To whom was Her Majesty referring in her Christmas broadcast?
Ian Fantom
Photo by REX/Shutterstock (10040708a)
Queen Elizabeth II after she recorded her annual Christmas Day message, in the White Drawing Room of Buckingham Palace
Professor Carrol Quiqley in his now famous book The Anglo-American Establishment wrote in the book’s Preface, “The ability of Englishmen of this [Establishment] class and background to leave the obvious unstated, except perhaps in obituaries, is puzzling and sometimes irritating to an outsider”. One such example arose in the Queen’s broadcast to the nation on Christmas Day, in which she stated:
Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding.”
The BBC reported:
“Her message comes as Parliament remains divided over Theresa May’s Brexit deal, as the UK prepares to leave the EU in March”
The Guardian stated:
“With parliament deeply divided over Theresa May’s Brexit deal and military conflicts raging in parts of the world, the monarch’s words are likely to resonate with many. … The broadcast was recorded on 12 December, before Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn’s angry Commons clash in which the Labour leader was accused of calling May a ‘stupid woman’, which he denied”.
According to the Daily Mirror:
Queen ‘sends hidden message’ with carefully placed photo in her Christmas Speech”
…though they didn’t seem quite sure what the hidden message was. “Royal insiders have stressed the Queen’s words have absolutely nothing to do with her two grandsons and their wives, and many people believe it’s more likely to be a thinly veiled reference to the political fallout and Brexit”, they write.
But the general view in the Mainstream Media was as reported in The Independent:
The Queen has called for those with ‘deeply held differences’ to treat each other with respect in what some will view as a veiled reference to the toxic mood of public debate since the Brexit vote”.
Yet I’ve seen no marrauding gangs mobbing leading figures over the Brexit debate, calling them despicable names, closing down talks and presentations, disabling public debate and ruining the careers of those whose views on the EU they dislike. I’ve seen that over other issues, but not over Brexit. Nor have I heard of scuffles in pubs and other public places as rival factions go for each others’ throats, as the Mainstream Media seem to have been hinting for some time. In fact, the heated debate has been in Parliament, and at the centre of that has been Her Majesty’s Government.
The worst things that have happened there have been the removal of the mace and accusing the leader of the Opposition of mouthing “Stupid woman”. The Queen’s broadcast was to the ordinary folk, and amongst the ordinary folk the overwhelming reaction has been a further disdain of politicians, many of whom seem to be loyal to outside interests rather than the constituents whom they supposedly represent.
The point of leaving the obvious unsaid is that everyone can interpret the statement in a way that appeals to them, thus bringing about widespread consent whilst the originator of the message can distance himself, or herself, from any one of the the interpretations. So let’s start with Brexit.
Brexit
There’s a technique in marketing called ‘confusion marketing’, in which the public is given lots of choices and distractions, so that in the end no-one really knows what option to go for, but the marketeers gently guide them into what they wanted them to choose in the first place. Seen in that light, the whole of the Brexit confusion over 2018 starts to make sense. During the year we were constantly being told how horrendously complicated the whole issue was. Two successive Ministers for Brexit resigned, as they apparently were by-passed, as Prime Minister Theresa May took over the negotiations herself.
This culminated in Theresa May, putting a deal to Parliament, saying that it was the only deal that the EU would accept, and that the alternative would be walking off a cliff edge with a catastrophic no-deal Brexit. When it became clear that she would lose the vote she cancelled it and went back to the EU for ‘clarification’, asking for advice on how she should persuade Westminster MPs to vote for her proposal. She survived a no-confidence vote within her own party, leaving the warring factions in dead-lock.
The final session in Parliament really showed up what passes for democracy, when the Prime Minister started behaving as if she were in a Christmas children’s pantomime. The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, probably out of desperation, uttered some words under his breath, which became the subject of an hour-long parliamentary row. Some were insisting he had mouthed the words “Stupid woman”, whereas when he came back to the Commons to explain, he said he had mouthed the words “Stupid people”. On the 5pm BBC Radio 4 news that evening they dedicated the first 17 minutes to that crucial question, out of a one hour programme. The issue of what words Jeremy Corbyn had mouthed dominated the whole of the British mass media for 24 hours as Parliament broke up for a seventeen-day Christmas break. Since he hadn’t actually said anything, some were saying that he was being accused of an Orwellian thought crime. And while MPs were rowing over an issue of “such supreme unimportance”, as George Galloway put it on his RT programme Sputnik, a homless man was dying on Parliament’s doorstep.
The Remainers (now being called the Remoaners) keep telling us that no-one voted to be worse off, and so we should either accept Theresa May’s negotiated deal or hold a second referendum. Some of us during the referendum campaign of 2016 had expected a second referendum if the electorate voted the wrong way, because that’s how EU democracy works. Denmark voted ‘No’ to approving the Treaty of Maastrich in 1992, then ‘yes’ in 1993. Greece in 2015 voted ‘No’ to EU bail-out terms, but then they went ahead anyhow. Ireland in 2008 voted against the Treaty of Lisbon, then when told to vote again they accepted it. In 2016 Hungary voted against EU refugee quotas, with the result of constant conflict with the EU over the issue. So what would one expect of the 2016 UK referendum over membership of the EU if we Brits were to get the wrong answer?
