic unity and security – as soon as Merkel was ousted – whoops summat went wrong there!
The Brits don’t do the full French, but if a general strike is required, we will march! The rise of the Labour party membership is a clear and unstoppable as the french gillets jaune.

Viva la revolucion

King Kong
King Kong
Nov 27, 2018 6:16 PM

Britain will blunder into some idiocy sooner or later. Some fatal idiocy that is, it blunders all the time. At one point the US will be so retarded and degenerate, that it collapses of idiocy, if it does not collapse in fiscal ruin before that, and then the leash and collar will be tight around the the neck. Unless it ires the Russians the Russians too much.
Britain needs to remember it is hardly indispensible, on the outskirts of Europe, a rainy corner it is, full of thin ale ale and awfull food. The East Europeans working there needs Britain, the rest of us do not.
It would be nicer if Britain were near the Falklands or some other remote, forsaken place.

Nov 27, 2018 10:58 PM
Reply to  King Kong

You cheeky sod. There’s nothing wrong with our food. Or our beer. And we enjoyed/suffered a heatwave this summer.

Nov 27, 2018 4:00 PM

The British obsession with Russia began in the 18thC with Catherine the Greats conquests in the South, including taking the Crimea from the Ottoman Tartars In 1783. But the big impact came with Napleon’s defeat in 1812 and when Russian troops were bedded on Parisian streets in 1815. The British felt vulnerable to this growing power and had wild paranoid ideas that Russia was after India, Britain’s prize possession and cash cow. It has been unrelenting ever since although it’s ironic in both major wars of recent times Russia has been Britain’s ally. Nothing much changes; Palmerston was a great advocate of funding and arming Jihadists in the Muslim areas of S Russia as the most effective way of ‘pushing back’. It was a Christian demand that he stop it because the Jihadis massacred all Christians, not just Russian ones. An old lesson learnt long ago and now long forgotten.

King Kong
King Kong
Nov 27, 2018 6:17 PM
Reply to  Paul

Airstrip one cant be sunk, but I bet you it can glow in the dark.

Nov 27, 2018 3:50 PM

I tried to post this on the Telegraph’s comments on the Brexit debate:

“Looks like the shit is about to hit the fan today, with Mueller’s “investigation” exposed as a British “Intrigue Initiative” by MI6.
Then May will be toast, whatever happens over Brexit.”

It never appeared. Not even a ‘comment deleted’ note. No one would ever know it had been posted.

This is sad and ominous since the Telegraph is the last place in the MSM that allows free comment on the issues of the day. The Grauniad and “Independent” only allow comment on such as lipstick or holidays.
ukcolumnnews has reported Anonymous and Wikileaks’ exposure of the Integrity Initiative and its parent The Institute for Statecraft. These organizations have seriously interfered in many western as well as other countries’ politics – all funded by the taxpayer and so, of public interest.

Nov 27, 2018 3:47 PM

The UK has very little it can offer the Imperial throne in Washington; near bankrupt with an aircraft carrier with no planes and all of 800 soldiers on the Russian border to repel invasion (!) it soon won’t have any natural allies in Europe. The only thing the Brits have is a flair for propaganda and powerful media that tows the line and megaphones the narrative. Constant denigration of Russia and China bolsters the US case and indeed the UK leads the propaganda war, as was the case with the bump in Kerch. Presumably the Brits are terrified about what happens when Trump turns on them for being the real interferers. He’ll probably wait for the trade treaty before getting nasty.

Nov 27, 2018 11:02 PM
Reply to  Paul

I think you mean the British ruling class. The people of the United Kingdom think differently.

Nov 28, 2018 3:36 AM
Reply to  John2o2o

That’s always worth a mention, John2020. The USA, too, consists of actual people, whose ruling class has nothing in common with them, as well as being way out of its depth when it comes to intelligence tests.

Nov 27, 2018 2:27 PM

The last time Britain tried to take the lead / lash was the 1956 Suez crisis. President Eisenhower pulled the bull dog (and Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Franco-British-Israeli_war_plan) to order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis#Financial_pressure

So not the English deep state, nor the “Zionists” (nor the French deep state) ruled in 1956, but President Eisenhower – about the last non deep state US president.

