Key Documents Removed From British Archives

fakenews
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 6, 2018

This story is so strange that I have to do my usual high octane speculations about it. Ms. K.B. and Mr. V.T. and Mr. F.L.M.  all shared this story, and with all the strangeness going on in the southern hemisphere, from missing Argentine submarines to Israelis buying up land in Patagonia and Terra del Fuego, I have to wonder just what is going on. Here’s the two versions of the story, though we’ll be concentrating on The Guardian’s version for reasons that will become apparent:

What files? Thousands of govt papers on Falklands & Troubles vanish from National Archives

Government admits ‘losing’ thousands of papers from National Archives

Now, if one looks at the Guardian’s version of this story, a number of questions arise:

Thousands of government papers detailing some of the most controversial episodes in 20th-century British history have vanished after civil servants removed them from the country’s National Archives and then reported them as lost.

Documents concerning the Falklands war, Northern Ireland’s Troubles and the infamous Zinoviev letter – in which MI6 officers plotted to bring about the downfall of the first Labour government – are all said to have been misplaced.

Other missing files concern the British colonial administration in Palestine, tests on polio vaccines and long-running territorial disputes between the UK and Argentina.

Almost 1,000 files, each thought to contain dozens of papers, are affected. In most instances the entire file is said to have been mislaid after being removed from public view at the archives and taken back to Whitehall. (Emphasis added)

Shades of the JFK files… If you’re like me, any time a government reports that it is missing files, it means that said government, for whatever reason, is hiding something. The idea of simply “losing” or mislaying files doesn’t wash in my book. But then the story takes a weird twist:

The Foreign Office subsequently told the National Archives that the papers taken were nowhere to be found.

After being questioned by the Guardian, it said it had managed to locate most of the papers and return them to the archives. A couple, however, are still missing. The FO declined to say why it had taken the papers, or whether it had copies.

Other files the National Archives has listed as “misplaced while on loan to government department” include one concerning the activities of the Communist party of Great Britain at the height of the cold war; another detailing the way in which the British government took possession of Russian government funds held in British banks after the 1917 revolution; an assessment for government ministers on the security situation in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s; and three files about defence agreements between the UK and newly independent Malaya in the late 1950s, shortly before the two countries went to war with Indonesia.

The disappearances highlight the ease with which government departments can commandeer official papers long after they have been declassified and made available to historians and the public at the archives at Kew, south-west London. (Emphasis added)

In other words, these files were already public, and then removed from view, and most of them then returned.

Given the recurrence of references to “territorial disputes with Argentina”, the Falklands war, and British administration, I cannot help but wonder if this sudden “removal and return” might somehow be related to the strange story that emerged at the end of last year about Israeli real estate purchases in southern Argentina, the missing Argentine submarine, and so on. Why remove and then return documents? Something must have caused some concerns, and of all the things being listed, the Argentine aspect of the documents missing seems to be a thread winding through it all. Indeed, if one were concerned that some sensitive detail might have escaped the censors vetting documents for declassification, one might create false leads and trails by removing documents relating to Zinoviev, or Northern Ireland, and so on. (The confiscation and seizure of Russian assets after the Bolshevik revolution – given the current state of emerging financial warfare between the West and that country, does have relevance.) Given the associations of southern Argentina with prominent post-war Nazi installations in that part of that country, the visits of US presidents to the same region, the presence of the Chinese there, Israel’s presence there raises eyebrows, and surely would cause British intelligence and security to make “discrete inquiries”.

This may be, of course, a “nothing story,” but documents are not removed, and then partially returned, with some reason. My bet is that it has something to do with what is going on down there, and with some very old stories dating from the end of the war, and possibly with missing Argentine submarines and new Israeli real estate interests in the region.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com

Advertisements

Thierry Meyssan On The Revolution Against Political Islam

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 17, 2017

Regular readers here know two things about my  attitude toward Islam: (1) I am definitely not friendly to its doctrine, and (2) I definitely do not believe every last Muslim of the world’s billion-plus Muslims are out to “get” everyone else. From my viewpoint, the history of that ideology, especially in the twentieth century, has been one long frustration – usually by the imperial powers of the West, and particularly by Great Britain and Imperial (and later, Nazi) Germany – of the indigenous attempts of those within Islam to reform the religion and the culture. Indeed, for the German contribution to this sad story, one can read my The Third Way.