A second referendum is now is a likely outcome, and there is intense debate amongst the Brexiteers on whether to participate in a second referendum or boycott it. One previous campaigner told me that he had put an enormous amount of energy into the first referendum and spent £4000 on it; now he will be three years more elderly and can’t do a repeat job. On that basis the Establishment will always win in the end. And what would a second referendum achieve, other than yet more confusion?
The lobbyists for a second referendum are constantly telling us that no-one voted to be poorer. But there they are wrong. The British people didn’t, but their representatives in the ‘democratic’ EU did. So did the people of Ireland when they voted a second time on the Treaty of Lisbon. Fundamentally, the treaties that converted the European Community into the European Union laid the way to the present economic crisis, in which the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
As simple as 123
Article 123 of the Treaty of Lisbon prohibits any government in the EU from creating money. So how do they create more money for the economy when it’s needed? They have to allow private banks to create it and then borrow from them. Of course, private banks charge interest, and so rather than just ruining the economy by pumping too much money into the system they ruin it again by paying interest, and so pumping even more money out of the system into the banks.
Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the Labour Party, wanted to introduce a People’s Bank. That’s where the money supply would be dealt with. But according to The Daily Telegraph, he wouldn’t be allowed to do so without going against Article 123 of the Lisbon Treaty, and that would force Britain into a three-year battle with the EU. His idea was that the Bank of England be given a new mandate whereby it could invest directly in public services. The Telegraph states, “Economists warned that this would have disastrous consequences. Tony Yates, a former Bank economist and now a professor at the University of Birmingham, said: ‘Down that road leads monetary policy ruin.’ Mark Carney, the Bank’s Governor, has said that he could ‘not envision any circumstance’ in which an advanced economy central bank should finance government deficits.”. And so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
There is a lobbying group called Positive Money, which has been campaigning against the system we have at present. They have been trying to educate the public on how the banking system really operates, and it’s very different from how we all used to think it operated. I’ve been following this activity since they before they were formally set up, and they are doing excellent work.
In France the Yellow Vests have been demonstrating over the over this and related issues. I found a video of an interview with one of the Yellow Vest demonstrators on RT France. He had this to say (in French):
I don’t have any direct answer, but to be able to find the answer, one has to identify the problem, and the problem is that the money disappeared. Where did it go? The fact is the money is here, but they’re stealing it from us all. They’ve been stealing it from us since 1973, with the Pompidou-Giscard law, which Giscard put to the vote when he was Pompidou’s minister. This Law allows the government to borrow from private banks rather than from the Bank of France, which offered zero interest rates. Since then they are paying interest rates to bankers’ private banks. We’re a state at the mercy of userers.
Asked where the government would get money from, he replied:
“The money is here. It is the value of the work of all the French. The value of what we produce every day. Cars, bread, absolutely everything. There are thousands of workers. The system works, except that 80% of our taxes, 80% of our stock, is given to the stock of the banks, to prevent the system from crashing. That’s it. This explains why people don’t have money any more. But the money is here.”
He said there was also an international problem:
“The USA have been experiencing the same thing for over a hundred years, because they were borrowing from private banks. Since then, private banks haven’t gone away. These are J P Morgan, Rockerfeller, The Federal Reserve of the United States, the Federal Government. This is what JFK denounced. He got a bullet for it. This is what’s been going on in France.”
The Treaty of Lisbon seals this in law. It means that Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t be only going against the custom in the UK, established by William and Mary of Orange when they granted the Royal Charter in 1694 to the Bank of England, a private institution owned by bankers, but that he would be stopped in his tracks by the EU authorities. Such a clause in the Lisbon Treaty tells us who is really in charge in the EU. Cui bono?
Catching up with the Bronze Age
Max Keiser in his Keiser Report programme on RT dedicated one issue to the Yellow Vests demonstrations and the debt crisis that underlies that. In the second part he interviews Dr Michael Hundson, author of a new book, ‘… and forgive them their debts’, about the history of debt forgiveness. Hudson explains that the rulers of Byzantium wiped out the savings of rich people by forgiving debts because cancelling debts does not cause economic crises but prevents them. He explained that the Bronze Age Babylonians had worked out the mathematics of this. Compound interest grows exponentially, whereas productivity can only grow linearly, and so whatever the interest rate, national debt will eventually oustrip productivity. Forgiving debt seems to me to be rough justice for the individual, but the rulers weren’t so interested in the individual; they were interested in keeping the economy going, and having a stock of fit young people for their wars. I’ve got the book on order, but in the meantime I’ve been looking at a review of the topic, written in 2012, which makes reference to the work of Michael Hundson, titled, ‘The long tradition of debt cancellation in Mesopotamia and Egypt from the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC JC’.