Nov 27, 2018 6:14 PM
Reply to  Antonym

At that time, the Zionist Regime had not yet gained a complete and total stranglehold over the politics, media and economy of the US – unlike now. If 1956 happened again today, Trump or whatever other goy satrap was occupying the White House, would simply be ordered by AIPAC and Adelson to fall into line and support Zionist aggression and that of its French and British criminal accomplices.

Nov 27, 2018 7:12 PM
Reply to  mark

Mind you the Dulles brothers were steering Eisenhower and they saw an opportunity to knock the defunct criminal old Imperialists off their perches. America First!

Badger Down
Badger Down
Nov 27, 2018 1:34 PM

Both the US and UK are at the dog-end of the leash.
Acting human stands Benjamin Mileikowski and his terrorist gang.
US congress bows to his will. In the UK, both Labour and Conservative are controlled.

Nov 27, 2018 1:08 PM

[Uncle $cam holds the leash that leads the British Bulldog. But who holds the leash around Uncle’s neck? Below is the argument that points to Great Britain’s very own “Dear Lord Rothschild”. But it is only a clip from a much longer argument that questions Mullins’s argument: ]


“Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, _mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty._ Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

‘… _The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild._ The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).

Unfortunately, Mullins’ source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. _It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders._

[Vexarb, coming from a science background, is astonished that the Fed bank controlling the finance of the U$A is not required to publish a list of its major shareholders. A scientific journal which did not require its contributors to publish their names and the details of their procedures would not be of much benefit to the science community. Perhaps the U$ Fed and the Bank of England are not intended to be of benefit to the communities or commonwealth of the US or GB, but only to the shareholders of the U$ Fed or the Bank(s) of England?]

Nov 29, 2018 10:02 PM
Reply to  vexarb

The Fed doesn’t have any shareholders. That ‘stock’ is lodged capital. It cannot be traded and is determined by the relative size of the bank. The amount of the required lodgement csrries no privilege or rights over any other member.

You’re peddling myths.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Nov 27, 2018 12:37 PM

All this for full spectrum dominance…. And believe me, the ABC, plus SBS here in Australia are right on board with this massive pysops to demonise Putin and Russia. Just keep provoking and goading and threatening, and where does all this lead too? What is the Final outcome? The Kerch Strait incident a couple days ago yet another reminder of how dangerous this situation has become. And except for people here, and at other alternative news sites, most of the World is completely oblivious.

Nov 27, 2018 1:19 PM
Reply to  Gezzah Potts

If it is considered that an active denial of life operates the fantasy of dominating or defying it, then the actual agenda IS destruction of life, and of destruction itself having the final say.
But it doesn’t seem to be so within the engagement of struggle under the framework the fantasy sets up.

Power given to fantasy is the wish that something true be denied acceptance by the forceful wish that something be true that isn’t. This is a chicken and egg situation. The mind splits as the denial and the masking over that protects it…. yet suffers it as true.

I write this calmly but the psychic-emotional charge of such a hatred is given it by denial – and victimises as denial. Fear shuts down communication to ‘stop’ the experience – but the experience is only lidded over and not really gone away.

The wish that is has gone away and is forgot means that when we meet it in our relationships and our world we don’t recognize our part in such a perception, but actively and forcefully want or indeed need to see the hater, denier and threat in the other – as the means to escape the re-living of a conflict that our whole psyche is mobilised against. Our whole sense of life and world depends on denying.

And so our whole sense of life and world is denied by a need to protect and feed unconsciousness under the very deeply conditioned belief that this is power and protection.

This belief given to symbols of power and protection usurps the mind of its true function by assigning itself the function of controlling or replacing life. A task that it cannot possibly fulfil. But it can die trying, and often does.

I am sketching an insanity – arising from relational breakdown of communication – not from a lack of ‘medication’. That’s another vector of denial and ‘control’.