Which makes the following article by Thierry Meyssan, notwithstanding its glaring inaccuracies concerning early Christian history, all the more important, for as I mentioned in the previous week’s News and Views, Meyssan’s hypothesis is that Mr. Trump’s recent visit and arms deal with Saudi Arabia is about more than just continuing the same old pattern of support of a royal-clerical state. The deal, Meyssan contends, could not have been made without commitments from the Middle Eastern nations involved, and particularly Saudi Arabia, to move away from “political Islam” and support of radical groups like the Brotherhood:

A wind of secularism blows over the Muslim world

Behind the hypothesis, however, Meyssan is also implying that there is a fundamental break between London – which in his view continues to support “political Islam” – and the Trump Administration, which he contends is trying to lead an initiative to break from prior policy of tacit support and funding of such groups and the states that support them:

We know today that the « Arab Springs » were a British initiative aimed at putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power and thus reinforcing Anglo-Saxon domination over the « Greater Middle East ».

For 16 years, the Western powers have been rightfully accusing the Muslims of not cleaning up their own house, and of tolerating terrorists. However, it is clear today that these terrorists are supported by the same Western powers in order to enslave Muslims by means of « political Islam ». London, Washington and Paris have no problems with terrorism until it spills over from the « Greater Middle East », and they never criticise « political Islam », at least as far as the Sunnis are concerned.

By giving his speech in Riyadhh, on 21 May 2017, President Trump intended to put an end to the terrorism which is consuming the region, and is now spreading to the West. The words he spoke did indeed act as an electroshock. His speech was interpreted as an authorisation to finish with the system.

What resulted, according to Meyssan, was something akin to uncorking a bottle that had been living under pressure for centuries, and now, with the bottle uncorked, the result cannot be undone:

What had seemed unthinkable over the last few centuries suddenly took shape. Saudi Arabia agreed to cut off all contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, and raged against those who continue to pursue their collaboration with the British, and particularly against Qatar. Riyadh gave the signal for a cleansing which will sweep much frustration along with it. In a spirit of Bedouin vengeance, diplomatic relations have been interrupted, and an economic blockade was organised against the Qatari population – while in the Emirates, a sentence of 15 years of imprisonment was established by law for any individual who showed as much as a little compassion for the inhabitants of accursed Qatar.

A gigantic displacement of forces and alliances has begun. If this movement is to continue, the region will organise itself around a new fissure. The question of the struggle against imperialism will wither and give way to the struggle against clericalism.

And this has led to a corrresponding “outburst” of editorials:

In two weeks, the Arab Press, which until now had viewed the Muslim Brotherhood in a favourable light, as a powerful secret organisation, and jihadism as a legitimate engagement, has suddenly made an about-turn. Everywhere, everyone is publishing denunciations of the pretension of the Muslim Brotherhood who want to regulate people’s lives, and the cruel folly of jihadism.

This flood of commentaries, the centuries of frustration that they express, coupled with their violence, makes any back-pedalling impossible – which does not, however, mean that the alliance Iran-Qatar-Turkey-Hamas will go all the way. This revolutionary tsunami is happening in the middle of the month of Ramadan. Meetings between friends and families, which should be consensual celebrations, sometimes turn into arguments about what until now had been perceived as the basic truths of Islam.

As Meyssan goes on to observe, even Iran’s Revolutionary Guard harbors simmering resentments against the ayatollahs governing the country.

We then get a bit of complete nonsense regarding Christian history, which Meyssan assumes – like so many – was completely “clergy-less” in its early years:

Like original Christianity, which had no ministers (these only arrived in the 3rd century), original Islam and current Sunnism have none. Only Chiism has been structured like Catholicism and Orthodoxy. As a result, political Islam today is incarnated by the Muslim Brotherhood and the government of Sheikh Rohani (the title of Shiekh indicates that President Rohani is a member of the Chiite clergy).