At first sight, the choice in the Referendum of ‘Leave’ versus ‘Remain’ looks as if it’s a choice between change and the status quo. But the Remain option is an option for radical change, as the European Community becomes the European Union. One such change is that usury at the state level becomes enshrined in law. This validates the decades-long speculation that the Common Market/EEC/EC/European Union is a group favouring the bankers.
The idea of holding a referendum over Britain’s membership of the EU arose from pressure to hold a referendum on the Treaty of Maastricht, which introduced such radical changes in the EC. Another change to the status quo that would be implied sooner or later were Britain to vote ‘Remain’ would be the common currency, the Euro, which had landed Greece in such difficulties. Since the Treaty of Rome we’ve been told that the idea is to create a ‘level playing field’ . If such a thing had happened, there would have been no mass migration from the poorer areas to the richer areas, but just the opposite happened, and is likely to continue to happen. The EU’s regional development fund paid for a nice garden outside Bradford Town Hall, while Greece was being destroyed by usury.
Debt cancellation in the Bronze Age wasn’t instituted in order to be kind to the ordinary folk, but protect the vital interests of the king. Today, Britain’s Establishment has an interest in keeping the economy going, and in having a stock of fit young people for their wars, but somehow there seems to be a taboo in the Mainstream Media and amongst mainstream politicians to talk about it. Were the voters aware of this when they voted in the EU referendum in 2016? Were those who voted ‘Remain’ aware that they were actually voting for the institutionalisation of usury, and so guaranteeing that the rich would get richer and the poorer would get poorer?
And were they aware of the intention to create a EU Army? As meetings co-ordinator of the London investigative group Keep Talking, I twice tried to arrange for a speaker on this topic, though both attempts eventually fell through. Yet that intention is now being openly talked about by heads of state within the EU. What would the purpose be of an EU Army, when we have NATO? Clearly, such an army could be used to keep internal order within the EU’s own territory. Imagine if the EU had already set up such an army. Who would be keeping order in France during the Yellow Vest demonstrations? How would the EU insist of Hungary following the EU’s edicts over mass immigration other than by sending in EU troops? What would be happening in Italy, and what would already have happened in Austria and Greece? Would EU troops be patrolling the streets of Britain if Britain were to remain in the EU and then try to leave at some later date?
Return of the Sturmabteilung
The issue of usury has been at the centre of politics for several thousand years, and continues to be. It’s the central issue behind the Yellow Vests demonstrations, now not only in France. It’s a central issue in the Treaty of Lisbon, which puts all of the EU countries at the mercy of international bankers. It’s a central issue in wars and the pretexts for wars.
Since 9/11 there has been a constantly increasing public concern at grass roots level at what is going on in public affairs. Individuals who ask too many questions are being called ‘conspiracy theorists’, and groups that hold meetings on currents pretexts for wars are denounced and mobbed by marauding gangs. Meetings are being closed down. Individuals are being ruined. I recently visited Germany to talk with colleagues over there about the German situation. They compared the activities of Antifa with their own former Sturmabteilung. There’s something chilling about that when it comes from Germany. But it’s happening in Britain, too.
Many people now recognise that the Mainstream Media by-and-large are complicit. A Guardian journalist wrote a book ‘Flat Earth News’, writing about the fake news in other newspapers, as if The Guardian was a paragon of virtue. More recently, Udo Ulfkotte resigned as a journalist with the Frankfurter Allgemeine, and wrote the book ‘Gekaufte Journalisten’ [Bought Journalists], reporting how mainstream political journalists were generally in the pay of the secret services. It became number one in the Spiegel best-seller list.
My own group, Keep Talking, has no political axe to grind other than investigating what is going on behind the scenes on issues of war, terrorism and propaganda. According to Jewish News, The Campaign Against Antisemitism claimed responsibility for closing one of our meetings down. The venue people told me they were closing the meeting on ‘police advice’. The talk was to have been on Princess Diana, though the speaker was to have told us why he stopped investigating her death. There was nothing in this meeting that had anything at all to do with antisemitism, or as far as we were aware, of Jews, Zionism, Israel, Mossad or anything else to do with the Israel lobby. The very first suggestion I heard of any possible link with Mossad was from the ‘journalist’ from Jewish News who contacted me before publishing an article headed ‘Far-right meeting to discuss how ‘Mossad murdered Diana’ stopped on police advice: Secretive “Keep Talking” group’s scheduled gathering in Holborn cancelled by venue after authorities intervene’. I filed a Freedom of Information request to the Charity Commission, who recognise the CAA as a charitable organisation, even though it engages in such political campaigning, and is protecting its trustees by withholding their names. I also filed a Freedom of Information request to the London Metropolitan Police to find out just what ‘police advice’ they had given the venue regarding Keep Talking. The Charity Commission just explained their system, and the police are in gross breach of the law in delaying, delaying and delaying.