Nov 27, 2018 11:59 AM

The Money is panicked – their grand Middle Easter escapade is mired They have opened a new front eyeball to eyeball with Vlad, using the expendable Ukes. What exactly did Pompeo agree with them a week before the latest provocation – here is a video of the sailors saying they had orders to ignore the Russian Navy.

All straight forward and just another special relationship. Don’t cry Trezza.

From a commentator on that article:

‘On November 16, the US State Department/CIA met with the Ukrainian State Department representative, and from that meeting they agreed that it should be the objective of both sides to bring about conditions that would justify a United Nations international military force being put on the border of Russia and used to fight against pro-Russian forces to take back Donetsk, to take back Crimea, and all Donbass area that revolted after the CIA puppet government was installed. ‘
A summary of the meeting Pompeo had with the Ukrainians.

Nov 27, 2018 11:35 AM

The article conflates ‘the UK’ with Britons’ interests. That’s naive, misleading and wrong.

Nov 27, 2018 11:31 AM

Corrupted and corrupting influences hollow out and take over institutions such that institutions become masked proxies for private agenda. This leaves a popular mind or mainstream view of life thai is not only outdated but false. The personalisation of purpose is a puppetry played over what is actually going on.
So narratives about ‘Britain’ and the ‘USA’ can only serve to keep hidden agenda – hidden.

Competing self interest operates the strategies and deceits of the will to power, including the alliance with or alignment under dominant power while it serves self interest.

The consolidation of the ‘power class’ in a shrinking world of global technological reach, is like organised crime running a Jekyll and Hyde – where the hidden agenda of the predator hides in the doctored narrative. ‘That’s the way it works’ but more accurately, that’s the way we collectively work and are worked.

The split mind is a mind divided against itself – but acted out in the world.

AS to ‘who controls who?’ – the nature of deceitful and coercive manipulation is to forgo an appreciation of the recognition of another in shared worth, for a sense of lack-driven need to see the ‘other’ in terms of what can be got from them, or what they can be used for, or what threat they represent. And yet this sense of lack is hidden – not least by cultivating and insinuating it onto others and subjugating overtly or covertly by feeding dependency.

All of which becomes a system of loveless and therefore blind ‘control’ by which to suck out the health and wealth of anything that lives as the fuel or fix for a fantasy of vengeance over life – for the split from life is the nature of the attempt to control life. It isn’t life, but an exchange of ‘world’ for Soul. The Human Conditioning.

Soul hasn’t a translation in terms of such a ‘world’ because it is created whole in all its parts, and yet there is a translation of such a ‘world’ back to a Soul appreciation – because truth cannot be truly lost, but only covered over.

The successful replacement of truth with illusion is that of replacing life with death – regardless the forms it takes. And so we sacrifice to such a god over and over again, for getting and mis taking this for life.

Give as you would receive – because you do. That is the way Mind works – its function, its nature.
A secret and hateful sense of self cannot receive what its own convictions invalidate and so it takes for itself alone while ‘giving’ only to get – or to get rid of the hateful by giving it in judgement that it thinks to have escaped.

The idea that evil serves the Good unknowing, is the idea that all things serve true purpose – and aligning in unified purpose undoes or heals the ‘split mind’ regardless the outer circumstance. Because situation and circumstance do not dictate the purpose you are holding true, and so you ARE the power to give meaning to your experience. But the way to have a true inherence restored, is to NOT use the illusion of power as the basis from which to think, speak or act – but abide through it to the recognition that is spontaneously and freely given you, for the capacity to give (live and act) in like kind.

As for the World Stage… does the play not reflect back all the meanings we each and together give it?
What are the meanings we give but the old and tired archetypes of our ‘separation trauma’ played out again and yet again as if new and compelling? Or is the world itself seen differently under a different purpose than saving our ‘separateness’?