If so, Christianity would be almost unique among world religions, especially from that part of the world, in not having any clergy; after all, it was an offspring of Judaism, and Judaism certainly had a clergy, and the rabbinate could be taken to be a kind of ministry in lieu of the ancient Hebrew priesthood. In any case, the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch would certainly stand as a pre-third century witness to the fact that early Christianity was not the  clergy-less paradise that so many think it was; it was, on the contrary, very hierarchical and very sacramental.  Additionally, Meyssan makes more of Pope Paul VI’s dropping the use of the papal tiara – symbol of papal claims and authority – than should be: for while the symbol was dropped, the claims were not. Indeed, when one reads the documents of the Second Vatican Council, amid all the modern-sounding verbiage, those sections dealing with the papacy itself read very much like the “old fashioned” language of Innocent III, of Pius IX and Vatican One: there was no diminution of claims whatsoever. In short: the tiara could return tomorrow, because what it symbolizes – the claims themselves – are still there.

But enough of that, for beyond this, Meyssan’s view is worth pondering, for it carries some implications, some of which, Meyssan contends, are already happening:

Meanwhile, the whole region is buzzing – in Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood have left Tripoli, leaving a militia to liberate Saif el-Islam Kadhafi, and General Haftar to expand his influence. In Egypt, the General-President al-Sissi has asked his opposite numbers in the Gulf to draw up a list of terrorists. In Palestine, the political directors of Hamas have fled to Iran. In Syria, the jihadists have stopped fighting against the Republic and are awaiting orders. In Iraq, the army has redoubled its efforts against the Muslim Brotherhood and the Order of the Naqshbandis. In Saudi Arabia, the Muslim World League has excluded from its administrative council the Brotherhood’s star preacher, Sheikh Qaradawi. And Turkey and Pakistan have begun the transfer of tens of thousands of soldiers towards Qatar -which can now only feed itself with the help of Iran.

A new dawn seems to be rising over the region.

But assuming he is correct in his diagnosis, there are also some implications for the west, not the least is the cleavage between Washington and London, and this is where it could get interesting, for one implication of his analysis is that the Trump Administration has broken with prior British and American policy in a major way, and in so breaking, has broken with those factions within the American deep state that have been cooperating and to a certain extent leading and orchestrating the prior policy, including the tacit and very covert financial support of the same radical groups. We call them “neo-cons” or “neo-libs”, and they have been running American foreign policy since at least the Clinton Administration, with roots in that of the G.H.W. Bush administration. On this view, Mr. Trump has set the fox loose in the henhouse, and if it portends major changes in the Middle East, and a renewed commitment to American allies there such as Saudi Arabia, it also portends a major shuffling in the “deep state”. Time will tell if this effort will bear fruit.

And that means a long term effort will have to be sustained, for the nature of the change Mr. Meyssan is suggesting will be long term in nature, with bumps and fits along the way. What to look for? I suggest that if Mr. Meyssan’s analysis is correct, then the response of such nations like Indonesia, a predominantly secular Muslim state, will be crucial to watch, for that nation is undergoing its own internal struggles against “political Islam”. How such nations respond to this, how the Saudis respond to this, will be crucial in order for Mr. Trump’s initiative to work.

See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Antarctica Just Became Even Stranger…

Antartica2
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 21, 2017

Just when you thought it was safe to revisit the subject of Antarctica, or perhaps, even thought it was the one safe place on Earth to vacation – perhaps lounge on the shore and throw in your fishing line, or have a nice leisurely ski vacation, or maybe just to sit by the fire, enjoying a good book and a brandy and cigar – the place seems to defy sense. It refuses to go away or walk quietly off the stage. Just when you think the curtain has gone down on all the high strangeness there, strangeness struts onstage again.

But this one may be even stranger than strange.

Yes, that’s right, stranger than the strangeness of people associated with the place. Stranger than Hermann Goering, Patriarch Kiril III of Moscow, John Kerry. Even stranger than Apollo astronaut Buz Aldrin.