When we look at the state that Britain is in today, how can the Queen have been referring to anything other that this situation when she says “Even with the most deeply held differences, treating the other person with respect and as a fellow human being is always a good first step towards greater understanding”? The Queen also said, “Only a few people acknowledged Jesus when he was born, now billions follow him”. Jesus’s great act, a few days before he was crucified, was to overturn the tables of the money changers in the temple, declaring the temple as “a den of thieves”. There were initially only a few people telling us such things about the EU, but now there are millions. After 9/11 there were only a few telling us that the governments’ story was inconsistent, and would break the laws of physics. Now there are millions, and possibly billions, who disbelieve the story, and in the US at long last a Federal Grand Jury is to Hear Evidence of World Trade Centre Demolition.
The Queen’s Christmas message should be heeded by all, and in particular by the pro-Establishment street gangs who are closing down free speech in this country, aided and abetted by the pro-Establishment Mainstream Media, a Charity Commission that turns a blind eye to political pro-Establishment ‘Charities’, and a police force that is prepared to break the law in covering up its own involvement.We should not be brainwashed by the Mainstream Media into thinking it was just about vigorous debate in the House of Commons. Freedom of Speech should be restored at all levels to this once-proud nation.
Ian Fantom MSc is an Information Scientist with a background in Physics. Since retiring he has investigated the collapse of the Esperanto movement in the UK, and become engaged in the 9/11 Truth movement. Following disruptions in that movement he set up with Nick Kollerstrom in 2010 the group ‘Keep Talking’.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
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.
Thanks Ian – cogent as ever. I take issue with your assertion that MPs are disloyal to constituents ‘whom they supposedly represent’. Here’s 3 mins that says otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jBTtnWdHHM
Might the last time the queen was heavily enigmatic be her comment to Paul Burrell about ‘dark forces’ or ‘powers at work’?
“Hudson explains that the rulers of Byzantium wiped out the savings of rich people by forgiving debts because cancelling debts does not cause economic crises but prevents them.”
But it was not usually a matter of waking up one morning and finding yourself penniless. Hudson should also have mentioned, and probably did, that the anullment of debts in the ancient Middle East was generally refined to include a pre-established schedule that enabled both lenders and borrowers, rentiers and renters, etc., to make long term decisions that maintained their personal interests but prevented the rise of eternally enriched commoner families of rentiers (to use a more modern term), slaves, etc. Look up the etymology of “jubilee”, if you haven’t already. In Leviticus 25 is one of several discussions of it in Ancient Israel. Even the birds of the fields and sky got a break from the endless drudgery of their so often thwarted hunting and pecking in a Jubilee year. Unfortunately, their rules specifically excluded the diaspora, and the rest is Iberian, Slavic and European history.
“[Positive Money] have been trying to educate the public on how the banking system really operates, and it’s very different from how we all used to think it operated.”
How some of us used to think it operated. An analysis by a Scottish engineer, which made several of the points now being made by Hudson and others led to a political movement of such popularity that in many parts of the world it became a serious electoral force and even formed a long-lasting provincial government in Canada. One of the reasons why the past holds no lessons for us is our tendency to take a small frisson of enlightment on some topic or another as a signal to switch off thd associated line of enquiry in order to write yet another textbook on the subject. As Oliver Wendell Holmes found after inhaling a good hit of ether–back then a nifty way to get high–during which the secrets of the universe were revealed unto him in the rapidly fading way life-changing ethereal revelations characteristically manifest themselves, his hastily scrawled scribble of the transient insight went something like, “The entire universe is pervaded by a strong smell of turpentine.”
“I’ve been looking at a review of the topic, written in 2012, which makes reference to the work the work of Michael Hundson, titled, ‘The long tradition of debt cancellation in Mesopotamia and Egypt from the 3rd to the 1st millennium BC’.”
There’s a lot of related material on his website, , online for 14 or 15 years now…
“This validates the decades-long speculation that the Common Market/EEC/EC/European Union is a group favouring the bankers…”
And the major industrialists and business “leaders” within the body politic. It is really depressing, at the beginning of 2018, to read of the final resolution, by a clearly intelligent writer, of ‘decades-long speculation’ into a fact (FGS) that has been blindingly obvious for all to see, should they choose to pay even just passing attention, for over 60 years, since the conception of the ECSC’s first socially deformed offspring, the EEC, in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Really, why bother with the whole, exhausting process social education when the powers of deception and diversion are, given the evident elemental, matching greed of most of the populace for the lure of bread and circuses, so comparatively overwhelming? And not only with regard to economic and political constructs at that, but across a whole range of other ‘speculations’ that adversely impact, even more directly, the very basis of human survival as a species, all obvious as plain facts for decades or even centuries. Who needs the verbiage of speculative eschatology at any stage of the proceedings when the world is littered with so many dumbfuck primates of the ‘sapiens’ kind acting it out for real?
The beginning of 2018? 2019 already! Huh. More borrowed time at real killer rates of interest.
It seems an innocuous enough line, almost a platitude. Yet what is curious about it is that, as the writer says, members of the public have not in fact been disrespectful to each other on any significant level on the issue of Brexit, outside the inevitable media trolling.