The will to truly know, is the willingness to accept the conditions in which knowing is obvious.
Rather than a sense of lack seeking to fill itself with ‘discovering’ everything in a framework of control setting the conditions in which knowing anything is ruled out. Or is that a framing in subjection? Puppet governance works by selling the illusion of power or freedom in exchange for self-betrayal. This ‘choice’ is not irrevocable, so much as the trick by which illusion seems to hold power over true – in your mind – in place of your mind! Isn’t that a profoundly liberating thing to notice?

Money and thought are both currency of exchange – but that does not make them true. ‘Post truth’ mechanism says it doesn’t matter because it works as a means to effect outcomes. The hollow outcomes suck in ever more lies to cover the ugliness of self-betrayal. The idea that the lie can be controlled is of course, a lie. It takes what you give it to use to take more.

Nov 27, 2018 10:57 AM

I’m not surprised that there have been periods when Britain was holding the leash and other times when the US was holding the leash; and moreover those times overlapping so that when the British thought they were in control of the US, the US also thought the same about the British, and both sides were right.

During the 19th century, British investment helped build railways across the US and establish cattle ranches in both North and South America (and by doing so, indirectly fund the genocide of native Americans and the theft of their lands). The British are known to have assisted the Confederate side during the US Civil War in the hope of splitting the United States into two weaker nations.

In WW1, the German attack on the RMS Lusitania, resulting in nearly 1,200 dead (of whom 128 were American), was one factor that pushed the US, hitherto uninterested in helping the British due to its own large Irish and German populations at the time, into the war; decades later, the British finally admitted that the ship had been carrying munitions and therefore the Germans had had reason to attack it as a naval ship.

In its early years, the CIA was modelled on MI6 and another British spy organisation, the Special Operations Executive (SOE) which officially ended in January 1946. It is likely that MI6 trained or helped train CIA agents. Both agencies apparently worked together supporting extremist Ukrainian nationalists (with MI6 supporting the fanatic Stepan Bandera and his followers) and using them to infiltrate Soviet Ukraine in the 1950s.

No surprise then to hear that the British have always sought to influence US politics and the Americans (and the lobby groups behind the US government) likewise try to influence British politics.

Nov 27, 2018 10:06 AM

You want a list of everything the US does to the detriment of the UK?

Never was more breathtaking hubris uttered by a US Deep State drone.

Nov 27, 2018 9:42 AM

Here’s the outline for the plot of my new novel

2016: Pre-Brexit Britain comes up with a “wizard wheeze” to curry favour with the soon-to-be anointed POTUS, Saint Hillary of Vagina. The Dirty Donald Dossier! Of course she won’t actually need it, but it never harms to show willing, and it can’t but help to make the post-Brexit negotiations with the USA run a little smoother…

2016: Christopher and Pablo get to work, ably fed with whatever rubbish he can concoct by good old Sergei. Isn’t Sergei great! Isn’t he just the hero of the hour! The dossier is dutifully passed to the Dems, the Feds, and all our other good pals in the US of A…

Nov 2016: Oh. Right. Well. Who saw that coming… And now Teresa is faced with the very uncomfortable prospect of sitting in front of Donald, her sphincter going like a rabbit’s nose, begging for a deal, while he drums his fingers on his copy of the dossier and tells her that the USA might be willing to give the UK a very special deal on trade in dossiers…

post-Nov 2016. Sergei is not stupid. He realises he has just morphed from the hero of the hour into a very ugly potential banana skin who knows far too much. Sergei very much does not want to end up like Gareth Williams, dying a very unpleasant death in a bag in a bathtub. Sergei begins to make ‘discrete’ enquiries about perhaps going home to the dear old motherland after all. Unfortunately, Sergei has no secure communications. MI6 know exactly who he is talking to, about what, at all times.