In fact, it’s so stranger that when people sent me various articles about it, I didn’t believe it. But then I found something that confirmed the wild articles people were sending me on a government website. But when I read the website, I not only said “You’re kidding,” but I made an exact print out of it, to make a picture, so I can post it here along with the link, should said government decide to live down to its reputation as perfide Albion and remove its posting. To use the colloquialism, I was gobsmacked when I read it. So, with a big “thank you” to all of you who found this story, without further ado, the link:

Foreign travel advice British Antarctic Territory

Ice-is? Britain issues terrorism warning for Antarctica… & security experts aren’t impressed

And here’s the pictures:

BritishAntarcticTerritory

UK Antarctica Travel Alert Article

Now, a simple search through the website reveals what is just routine boilerplate: How to get married in Antarctica, and so on. Easily programmed by any competent programmer tasked with the monstrous job of programming a government website: “How to get married in [fill in the blank here]; contact the [Fill in the appropriate bureaucracy here].” Hence, when we come to the lines advising “Take out comprehensive travel and medical insurance (the appropriate UK.gov link follows), specifying Antarctica, before you travel,” one can be fairly certain that the entire sentence was simple standard programmed boilerplate, and that “Antarctica” is the variable here.

So in that context, consider this line:

“Although there’s no recent history of terrorism in the British Antarctic Territory, attack’s can’t be ruled out.”

And then follows yet another helpful link to aid you in planning your fun-filled family vacation to New Brighton-on-the-ice.

Now, 98% of me thinks the line is just standard, pre-programmed boilerplate, the usual bland “we’re your government and we’re here to pretend we’re being helpful” sort of thing. After all, access to Antarctica is strictly controlled; in fact, it’s the one place on earth where borders are strictly controlled, and so far, the controllers don’t seem too interested in setting up cells of ISIS, Al Qaeda,  Daesh, the Irish Republican Army, Irgun, Bakhuninites, or whatever its current “approved-name-of-the-month” happens to be.

It’s that remaining 2% that bothers me (as you probably guessed), for suppose that the “travel alert” is not standard boiler plate. High octane speculation? To be sure. But suppose, for a moment, it’s not boiler plate. That would mean, in turn, that the door has been cracked, just a bit, to reveal that the southern polar continent is a place of violence, not global warming, not increasing ozone holes, not melting icecaps, not oddly and unusually warm weather, but a place of human violence. A place where some sort of war is being waged. A place where the stakes are high enough that terrorism is a viable strategy.

I read that line, and I cannot help but think of the three part article that appeared in Nexus magazine in late 2005 and early 2006, recounting via the usual “anonymous whistleblower” a story of SIS commandos fighting it out on the southern polar ice with “polar men.” I cannot help but think of last year’s trip of US Secretary of State John Kerry to the continent; I cannot help but think of the Patriarch of Moscow’s visit, of Buzz Aldrin’s visit, of Hermann Goering’s sponsorship of a Nazi expedition there. And when I put the announcement in that context, that slim 2% would seem, in my opinion, to grow…

While you’re contemplating all that, consider this article from RT:

Russia, US remove potential ‘dirty bomb’ parts from Antarctica

That’s right… those reactors down there could be snatched up by terrorists posing as tourists… or… perhaps someone else left “dirty bomb parts” down there…

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Brexit, Britain & A Renewed Commonwealth: Yes, But What’s The…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 6, 2017

Yesterday I outlined my hypothesis that Great Britain’s next move after the BREXIT would be to revive the British Commonwealth of Nations and use it, and its position on China’s Asia Infrastructure Development Bank, as a soft-power culture-power card to reshape the political and economic landscape of the West, and as I noted, that nation is toying with the idea of making the USA an “associate member,” an idea that appears at least at present to have the ear of the Trump Administration.