Which makes me wonder – are the establishment actually hoping that that there is discord? Is their greatest fear that the country will unite against their venality and incompetence, and hence they are trying to incite division and bickering among the population, while pretending they want unity? Certainly the divisive rhetoric of Theresa May and the Tory Right, as well as their media attack dogs would suggest so. They’ve never even tried to bring the country together.
‘Fortress Europe’ has a long history.
Britain is Europe. Regardless of Brexit.
A common EU rapid deploymeny force is not a terrible idea. It is not secret and there is plenty of information on the whole project on the EU site.
Having to pay 2% of GDP for the nato protection racket is robbery.
All fiat currencies can create as much money as they like.
EU financial targets are just that – targets. The failure to maintain them is not lethal – France just got a pass, again.
ECB happilly created QE without handing private bankers interest – in fact there have been negative real interest rates for banks with regards gilts. A charge for saving with governments.
An excellent primer article otherwise.
I like the way you dismiss parts of the article that aren’t remain friendly. Have you actually read European treaties and laws? Europe isn’t about to leave NATO, it’s expanding eastward. Therefore an internal army is not for the protection of Europe but part of the federalist aspirations of Germany and France and likely would be used against Europeans at some point. The countries that use the Euro can’t “create as much money as they like”, they have fixed budgets and southern states are locked in eternal austerity, the article explained the issues around fiat money pertinent to Europe and the UK but you chose to ignore it. Eurozone countries have as much fiscal autonomy as local authorities or American states. They operate economies that have to use supply side solutions (selling and outsourcing everything).
You only give the article your partial thumbs up because it coincides with your wish for a second referendum.
I have just read a very interesting and informative book that is easy to read and understand with many references to sources of information.
A History of Central Banking & The Enslavement of Mankind
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/191088149X/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It certainley explains a lot about where ususry has ruined nations and how when a country had its own bank that country prospered.
That book is disinformation.
let’s not forget that the queen/ royal family is part of the problem. this woman has deliberately ignored her role as people protector by wilfilly ignoring the more rabid tory policies and not acting in relation to her oath of 1953 – she is a criminal
let’s not also forget that the queen, by not contesting all authoritarian tory policy since 2010, has failed the british people and also acted illegally – in contravention of sworn her oath in 1953
The Kings and Queens of England — in Step with Yesterday.
The New Silk Road via the Khyber — in Step with Tomorrow.
From Part 2 of Pepe’s Pakistan Trek — The big plan:
“…. Imran Khan’s government (see Part 1 of this report) is aiming for Pakistan to position itself, via CPEC, as the key hub uniting the overland Silk Road Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road.
This implies an even stronger trans-regional China-Pakistan alliance in contraposition to India and Washington [hence London]. The US reaction to BRI in 2018 was to unleash a whispering campaign to try to discredit it. Beijing, for its part, expects India and Pakistan to at least discuss their political differences inside the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
From now on, China’s far West and South – Xinjiang and Yunnan – have to become the top drivers of the Chinese economy. Upgrading their road, rail and energy infrastructure and closely linking them to South Asia and Southeast Asia is essential for China to keep growing – all that boosted by crucial energy connectivity via a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, an oil pipeline from the Caspian in Kazakhstan, further massive gas shipments from Siberia, and, further down the road, a possible gas pipeline from Gwadar port to Xinjiang parallel to the Karakoram….”
[A fascinating travelogue with names which still resonate in Eng.Lit from the days of “Kim”, “Soldiers Three”, “The Boys Own Paper”, “The Raj” and “The Queen, God Bless Her”.]
The Army of Alexander took the same breathtaking journey as Pepe describes, from the Roof of the World along the Indus river of melting glaciers down to sea level and scorching desert.
From Emperor Alexander to Empress Victoria, this tough route is the route of real Empire Builders. Who’s next?
It’s a big world out there. Will that world be the playground of yet another Empire, or shall we be living in a Multi Polar World at last?
Great article, covered several links I’d not considered before.
That said, as head of the Establishment, why would the Queen come out with such a message? Perhaps she’s wrestling with her conscience in her final days, before she meets her maker?
Wrestling with her conscience?
What has the Queen got to feel guilty about? The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which means that the Head of State (the Queen) cannot interfere in any way in the government of the country. That is the job of parliament.
Whatever the UK may be guilty of in the past or now has nothing to do with her.
Most republics of the world would do well to copy this model.
You say as a Constitutional Monarch the Queen had no political position whatsoever.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about our British Constitution or the oath HMTQ took.
Go and read a book about please – you are spreading a dangerous falsehood. As stated elsewhere on here – correctly – HMTQ has enormous constitutional responsibilities (not just powers) but refuses to exercise them, thus leaving us at the mercy of an elected dictatorship.
Anyone who believes the Queen is politically powerless should google Gough Whitlam.
A nostalgic note, I am old enougt remember the Khyber when George VI was Emperor of India. Some of readers may be old enough to remember Sid James as British Ambassador in “Carry On Up the Khyber”. What will younger readers learn about the Khyber? From Pepe Escobar on the Roof of the World:
https://thesaker.is/a-two-part-pepe-escobar-report-on-the-china-pakistan-and-the-new-great-game/
“… an infrastructure scheme that “will change the fate of Pakistan. So far that has translated mostly into new hydroelectric dams, coal-fired power stations, and civil-nuclear power. The China National Nuclear Corporation is building two 1,100 MW reactors near Karachi for nearly $10 billion, 65% financed by Chinese loans. This is the first time that the Chinese nuclear industry has built something of this scale outside of their country.