2017: Sergei’s extensive knowledge of The Dirty Donald Dossier and circumstances surrounding could be very useful indeed to Mr Bad Vlad. Sergei’s overtures elicit a positive response. A series of discussions take place… MI6 lays its plans…

March 2018: Boris and Nikolai arrive in the UK to progress matters and make their way to Salisbury. They meet for talks with Sergei (and Yulia…). The talks take place between 13:00 and 13:40, at the very point where for some reason there is a 40-minute ‘gap’ in the clear-as-day photographic record of their visit – coincidentally, a point in time at which they just happened to be a couple of minute’s walk from where Sergei (yes, the man they have ‘just poisoned’) is known to have been, Yes, he’s right there. At that very same moment…

Concurrently: MI6 springs its trap. The ‘Novichok on the door handle’. Sergei and Yulia ‘poisoned’ and disappeared. Other peripheral figures appearing and disappearing. The whole story is a transparent farrago of implausible lies, but it doesn’t matter because there is a perfect storm and all the UK media are obediently in line. The right-wing hate Putin because they hate Russia. It’s what they do. The ‘progressives’ hate Putin because he and he alone caused their beloved Saint Hillary of Vagina to lose the election, and they are consumed by an eternal and impotent fury about this and will never forgive him. They hates the Putin, my precious. They hates him for ever…

post-March 2018: It all works a treat. Carefully-selected ‘evidence’ is fed to the UK’s allies. Carefully-selected ‘evidence’ is dribbled out to the public through the media. The story becomes ever more implausible, the contradictions and inconsistencies ever more obvious but it doesn’t matter because everybody that matters is obediently parroting it…

June 2018: New victims would be handy to move the storyline along. Who is dispensable in the overall scheme of things? Jakeys and junkies. Who rake through charity bins? Jakeys and junkies. So let’s plant something unpleasant in a charity bin and let some jakeys and junkies find it. Bloody hell these jakeys and junkies are slow on the uptake. We had to ‘seed’ that bloody charity bin three or four times before Charlie eventually took the bait…

September 2018: Boris and Nikolai have their hand forced. They have no choice but to give a TV interview explaining their presence in Salisbury. They cannot say what they were actually doing. So their version of events is as lame and implausible as MI6’s…

November 2018: Everything has gone swimmingly. Sergei and Yulia have disappeared off the face of the earth, and nobody cares! There are sanctions and threats and lots of great stuff, and even the prospects of a hot war between Russia and Ukraine! And everybody love s it! The lickspittles at the BBC produce a ‘documentary’ that shamelessly contradicts previous versions of the story, as well as being laughably inconsistent and implausible. But who cares! It’s fantastic…

November 2018: Except for that bloody dossier. That bloody Dirty Donald Dossier. Because Donald is still digging around the Dirty Donald Dossier. And if he manages to spill the beans, it could leave a lot of egg on a lot of faces. Dammit. Why did we have to get that moron Steele and that half-wit Pablo and that liar Sergei to create that Dirty Donald Dossier? And most of all, why the hell did that complete idiot Saint Hillary of Vagina have to lose an election to the second-worst candidate in American electoral history…

Nov 27, 2018 3:37 PM
Reply to  Stonky

Steele had permission from Dearlove to write his dossier based on his knowledge of Russia after heading MI6’s Russia Desk, a senior post. If he hadn’t have got permission he would have been in the same position as Peter Wright when he dared to publish Spy Catcher. In normal times Dearlove may have sought the OK from Government to interfere so blatantly in the US election. As Steele told the US media he would ‘do anything’ to stop Trump winning. The realities of having one of the weakest governments ever means Dearlove didn’t bother; after all the Spooks are really in charge.

Nov 28, 2018 1:38 PM
Reply to  Stonky

Makes as much sense as any of the other stories we’ve heard.

Nov 28, 2018 4:03 PM
Reply to  RealPeter

Plans don’t always … go to plan, except of course with hindsight. Which can also be ‘fronting out’ a sense of being in control after the fact so as not to ‘lose face’ in a world taken at face rather than fact value.

Was Brexit a plan of intended outcomes that the supposedly hapless Cameron flicked the switch for as the fronting out of a political strategy that may or may not have had ANYTHING to do with the interests of the people of Britain or could be intended as strategy against them in the consolidation of power and wealth transfer from people to ‘power’ factions of highly funded and motivated networks of private self-interest. Puppet governance of selected, bought or captured leaders is not only applicable to the so called developing world. (where fake governance serves foreign agenda as its personal allegiance).

