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.
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’.
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.