More than a dozen CPEC projects involve power generation – Pakistan is no longer woefully energy-deprived. These projects may not be as sexy as high-speed rail and pipelines, which could arrive much later; after all CPEC in its planned entirety runs to 2030.
Of course, monumental business decisions will have to be addressed; the staggering cost – and state of the art engineering – involved in building a railway parallel to the Karakoram; and the fact that oil pumped via a pipeline from Gwadar to Xinjiang might cost five times more than via the usual sea lanes all the way to Shanghai.”
BTL Saker Vineyard, from Ian Shears likewise confessing nostalgia for when the Queen of England was Empress of India:
“Having grown up with the romance of the Karakoram and Samarkhand due to family connections I am delighted by your article. Hope that Pakistanis and Chinese can get to talk to Indians in a friendly way that allows an even more stunning potential for the region to be contemplated. _Oh well. My childhood ambition of becoming Vice-roy of all India …. _
Regards, a great report,”
A Loveless old woman from another planet, who knows almost nothing of hardship.
Her hardship is very different from mine, but I wouldn’t trade places.
Are you?
Excellent article.
I understand when Ian writes about the problems facing the current economic disorder/impending catastrophe; he quotes the Queen who appears exclusively on the BBC The other points of view including the esteemed Prof Michael Hudson appeared on RT.
RT hosts many writers and broadcaster such as John Pilger, George Galloway, Ken Livingstone and many more. The reason I mention these “old stagers” is they have not changed their political perspective, they purely act as bellwethers as to how the UK MSM has shifted to the right.
I totally agree with what is said here and realise that the news people now consume is more deeply sanitised if not out-rightly censored than it was several decades ago.
RT has been accused of a Russian bias by ofcom yet it offers more choice of perspective than the rest of the WMSM put together. Of course the Queen and the BBC offer only impartiality by omission.
The Queen, as Head of State of the United Kingdom has no political position of any kind.
That is the law in this country. It is a constitutional monarchy.
A presumption may be that; ‘understanding is a desired or sought for goal’.
Those who believe they already understand all they need to know, are claiming the right by which to judge others as wrong and attack or ‘un-person’ them.
This mind-blindness goes down much deeper than any political or cultural conflict as being a core element in the assertion of sovereign will as an act of power over the ‘judged wrong’.
This ‘mindset’ operates as the usurper of free will as the triggered reaction of conditioned response in the frame of the original pattern of the conflicted will, and resulting set of action-reaction in attempt to regain what was ‘lost’ or defend one’s possession of ‘control’ against loss.
The principle of Law as the protector of wholeness was embodied in the Sovereign as the symbol of legitimate tribal, national or imperial power, but the corruption and development of the idea of sovereign will is being usurped by blind technocratic systems that of course are designed to protect the interests of those who create them.
Respect for persons is in my view, properly to the being beneath the personality structure – as a consciousness of a capacity for re-evaluation and choice. In this sense we extend the right we would ourselves want to receive.
Guilty until proven innocent or pre-emptive attack is a charter for those with grievance to vent their hate upon scapegoats who have a right to be heard. The post truth of imposed consensus is the denial of this right and of the freedom to think and feel and decide our own alignment or association with ideas and issues of our time.
I expect HM is speaking to the establishment – which includes her family – but also a much larger firm.
@Binra: “I expect HM is speaking to the establishment – which includes her family – but also a much larger firm.”
Correct. Her Majesty is speaking on behalf of her employers.
“They [the Anglo Zio Capitalists] have made of the Throne their hired servitor”. — Hilaire Belloc, ca.1900
An excellent article! I think Mr. Fantom for writing it, and the Off-Guardian for publishing it.
Those interested in learning more about Hudson’s new book can read his own synopsis of it at Unz.com.
And it’s also happening in the US as well. Twenty years ago, the Antifa–then known as the Black Bloc–were on our side, protesting against globalization and the WTO at the ‘Battle of Seattle’ in 1999, for example. But something has changed. It seems as though they’ve been infiltrated and co-opted by the secret police, and are being steered into confrontations, not with the government and the corporations, but with their own fellow-citizens. They’ve been transformed into something like Mao’s ‘Red Guard’, useful for terrorizing the dissenters into submission. Unz.com has run several pieces on the very suspicious incidents surrounding the now-infamous ‘Unite the Right’ rally held in Charlottesville, VA in 2017:
http://www.unz.com/article/the-system-repudiated/
http://www.unz.com/article/the-system-revealed-antifa-virginia-politicians-and-police-work-together-to-shut-down-unitetheright/
http://www.unz.com/article/anarchotyrannys-unequal-justice/
Really? That’s the best news I’ve head all day!