It was timed in the context of the emotionally charged conditions of migrant fears that the media inflamed as a call for sympathy – that under-toned guilt if you didn’t ‘do the right thing’ – while intensive imagery of floods of people ‘coming our way’ followed by running both migrant sexual crime stories. along with terrorists sneaking in.
(My points here are not on the human struggles or suffering, but what the media arm of the establishment USED it for).

The term ‘Brexit’ is itself a media-coined and universally adopted phrase that suggests a breakfast cereal rather than a matter of grave national significance.

The setting up of the debate was largely sterile and managed to essentially to install the polarising framing of populism as the new ‘face’ for enacting the destabilisation of the EU at a critical juncture as well as the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This in the context of holding a special vassal status under US face of global dominance into the EU (and beyond). Whether the City of London is legally within the UK or not I don’t currently know, but There are levels of influence that show very little ‘face’.

I ducked up “Is the City of London is legally within the UK” and got some interesting results;
get a whiff of this:

The tax haven in the heart of Britain – New Statesman
The bill concerned the City of London Corporation, the local-government authority for the 1.2-square-mile slab of prime real estate in central London that is the City of London. The corporation is an ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state; a “prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world …
Search domain http://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-cityhttps://www.newstatesman.com/economy/2011/02/london-corporation-city

‘Mysteries’ are appealed to when a clearer expression of truth is considered dangerous to one’s life, career or reputation. Mysteries are used to conceal the fact behind a facade as a way to NOT know what we know – or persist in an action without apparent causal responsibility or in modern spin ‘plausible deniability’.

Cameron had special talks/negotiations with EU immediately before calling brexit in which I understand the City of London had hedged its bets to remain outside certain EU regulatory conditions whatever the outcome of the vote.

As a personal note, I see an apparently cooperative globalism masking over a domination or control agenda under hidden and unaccountably wielded bureaucratic and indeed technocratic instruments of war or subjection upon human consciousness or indeed sovereignty as the true nature of our human will. The value of which is held within traditional inheritance along with the seductions or corruptions of the will to usurpation.

And so a ‘face’ of state given ‘rights’ substitutes for any means of effecting social justice fronts out a global social engineering project spanning generations and transcending traditional ‘identities’- which become narrative identity manipulations according to their application. My sense of the EU is that – excepting within its own imposed ‘rights system’ there is no legal mechanism to change the law where it is unjust and illegitimate to the purpose of law.
In theory, the UK parliament as legal power within a Sovereign Realm – CAN debate the concerns of its people and effect changes. The EU ‘parliament’ CANNOT.

The ‘so called ‘trade deals’ (Another meme of diversionary sleight of mind) effectively transfer power (and therefore wealth) to the corporate sector. We might see this loss of power as a ‘done deal’ in any case within the corporate capture of overwhelming influence over social institutions. Market share is ‘mind-capture’ and the people have been branded and incentivised accordingly.

And so regardless of a choice between outer forms of state-corporate-technocratic ‘Caesars’ I aligned as an expression of freedom for life and not against polarised shadows of the same state of conformed and incentivised mechanism – with a ‘face value’ that can be ‘lived out’ as directed – or as withheld.

In EVERY mind-capture, is the framing of the mind set to exclude freedom by inducement to see freedom in identifying against evil – and with the narrative ‘victimhood’ or grievance that calls for penalty. This is how we give power away. This is how we leave our ‘backdoors’ open to being hacked.

The insistence upon hating and fighting the shadow is fuelled by the conviction of a denied self-hate. Can we justly blame ‘opportunistic parasites’ for growing in the conditions we generate for them to take hold and thrive? And for using our own protective defences – our own thinking – for their agenda?

The antidote for mind capture is the renewing of your mind. Grievances cherished forbid this. Polarising divisions pre-empt the possibility of any genuine relational communication. Is this a ‘failed humanity’ or is it the conditions for a qualitative shift of recognition and allegiance – as an expression OF freedom, and not the struggle within the phish of a promise of freedom?