But as I also stated at the end of yesterday’s part one blog on this topic, such a revival would need a unifying “project,” and that project, to my high octane speculation lights, appears to be provided in the second article on this topic, that was shared by Mr. S.D.:

UK scientists could soon fly into space and conduct medical experiments in zero gravity

The article contains a zinger – at least by my high octane speculation lights – in the opening paragraphs, mentioned almost in passing, as the focus of the rest of the article is about “medical experiments in zero gravity.” This, as far as I am concerned, is a bit of fluffy noise to distract from what may be the real game plan:

British scientists could soon fly into space to conduct cutting edge medical experiments in zero gravity, thanks to new laws, which are slated to make way for a new era of scientific research. According to the UK Space Agency, the new regulations as well as funding will potentially see Britain constructing its very first spaceport by 2020.

“Laws paving the way for spaceports in the UK will allow ‎experiments to be conducted in zero gravity which could help develop medicines,” the space agency said in a statement. The construction of a spaceport would enable the UK to launch its own satellites and conduct “horizontal flights to the edge of space for scientific experiments”.

I contend that this focus on space – a space port, no less – enabling “the UK to launch its own satellites and conduct ‘horizontal flights to the edge of space'”(forget about that “scientific experiments part’), is the unifying project for that revivified space port.

From the standpoint of the emerging multipolar world, this makes geopolitical and financial sense, for Britain (and the Commonwealth) will need its own secure and independent financial clearing, and mutual sharing agreements on a whole host of electronic information sharing are already in place among the Commonwealth nations, and with the USA.

The mention of a commercial and financial aspect to all of this is worth pondering a bit further: a sustainable “space port” would tax that nation’s economy in the short run, but with the participation of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and perhaps even India in some form of fashion, those costs could be diffused and all would gain long term benefits. The second factor here is the growing commercialization in space. As readers of this website are aware, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has already passed legislation similar to American laws recently passed allowing corporations to keep the profits of whatever they “find and mine” out in space, and I strongly suspect that similar bills will work their way through the parliaments of the Commonwealth countries. Indeed, if this is that “unifying project”, one should expect a great degree of coordination in the wording of any putative bills in those nations.

And if that happens, then of course it’s an indicator that this is, indeed, the project that will take center stage in any efforts for Commonwealth revivification; and it’s essentially a win-win for those countries – Australia and Canada chief among them – that have the technological sophistication along with the United Kingdom itself to make it work.

As always, time will tell if this reading of these articles and events is correct.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Brexit, Britain, & A Renewed Commonwealth: Yes, But What’s The…

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 5, 2017

I received two articles this week having to do with Great Britain and the Commonwealth that caught my attention. The first from Ms. K.M., and the second from Mr. S.D. Before we get to those, however, I want to remind people of a bit of high octane speculation that I began to advance shortly before the BREXIT referendum in the United Kingdom. During the campaign prior to that referendum, I observed a number of things that convinced me that there was a certain segment of the British oligarchy that was profoundly unhappy with two things: (1) the growing bureaucratic tyranny of the Brussels-Berlin E.U., and its corollary, discontent in certain segments of the British population – that part of the population with a shred of sanity left – over the growing Islamicization of their country; and, (2) the growing dissatisfaction with the “unipolar world” of Mr. Globaloney. There were, I argued, several signals that indicated “something was afoot” behind the scenes in the British deep state or oligarchy, and chief among these things were three indicators – at least to me and a few others – that the polls prior to BREXIT, which showed the “remain” forces leading – might have been deliberately concocted. By my hack-from-South Dakota lights, there were three signals that spoke very loudly:

(1) The state visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to that nation;

(2) Great Britain’s entry as a board member to the Chinese Asia Infrastructure Development Bank, a move not joined by only two nations, the USA and Japan; and,

(3) The dinner at the Palace with Queen Elizabeth II and then Prime Minister David Cameron’s Vice Premier, during which, according to the British tabloids, the Queen expressed the Royal Displeasure at the way things were proceeding with the European Union.  Of course, interpreting stories coming from the Crown is always hazardous, since British monarchs have, in the last two centuries, exercised their very real and considerable power very quietly. The Crown speaks its own special variety of the “dialect of power” that Vatican watches know as “romanita“.  In this case, the Queen expressed that Royal Displeasure in the form of asking the Vice Premier (so the story went) to name three benefits Britain accrued from membership in the E.U.  It could therefore be argued that Her Majesty was simply asking questions, not expressing “the Royal Displeasure.” But in the context of the other two events named above,  it seemed likely to me at the time. In terms of the logic of the situation, one can perhaps understand why, for from the royal point of view, the income of the civil list might conceivably be a target for the Brussels bureaucrats, M. Jean-Claude Juncker, faithful minion and lackey to Mad Madam Merkel.