Identity politics. Divide and rule. Same old same old.
Refusing to be labelled is the only freedom and best defence against the overlords who would be rulers of our world.
The queen wisely spoke the truth….Why make such a big deal out of it?
Well Maxine, it’s a big deal when you enable and platform corporatists, neoliberals or fascists by doing this. They take over and crush you. Get it.
Its the paradox of tolerance. Also known as popper’s paradox.
There were many in Third Reich before 1939 writing just like you did about the Fuhrer ….
The Lord Kilmuir letter below was sent to Edward Heath advising him that joining the European Economic Community, it would be contrary to English Constitutional Law. It would be a total abrogation of his duty to govern us according to our laws and customs.
Heath went ahead anyway and in 1972 gave away Britain’s sovereignty in the most grievous act of treason in British history. Diligently pursuing his treachery, every following parliament has been an unlawful assembly unqualified to legally govern. This means that every Act and EU Treaty since 1972 is null and void as treason has no authority in law.
The comments in red interleaved in Lord Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government was fully prepared to commit acts of Sedition and Treason in order to take the UK into the EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter to Lord Kilmuir.
“My Dear Ted,
You wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I find the constitutional objections serious, that does not mean that I consider them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
He is clear that if we do sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our Constitution allows no such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This is evidenced by the convention which says:-
(Parliament may do many things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless we have been defeated in war). And the ruling given to King Edward 3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome was illegal because England did not belong to John, he held it only in trust for those who followed him. The money that the Pope was demanding as tribute was not to be paid because England’s Kings were NOT vassal Kings to the Pope nor was the money legitimately owed.
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three ways:-
a) Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the community;
b) The Crown would be called upon to transfer part of its treaty-making power to those organs of the Community;
The English Constitution confers treaty making powers on only the Sovereign. The Sovereign cannot transfer those powers to a foreign power nor even, to our own parliament because they are mere servants of the Monarch. Sovereignty itself cannot be given away as it resides with the people who entrust it to the Monarch for his/her lifetime and the Monarch is obliged by law to pass that sovereignty on to any successor as it was received.
c) Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.
It is a Praemunire to allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the Sovereign. The European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign. Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
The position of Parliament:
It is clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes, and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.
There are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-
It is a Praemunire to allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect as law in England. This is illegal under the 1351 Treason Act, the 1351 Act of Praemunire (which was introduced by King Edward III because he believed it was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England to have laws imposed upon his Kingdom by a foreign power, to have any of his subjects to be taken out of England to be tried in a foreign court or for his Bishops to excomminicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope), the Act of Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it.
A parallel [to the position of Britain and the EU] would be, for instance, the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passed British North American Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada. In this respect Parliament here would have in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.
No such power exists for parliament to do this. This would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, an act of treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
It would in theory, be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable. We should therefore have to accept a position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of a very important field.
There is no constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and customs. And it would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire and treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Regarding Treaty-making powers:
The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT and OEEC restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf and even against our will, is an entirely different proposition.
There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of the sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily be involved: as you know, treaty-making power is vested in the Crown.
Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition of taxation, to take two examples, and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.
This is a surrender of our Sovereignty, a clear act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, it is treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
Independence of the Courts
There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’ — to accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.
Of those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this state, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on.
Having said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional considerations must be given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.
It is a Praemunire to subject Her Majesty’s Courts of Law to the domination of a foreign court outside of Her Majesty’s control.” ‘Because facts should really be sacred’
Very enlightening.
Why would the Sovereign Her Majesty allow this situation to arise and fail to claim back the UK’s sovereignty? Ignorance? Complicitness? Bad or malevolent advisors?
The latter reason, ‘bad or malevolent advisors,’ is the politically correct reason to forward for the state of affairs we find ourselves in. Indeed, charges have been proffered against the advisors of HM as follows:- > http://freenations.net/21st-anniversary-of-the-maastricht-treason-charges/ < . Hope this goes someways in answering your query
“Udo Ulfkotte resigned as a journalist with the Frankfurter Allgemeine, and wrote the book ‘Gekaufte Journalisten’ [Bought Journalists], reporting how mainstream political journalists were generally in the pay of the secret services. It became number one in the Spiegel best-seller list.”—
— here in the “land of the free and the home of the brave” U.S.A. we aren’t allowed to soil our pure snow white minds with Udo Ulfkotte’s truths about the CIA and other intelligence agencies infiltration and manipulation of journalists and media. So here the book simply cannot be purchased in its English edition. Simple solution. Complete blatant censorship. No explanation. No other options given.
Meanwhile our totally infiltrated and manipulated mainstream media will tell us endless stories about how Assad is a “dictator” and Putin an “authoritarian,” and that no one has the kinds of “freedoms” that we American’s enjoy – except apparently to read about the actual truths of our clandestine media-intelligence marriage that would allow us to more clearly identify the rot at the heart of our Western societies. Instead we are simply instructed that we must be prepared to yet again dutifully hate and bomb some – “ever changing other” – of the – “ever changing moment” – apparently for all eternity – an of course – buy, buy, buy, more useless stuff along the way. Endless war, endless consumption, and a populace possessed of the most complete and perfect idiocy.