I cannot choose for you. But I can choose for that you HAVE choice and can exercise that power in the recognition of what you are in fact choosing – rather than what you are in ‘face’ directed to ‘choose-between’.

When I first read the term fascism I inwardly read ‘face-ism’.
Etymology. The term fascism (or fascismo) derives from the word fascio, meaning bundle or league. In ancient Rome a bundle of rods, tied together, known in Latin as the fasces was a symbol of authority, representing strength through unity, the point being that whilst each independent rod was fragile, as a bundle they were strong.

Collectivism demanding sacrifice under a face of ‘unity’ is NOT a willing relational allegiance – but a negative cooperation set by and dependent upon a common enemy. The fear of which substitutes for love.

Let it all be an education.

Fair dinkum
Fair dinkum
Nov 27, 2018 9:15 AM

It’s not a ‘special relationship’ it’s an ince$$$$$$$$tous relationship.
BTW, if Blair was the ‘poodle’, that must make John Howard (the Australian PM at the time) the dog poo bag.

Michael Cromer
Michael Cromer
Nov 27, 2018 9:12 AM

Russia has technology that does not need to be delivered to any specific Country – The ‘Couch Potato’ of mass global destruction.

Nov 27, 2018 7:44 AM

2 points- UK also doesn’t have the nuclear codes now. Atlee didn’t trust the Yanks so developed the UK bomb
in secret. Now we’ve got Yank warheads, The Yanks reneged on a post-war (extension?) loan to UK cos Labour won the 45 election.
WW1 was fought by 3 cousins from linked royal families. Another reason to get rid of UK’s royals, and make sure the Romanovs don;t come bak!

Henry Wilson
Henry Wilson
Nov 27, 2018 7:34 AM

It’s a choice between U S or E U know which I prefer it’s not the E U

Nov 27, 2018 6:33 AM

An interesting viewpoint on the so called ‘special relationship’.

In the media an obsession which becomes obvious during visits by US presidents. The first question asked by a UK journalist along lines of ‘are we your best, special friend’ Mr President? Second question – ‘Really, ‘how special’? It’s absolutely pathetic.

And even if half the stuff is true about ‘Novichok’ and Syria, it shows the level of depravity our government, intelligence services and media have reached. It’s obvious the Syrian chemical attacks and incidents are false flags and fabrications (the blueprint for such episodes started in earnest in Bosnia for those old enough and watching)

Imagine that, British officials actively planning chemical attacks/fabrications on innocent Syrian people using children as propaganda to demonise Russia and Syria. Bana, the Syrian child they famously used as propaganda – how damaged is she going to feel when she gets older and it dawns on her, her tweets/diary etc were exploited by the traitors in her country and those running ours?. Celebrities like J K Rowling promoting this myth (and other half-wit celebrities funding the White Helmets) which has led to more war on innocents and a world on the brink.

And the media/’concerned celebrity’ silence following the weekend chlorine attack by Al Qaeda on Aleppo speaks volumes.

It’s absolutely shocking and shows the government and media don’t care if they start WW111 – just as long as they can blame Russia for it.

They are playing with our lives – for the UK public, most blissfully unaware. Difficult to blame them really – all so difficult to believe the people running this country can be so depraved. Having this level of criminality exposed simply is not an option for them – hence why they are pushing for war.

Gezzah Potts
Gezzah Potts
Nov 27, 2018 12:18 PM
Reply to  Loverat

Loverat: absolutely bang on the money. The media in particular are beyond contempt. They whore themselves for Empire and they keep pushing the whole Russiagate garbage more and more. Its like fecken lemmings rushing to the edge of the cliff. In the Australian media, one day its Russia bashing, the next day its China bashing. And sadly, most people here lap it up like ice cream on a warm day. Trapped in the matrix.

Nov 27, 2018 5:36 AM

Keynes was totally opposed to the final Bretton Woods architecture.
It went against the very core of his macroeconomic reasoning and desire to end warfare.