The BREXIT happened, and I argued that the next step for Great Britain – a logical and natural one – would be to revive the soft-power culture card of the British Commonwealth. That, indeed, appears to be happening, for as readers of this website are aware, Britain has extended the idea of making the United States an associate member, and the Trump Administration appears to be listening.

From the geopolitical point of view, the move makes sense, for India, a principal member of the BRICSA bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), would be a crack in the emerging Eurasian dike, and with British membership in China’s Asia Infrastructure Bank, Britain has carefully positioned itself as a go-between between the West and that bloc, and that during a time when Brazil’s participation has been severely diminished due to the overthrow of Dilma Rouseff as that nation’s president.

Now there’s this confirmation in the article shared by Ms. K.M.:

A Future of the English-Speaking People

Notably the article appeared in the US magazine Foreign Affairs, the darling of the Council on Foreign Relations, long known to be the “official organ” of the Rockefailure interests, as the Economist is to that of the Rottenchilds. This article, notably, stresses the very same soft power card:

Legal systems of Common Law, a relentless defense of democratic principles, English as first language, common business practices, and traditional support for free trade are the glue that holds together countries that are geographically so distant. Cultural ties lower transaction costs between countries and foster trust. No wonder that, in making foreign direct investments, the United States shows a strong preference for Anglo-Saxon countries, with about 23 percent of total American foreign direct investment going to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

In finance, technology, science, and trade, the Anglosphere already plays a dominant role, albeit in an informal way. But there are also formal means of cooperation, including the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing group; the Air and Space Interoperability Council, which aims to make members’ defense systems interoperable; and the Rhodes Scholarship, which brings students from around the world to study at Oxford University. More recently, New Zealand has offered to send London its top trade negotiators to augment the British civil service as it prepares to renegotiate hundreds of trade agreements with the rest of the world. And a recent poll found overwhelming support within Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom for granting nationals reciprocal rights to live and work freely among the four countries.

And notably, the CFR article also views the Commonwealth-Anglo-Sphere “revival” in terms very different from the top-down centralizing and federalizing experiment of the E.U. as a model for a multi-polar world, and it does so without nary a peep of protest, indicating that at least certain factions within Mr. Globaloney’s house realize that a different tack is needed from the vowel-impaired unipolar American empire visions of Mr. Zbgnw Brzznsk:

To be sure, the Anglosphere would never be a European Union among English-speaking nations. After all, it would be the by-product of a time when states seek to regain full sovereignty, cooperating when interests coincide but competing when they diverge. The institutions of the Anglosphere would be open and not exclusive, allowing each nation to pursue its regional goals independently. So, for instance, Australia would be free to work on trade relationships with its Asian partners after Trump has dismissed the Trans Pacific Partnership. London, meanwhile, would be free to entertain post-exit relations with Europe.

The article goes on to say that the UK and US will retain NATO as their preferred alliance structure. The unspoken factor here is not Russia; it’s Germany, for NATO serves – to borrow the observations of Mr. Brzznsk – as much as a check on potential German re-militarization as it does on ostensible Russian ambitions. My prediction? Germany will be forced to remilitarize rather heavily, regardless of what NATO does or does not do, and there will thus be pressure on NATO’s structure to be “revised.”

But any revival of the Commonwealth, in the form I and now the CFR article has suggested, will require a “project” sufficiently large to bring together the Commonwealth. And for that, we’ll have to wait until tomorrow.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Brexit & Revitalization The Common Wealth: The USA As Associate Member?