Does anyone really care if Corbyn called May a stupid woman? Many think it anyway (that 2.2 from Oxford doesn’t help) and surely Corbyn is one of those. Maybe she is just that. Or is this just more evidence that political dialogue has descended into endless super sensitive trolling for scolding opportunities. If May were Jewish, perhaps his moving lips would have been interpreted by the seditious within the Labour Party as saying ‘death to Israel and Allah is great’.
Sotto voce mutterings are supposed by some.to inform themselves what the mouther really thinks, as if there were a problem with knowing that about Corbyn on any issue. Ah, the ultimate first world problem of deciding whether to play the ‘anti-Semite card’ or the ‘gender-slag card’. It’s not easy being a political mudslinger or a mudslingee. As Kurt Waldheim said ” they throw feces at me, then complain that I stink”.
The Queen had it right, tonally and literally.
The writer of this article should look into Modern Monetary Theory for further clarification on how things actually work between the central bank and the private banks. The great book by the Australian economist William Mitchell about the Euro, ‘Eurozone dystopia’ would be an excellent start, I think.
The writer mentions the Positive Money group, who in part represent a similar view as MMT but there are also decisive differences (and there also have been some online arguments). MMT however sounds completely straightforward to me.
According to MMT there is no reason for the Treasury to “borrow” from private banks, i.e. to issue government bonds to these banks in return for money. The Treasury can instruct the central bank to just create the money it needs. Mitchell calls this Overt Monetary Financing. Mitchell does a great job at explaining at how you have to cut through various neoliberal myths to come to understand how the potential problem of inflation arises and how a government that understands how the system works can steer clear of it. Mitchell’s book explains these things lucidly and in detail. I am from The Netherlands and I have been reading for quite some time about the Euro and its advantages and disadvantages. Mitchell’s book really stands out I think. And again, he also explains very thoroughly and clearly how the actual monetary systems of our time function, so his book has a broader scope than just the Euro.
A slight quibble.
Bill Mitchell doesn’t consider bond sales to be borrowing. Because in reality government bonds are private sector savings accounts.
He believes that bond sales are an unnecessary convention left over from the gold standard era.Their function (of maintaining a positive target interest rate in the payments system) can be achieved by paying interest on excess reserves.
“The Queen’s Christmas message should be heeded by all, and in particular by the pro-Establishment etc etc..” umm… anyone seeing a smidgen of paradox here?
Regarding Carroll Quigley, Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor wrote a couple of books, the first inspired by Quigley’s revelations re the true planners behind the First World War, ‘Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War’ and, just released, ‘Prolonging the Agony, How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 by Three-and-a-Half Years’.
They also have a blog: .’First World War Hidden History’: https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/
Highly recommended, cuts through the mountain of lies, and make even more abominable the treatment of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles.
@Paul Barbara. As an English-speaking ex-SouthAfrican to whom Rhodes, Milner and Churchill were household gods, I belatedly began digging into modern history only under the shock of WC.Clinton and TB.Liar’s Liberal Intervention in Serbia — the first bombs to be dropped on a European country since Hitler! Following along the Guardian’s steadfast cheerleading for Anglo military exploits in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria — all of them potentially profitable to Rothschild oil companies — and to the Guardian’s cheerleading for Gordon Brown’s financial policies that led Britain into debt slavery to Rothschild banks, I looked up The Guardian Trust, and found it had a constant representative from Rothschild (today the same role in The Guardian is played by the Soros Foundation). This led me back to Natty Rothschild, the boon companion (and generous financial creditor) of Lord Randolph Churchill; to the generation of Rhodes, Milner, Winston Churchill, the Liberal Party and their Khaki Election which invaded the Free Afrikaner Republics for their gold and diamonds, and founded South Africa: to the very people who are accused of starting WW1 in the book “Hidden History” (your Link). The descendants and minions of these high class Anglo Zio Capitalist conspirators are still with us, and still creating global war, debt and misery.
Suberb article. Really refreshing to read such a clear and concise understanding of the monetary system fraud. It is the foundation for our modern society and essentially ensures a continual transfer of wealth from the the productive economy (the people) to the parasite economy (the banksters – as defined by Murray Rothbard.)
An excellent analysis. Especially the extremely important reveal of the very well advanced plan (conspiracy) to create a unified EU military force under single-point command (somewhere in Europe, probably under a senior American NATO commander). This is proceeding in lockstep with the militarisation of the police – sold to the public, among other means, by the staged false flag ‘terrorist’ events which frequently figure police officers as alleged victims (the Skripal farce; the Westminster Bridge incident; the recent incident in Strasbourg etc.).
As a resource for information on this, on the fake Brexit and much else, the UK Column News is highly recommended.
With the US having a lock on the title of “world’s greatest threat to peace” in poll after poll, do we really want to pay for an army? Run by the aforementioned warmongers and then have to buy Ametican weapons like the present members of NATO are forced to do?