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
February 27, 2017

In the aftermath of the BREXIT vote, I began to argue in blogs and in various interviews, that the next step geopolitically for Great Britain would be to play the soft power card, in the form of revivifying the British Commonwealth of nations. My reasons for thinking this was in the cards were various, and spread out over several  blogs and interviews. Here were some of those reasons: (1) elements of the British deep state, including apparently the Queen herself, were increasingly disappointed not only with the EU and the loss of national sovereignty, but with the unipolar and multicultural (read, Gramscian Marxist) direction things were going; (2) a significant segment of the British population was fed up with the growing Islamicization of Britain; and (3) Britain was pursuing, independently of the EU, it’s own relationship and trading policy with China, hosting the state visit of Mr. Xi Jinping to that country, and joining, as a member of the board, China’s Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank. Finally, (4) Britain continued to be alarmed at the growing power and influence of Russia, in particular Russia speaking openly about the West abandoning its core cultural principles and appealing directly to those elements in the West with decidedly traditional cultural sympathies. Russia was playing the soft power card, and playing it well.

In this context, I was arguing that the United Kingdom had certain unique advantages – all of them cultural – that the European Union, firmly under Germany’s thumb, did not: Britain had dramatically influenced the expansion of an English-speaking culture, with English institutions, concepts of jurisprudence, and so on, over a vast area of the globe. Britain could, I argued, if it played its cards right, play that soft power card and create an immense bloc of economic and cultural interests. But this would be impossible under the aegis of the globaloney-multicultural-unipolar philosophy. The way to do this would be to stress the cultural heritage and institutions, and the British Commonwealth was ready-to-hand.

This last week, a number of regular readers of this website, particularly in the United Kingdom, shared an article which appears to confirm this analysis and prediction, and moreover, to do so in a very astonishing way:

USA could be ‘associate member’ of Commonwealth to reap rewards from forgotten ‘treasure

While this article is fairly short, the first four paragraphs contain a number of bombshells that appear to support my arguments from months ago, rather substantially:

The United States could eventually become an “associate member” of the Commonwealth, according to plans being drawn up by the Royal Commonwealth Society.

The move, which is said to have the backing of the Queen, is believed to have come about because of US President Donald Trump’s love of Britain and the Royal Family.

With the UK making plans to leave the European Union (EU) officials are keen to build up international relations through the Commonwealth in an number of areas, including trade.

Director of the Royal Commonwealth Society Michael Lake told The Telegraph: “The UK rather left this treasure in the attic, and forgot about it because people were so glued to Brussels.” (Emphasis added)

I cannot help but think that since this plan “is said to have the backing of the Queen”, that it may have been in the works for some time, since we all recall the story from last year, prior to the BREXIT referendum, that the Queen had invited Mr. Cameron’s vice-premier to the palace for tea and dinner, during which the Queen allegedly asked him is he could name three incontestable benefits Britain was reaping from the EU. The message was clear: the Queen was casting a skeptical eye on the whole business.

There was another wrinkle that seldom…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Trump and Brexit: Directed History Proceeds Apace?

trump-campaign
Source: TheDailyBell.com
November 9, 2016

The American voters have Brexited, leaving behind their global dominance    America has Brexited. It’s an imperfect comparison. The United States can’t leave itself. But on Wednesday, with the election of Donald Trump, it withdrew from a number of agreements it long ago entered, some more enduring than others.  The American people have voted to leave behind the late 20th century consensus on free trade and open immigration. -SMH

The populism versus globalism meme is in full effect today and given the thousands of references to it currently, it’s an honor to have been the first publication to have identified this particular element of propaganda as you can see here.

We also predicted several times throughout the recent months that Donald Trump might win the election and then, as a so-called populist, face a good deal of elite retribution.

Infowars has an article today dealing with this, and we wrote about it again yesterday as you can see here.

The difference between our interpretations and some others is that we have a very difficult time believing that all of this is spontaneous.

Of course, Trump’s victory has unfolded in a logical way, providing justifications for those who believe that any inference that we are watching a scripted event is just so much “conspiracy theory.”

On the other hand, his victory immediately provides critics with opportunities to assert the benefits and superior moral value of … “globalism.”

More:

The 1992 candidacy of Pat Buchanan was a bellwether for Trump, a call for “America First” paired with a move toward economic protectionism and closed borders.

Buchanan lost his bid for the Republican nomination, and his ideas were muted, ignored. Not by everyone – not by the populists who carried his banner, who marched sometimes with the Republicans and sometimes with the Democrats and sometimes with third-party candidates like Ross Perot.

But the GOP ignored them, and to a lesser extent, the Democrats as well. The parties agreed, more or less, and until tonight, they were comfortable in their agreement.

The American people have likewise voted to leave behind the nation’s global dominance and its global partnerships.

We can see in this excerpt the predictable references to populism and the characterization of the US’s current situation as one in which it is in the midst of repudiating its “global dominance and global partnerships.”

This doesn’t seem right to us, but we are fairly convinced that the next four years will feature this rhetoric both in the US and in Britain – throughout the West, in fact. Again, we have a hard time believing it’s a coincidence. The idea from our point of view is that this rhetorical stance is the gateway to further elite, globalist consolidation.

It may seem strange to make a statement that the elite forces of this world intend to “win” by losing. But everything we understand about their employment of the Hegelian dialectic gives us a sense that this is just what’s going on.

Top banking elites functioning out of the City of London have never reigned overtly deom what we can tell. They have always set up two opposing sides and then gradually steered the world in the direction they want it to go.

That direction is surely toward a globalist empire. It is seemingly incontrovertible. The two world wars of the 20th century were evidently manufactured – the internet shows us that – and after both wars gigantic leaps towards globalism occurred.

After World War II, the UN was created along  with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The control of the Bank for International Settlements that runs central banking was updated.

Now in Britain, Brexit is in force. And in the US Donald Trump has won. The “populists” are in power and we are given to understand this is a “peasant revolt” of the first magnitude.

But history seems to show us in the past few hundred years that important societal processes are strictly controlled. At a lower level, perhaps, you can be “free.” But events at the highest level are not exercises in liberty.

We simply cannot imagine that Trump made up`his mind to run for president and did so successfully as an independent candidate and without the silent acquiescence of those who remain in power behind the scenes.

Maybe we’re wrong, but let us state for the record, as we often do, that we believe the world’s power base is located among trillionaires in London who invented and control the world’s central banks.

This group has been leading the way, worldwide, not for hundreds but probably for thousands of years, first in Sumer, then Babylon, then Egypt, then Rome, then Venice and finally in England where members intermarried with Royals.

Since the Civil War, anyway, or even much earlier, this group has been tightening its grip on a every sector of the US from education to the military to politics and industry. It has control in Europe too – and we would make the argument that at the very top, elites in Russia and China work together as well.

(This is one reason we continue to make arguments against the standard history of nuclear weapons, here. We think it is in many ways a kind of shared lie around the world that will eventually prove clearly that the global narrative is a manufactured one on many levels.)

To believe that this history – if you do believe it – has been turned upside down by a single election in the 21st century is, for us, a bridge too far. But as we predicted more than a decade ago, the Internet, like the Gutenberg Press before it, has made the elite’s secretive control impossible to sustain. They need another way of influencing events.

The easiest way is to provoke a public argument over the merits of populism (versus globalism) and then to use directed history to ensure people get the message loud and clear that “populism” (read freedom and self-determination) doesn’t work.

For this reason we continue to expect a variety of catastrophes to continue and deepen – mostly from an economic and military standpoint.

We will also be surprised if Trump’s larger vision for the revitalization of the US is going to be especially successful. It will have to be discredited along with Brexit.

It could be that Trump – and Hillary – are unaware of these trends. Not everything has to be a gigantic conspiracy at all levels. But one way or another, first Brexit and now Trump seem to be creating a kind of “directed history.”

Conclusion: Add the sudden appearance of the populism vs. globalism meme and you have rhetoric married, sooner or later, to action. One or two of these elements would be coincidental. But all three? These events seem arranged.

Read More At: