May 20, 2012 § 1 Comment
King George, we thought we got away
King George, are you laughing in your grave?
— “King George,” Whiteheart
CABLE TV ON SATURDAY MIDDAYS can get boring. It seems there are infomercials everywhere. I turn on General Electric’s MSNBC, the “liberal” network owned by the giant-war-contractor/crony-capitalist/non-taxpaying global conglomerate. The network is running an infomercial for Washington’s ongoing war on self-defense, starring DEA and BATF and produced by Al Roker.
One can especially understand the BATF’s need for image rehabilitation, given its latest adventures in arming Mexican drug lords so that Democrats — including, of course, BATF’s bosses, Obama and Holder — could exploit the resulting carnage to attack Americans’ gun rights, Why wouldn’t the administration call on its its in-house cable network for a bit of positive “public diplomacy”? *
Then I switch to CNN, and there’s another infomercial — this one, for “The Royals.” The title: “Harry: the Soldier-Prince.” And there I had been, thinking CNN’s British turn couldn’t possibly go further. How wrong I was. Indeed, they even have a “Royal Correspondent” now: Max Foster (among whose first assignments for CNN was covering the death of another monarchial personage, the late Mr. Wojtyla, aka John Paul II.)
While trying to retain my lunch, I watched and listened in amazement as the prince-praising propaganda gushed forth. Oh! He’s so charming, so handsome, so redheaded, so potent. Watch him fire his weapon… Foster practically squirms and moans with pleasure.
But His Princely Highness isn’t just the usual glorified-welfare-brat-raised-in-a-palace, oh no. He’s a real soldier! “Really one of the boys,” a Jamaican army lieutentant says.
It’s not hard to imagine that, between them, these two state media networks seem to be advertising and acclimating us to a future monarchial police state under the British royal family.
That’s not entirely hyperbolic. It may turn out to be not hyperbolic at all. Since we’re in the elite “summit” season, look at all these confabs. NATO is meeting here in Chicago. Last week in the District of Criminals was the awards dinner held by NATO’s elite cheerleader group in Washington, the Atlantic Council. I didn’t see it all, but I did see the part with Trilateral Commission co-founder and Rockefeller operative Zbigniew Brzezrzrezezinski (I can never quite spell that) and his mediababe daughter; Vietnam war crimes/Iran-Contra cover-upper Colon Bowell (he richly deserves that); Sen. Chuck Hagel, whose machines may count your votes in the next election; doddering war criminal Henry Kissinger; and, yes, the Prance.
The motto that night was “celebrating 50 years of transatlantic relations.”
Huh? The States of America have had diplomatic and trade relations with Europe since Independence; that includes Britain (except, I suppose, for that little hiccup called the War of 1812). All this happened without any “councils” taking credit. What, then, is the coded message being sent?
Some of us students of deep politics might surmise that it means 50 years of a transatlantic British-American Empire, now in the process of absorbing Europe.
As an executive of Amoco said when that u.S.-based company was absorbed into British Petroleum in 1998: “After all, we’re the colonies.”
I remember that quote especially well, as it appeared in a story in Crain’s Chicago Business that I happened to read while sitting in the break room at J.P. Morgan & Co.. At the time, was a temp, paid to type, enter data and file for investment bankers while they yammered to each other about their next cross-country or overseas golf/business trip.
Of further significance was the fact that JPM & Co. had served as consultants in the BP takeover; and that founder John Pierpont Morgan himself was the guy who kicked off and funded a lot of this conspiratorial British-American merger nonsense nearly a century ago.
Incidentally, while working there, I had some fun with the copier: I blew up an old black-and-white image of the rather mean-looking Mr. Morgan. I gave it a caption, and it looked something like this:
Then I posted it, anonymously, on the break-room fridge. It survived there nearly two hours before being taken down by someone totally lacking in humor.
But back to the Anglo-American Empire. It may be slightly more accurate to say that the Washington corporate entity has become a partner, or perhaps just the operations department, of the Empire following WWII. Or perhaps it’s something like the BP-Amoco deal: a new corporate logo, but with essentially the same ownership configuration.
During the postwar years, the nature of the British Empire — and empire itself — changed from an overt, political-administrative rule to economic and financial domination, run less through direct bureaucratic governance and more by corporate influence and covert bribery (but also violence, when soft influence failed).
This continuation of the Empire might explain how our rulers can now be openly “knighted” by the Queen (who presumably, not long from now, will give way to King Charles).
George H.W. “Poppy” Bush has been made a knight of the British Empire. So were Reagan, Kissinger, Gen. Norman Schwartzkof, and Colin Powell, among other putative Americans. (When introducing Prance Harry at the Atlantic gala, Powell addressed him as “His Royal Highness.”)
Bet you didn’t know good ol’ Ike, too, was a Knight of the Queen — the very first. (At least, the first public one.)
Can you imagine George Washington winning the war, then accepting a knighthood from George III? A knight is a vassal, pledged to serve the lord by, among other things, fighting the lord’s battles, or supplying troops to fight them. In return, the knight receives the privilege of his own fiefdom.
If this is not the British Empire, why else would your media elite constantly focus space, airtime and resources covering the goings-on of Their Irrelevancies William and Kate, of Charles and the late Di, of Fergie, of the Queen, of little Prances William and Harry?
Why do more and more of the heads talking at you every day on monopoly media channels – anchors, commentators, reporters, think-tankers, actors, even brand mascots – sport British accents? Oh, I know, there are just no Americans around with sufficient talent or training to do those jobs.
Why is a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford presumed to somehow confer superior wisdom unattainable on this side of the Atlantic?
Referring to the entertainment and news takeover, BBCNN calls it the new British Invasion; so does ExecDigital.com. The ’60s British Invasion was only a bunch of rock bands; they were only there to entertain you, not mete out your information about yourself and the world. “It might be time to just let the Redcoats in,” BBCNN chuckles. Some of us aren’t so amused.
We have no world government – at least, not a legitimate one recognized by the people– but the elites’ plan is to proceed to build it anyway from their Anglo-American base in the City and the District. Bit by bit, piece by piece, the house of what they call “world order” (remember, “order” means “control”) must be built in “an end run around national sovereignty,” as Richard Gardner urged over 30 years ago in the their house organ, Foreign Affairs.
That journal is published by the Council on Foreign Relations, the only effective political party in American national government today. The CFR was founded by the British Royal Institute for International Affairs, which itself was founded as a secret instrumentality of an elite circle of British aristocrats and bankers called the “Round Table.” One of the Round Table/RIIA/CFR’s first campaigns, following their first world war, was for the League of Nations. That failed, but after their next world war, they succeeded in forcing upon us the United Nations.
UNFORTUNATELY, A PRECEDENT for a self-elected elite conspiring to overthrow the duly constituted government and circumvent the will of the people already exists – in American history. It happened in 1789, in Philadelphia.
As John D. Hicks writes in The Federal Union: A History of the United States to 1865, the “extreme conservative” (i.e., quasi-monarchist) Alexander Hamilton “hoped for a strong central government that would represent the propertied classes” better than the decentralized Confederation system of 1781-89. However, Hamilton “dared not … openly advocate the overthrow of the Confederation” [emphasis added].
But open overthrow wasn’t necessary; the opportunity to do the job more quietly came in 1786, when delegates of the sovereign States met in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss trade and other issues. It was Hamilton, in his job as delegate from the Republic of New York, who drafted the convention report calling for another convention the following year. The Congress of the Confederation in Philadelphia joined the call, stating that the purpose of the meeting would be (in Hicks’ words) “merely to propose amendments to the existing Articles of Confederation.”
However, when the convention actually convened at Philadelphia, it “disregarded this interpretation of its mission, and submitted a new constitution …” Hamilton and his Nationalist faction (who styled themselves “Federalists”) had misled the public about the most basic aspect of their agenda.
They had also misled the public about another crucial detail. The existing Constitution — the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union — clearly stipulated that any change thereto required unanimous consent of all thirteen States. That this basic Constitutional provision would of course be obeyed was “the clear inference” of the Congress when it called for the convention. Hicks writes. However, when the convention actually got under way, the delegates threw aside this Constitutional limitation and declared that only nine States would be sufficient to trash the old Constitution and government in favor of a totally new system!
[T]here is no way of demonstrating that the complete abandonment of the Articles of Confederation was necessary … Indeed, the old government … with all its [alleged] defects, might not have been so unsuccessful had the times been prosperous. But with the country in the depths of an economic depression all through the period of its existence, the Confederation government had no chance to know what it could do under normal circumstances.
Forrest McDonald, in E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790, tells us that, internal trade problems notwithstanding,
Inasmuch as the states had quite competently levied tariffs upon and regulated international commerce, settled boundary disputes, disposed of treaties, and raised armies and navies, that left little for the national government to do …
Who benefited from the overthrow of our original Constitution and the establishment of a superfluous central government? The delegates to the 1787 coup d’etat were “possessors of considerable property,” Hicks observes. This is important. It’s not just that they had some property – that wasn’t a huge accomplishment if you were a freeman. The “propertied class” meant owners of valuable urban property or large landed estates, or speculators in large amounts of land. Among this element, “the fear had grown almost to the proportions of panic that the lower classes would eventually secure control of the state governments … Out of this state of mind came the agitation in favor of a strong central government – a government which would be independent of state control, and would possess the will and the power to protect the rights of [big] property … One may fairly say that the small-farmer-artisan class was not represented in the convention at all.”
One who might have been expected to champion that class in 1787 was the author of the Declaration of Independence, former Virginia governor, future president, and Republican champion, Thomas Jefferson. Conveniently, however, Jefferson had been sent overseas as minister to France!
So, this elitist conclave representing big property owners “at once decided that, to promote freedom of discussion and to avoid outside interference, its sessions must be held behind closed doors and all proceedings carefully guarded from the public.” Only “the barest details of business” were recorded in the official journal. What we do know of the convention and drafting has been gleaned from the diaries of individual members. Several of these members being Freemasons, they were well used to the idea of furtive secrecy; and — “equality” rhetoric notwithstanding — many of them might have been tempted to think that men such as themselves possessed “more light” and were of a higher “degree” than common men, and thus, were more fit to rule.
Rationalizing secret cabals as necessary to “promoting freedom of discussion” is, of course, also the modus operandi of the Round Table Anglo-American globalist “councils” such as the CFR. This suggests a continuity of agenda. What the Nationalists did in overthrowing the sovereignty of America’s thirteen Republics and their constitution in 1787-89, the Globalist elites are doing in their secret conclaves right now, only on a global scale — and in piecemeal fashion, rather than all at once.
The former group took it upon themselves to create a brand new, centralized government: a “more perfect union,” they called it. They might have called it a “New National Order.” Now their spiritual successors, in similar fashion, have appointed themselves to forge a “more perfect union” that they call the “New World Order.”
The only legitimate government is by consent of the governed — so goes the Lockean-Jeffersonian theory. The elites have a different theory about this, or perhaps just a looser definition of “consent” than the average person. In their view, silence equals consent. It’s the political version of the “assumptive sale.”
Perhaps, a better analogy is rape: They will do it to you unless and until you stop them.
SO, THE SELF-APPOINTED global aristocracy is just going ahead and creating their institutions of rulership – the public be damned. The web of global and subordinate regional institutions thickens daily. The various “councils” — the domestic outposts such as the New York and Chicago CFRs; their mother, the Royal Institute in London; the Atlantic, Americas, the Asian-Pacific councils – serve simultaneously as a country-club or cocktail-party circuit for high society, as think tanks for globalist ideas, and as recruiting pools and indoctrination schools to grab and groom the “best and brightest” to man the global machinery. The new kid on the block, the Clinton Global Initiative, seems to especially serve the latter purpose. It seems a new version of the Rhodes Scholarship (of which Clinton was a recipient), which itself was established in the secret will of British imperialist Cecil Rhodes as a companion to the Round Table Groups which he had also established.
The Trilateral Commission serves especially to integrate business worldwide. It is more a working think tank. Davos (World Economic Forum) and Bilderberg are annual gatherings involving much the same crowd on a more informal basis, Bilderberg being the more senior and more exclusive.
Then there is the administrative machinery itself. The economic government, beginning with the unelected trade councils set up via dodgy “treaties” rahmmed through the Congress by bribery and deception. (“Rahmmed” is deliberate: it was Rahm Emanuel, who last year stepped out of the White House to rule the #7 “Global City,” who was instrumental in helping Clinton shove the NAFTA deal through Congress in 1993.)
Of course, these star chambers, which are neither elected nor subject to confirmation by elected representatives, are fully intended as permanent supranational government institutions. The trade government is intended to pave the way to full government, with a full complement of police and tax powers as well – just like the overbearing local, State and national government layers we already toil under today. Recall the “European Economic Community” morphing into the “European Community” and then the “European Union” — all the while denying with their lips what they were doing with their hands – so the NAFTA council is slated to expand into the North American Union, then the “American Union,” from Alaska to Argentina, despite all the U.S. elite denials and hoots of derision at “conspiracy theorists” who point out their announced plans.
The UN itself is the massive permanent bureacracy to take care of political patronage, worldwide social engineering, taxation, national and personal disarmament, and out other dictates of the elite.
The “G” organizations (G8, G20) are there to disseminate economic and financial policy to the most powerful national leaders and finance ministers.
The IMF is the organ of financial rape of Third World countries, while NATO and associated national forces now perform that function militarily. (The “north Atlantic” region now extends to the South China Sea.)
Perhaps the most exclusive organization is the Bank for International Settlements in Basel; it holds ten meetings per year of central bankers only; no lowly presidents, prime ministers or treasury ministers.
THE PERVASIVENESS OF the monarchial and/or Anglo-American meme (campaign?) is further illustrated by another piece of propaganda from the past week. This one was from ultra-Zionist Mormon commentator Glenn Beck. The featured guest on his radio program was plugging a book about the “connection between America and ancient Israel.”
“Oh no,” I groaned. “NotAnglo-Israelism!”
Yes, indeed. “There’s all kinds of prophecies of who the Lost Tribes would be and where they would go,” the guest author told Beck. “The evidence is strong, God led the tribes out of Israel. And he led them to America!”
Beck concurred: “The Pilgrims believed, the Puritans believed, all of them believed they were completing the journey that Moses began.” He also claimed, a bit strangely: “The Statue of Liberty is Moses. She’s holding the two tablets of the law. It’s Moses.”
So the legend crops up again. Anglo-Israelism (or British Israelism), a British sister cult to Zionism, goes back centuries. It first surfaces in early Elizabethan England, being promulgated by court magician John Dee, as that nation was first becoming a maritime power. Obviously, a myth of divine “Chosenness” would be instrumental in both rallying the people around the monarchy and its wars of conquest — and perhaps, in overawing rivals as well.
The British Israel myth next was put forth by Jews in their bid to gain re-entry to England after a 460-year ban. The Jews, actually, had been tossed out of nation after nation around Europe, and by the mid-1600s were established in Amsterdam. Following the English Civil War and execution of the tyrannical King Charles in 1649, MP and military leader Oliver Cromwell rose to power as “Protector,” during which time the Jews were readmitted. Cromwell apparently had received secret financial help through the Jewish synagogue at Amsterdam, in return for a guarantee that Charles would be whacked and the Jews returned. The main reason given for bringing back the Jews was that Britain needed their commercial abilities; but also, promoting the myth that the Jews and Anglo-Saxons were “blood brothers” no doubt ranks as one of the most successful PR campaigns of the pre-modern era. Over the ensuing centuries the Jews would forge substantial political, financial and marriage ties with the Anglo elite.
The Anglo-Israel myth also proved of interest to members of esoteric societies based on the Jewish Cabala, which became the foundation of Freemasonry.
Yet later, the legend resurfaced in the late 19th century under Queen Victoria, who even claimed to be a direct descendant of King David. The obvious effect was to provide an aura of Providential sanction for British colonialism, and for the monarchy in particular. Simultaneously on the Continent, the sister movement of European Zionism was beginning to flex its muscles, using a similar myth to provide an aura of Providential sanction for European Jewish colonization of Palestine.
There’s much more to be writtten about this doctrine; in fact, I have written much more. I spent many years in a church movement that preached Anglo-Israelism and Zionism as central doctrines – and I actually believed the stuff for a good while. (Though not primarily of Anglo descent, I figured that I should feel grateful for the blessing of being in the midst of modern-day Israel.)
The problem is, facts have a way of getting in the way of this entertaining tale. There are two lines of supposed evidence British Israel theorists advance: the historico-geographical lines (i.e., trying to trace the wanderings of the Ten Lost Tribes following their capture and exile to Assyria in the 7th century B.C.); and the biblical-covenantal line which supposedly gives theological significance to it all.
The former line encounters numerous evidentiary problems which must be bridged by somersaults of supposition. For instance, there’s the problem that Britain is claimed to be primarily descended from northern tribes Ephraim and Manasseh, which tribes were “lost” in history after being carried off as slaves by the Assyrians; yet, Victoria claimed to be specifically descended from David, who was of the tribe of the southern kingdom Judah,which never was “lost” to history and was based in Palestine until the Diaspora in the early centuries A.D. So, you have to explain how a “royal line” of the tribe of Judah supposedly migrated to the British Isles, found an already existing colony of Ephraim-Manasseh, and installed itself over those existing tribes. It all gets very convoluted very fast.
But that’s not even where British-Israelism makes its really fatal errors. The second, and more important strand of alleged “evidence,” the biblical-covenantal, is where they really derive their claim of “divine right” to rule, rape, and ravage the world. After all, even if the lost Israelites did wander to the British Isles, they still have to substantiate that their divine “Chosen People” (or if you will, Ubermensch) credentials are still intact. If still “God’s Chosen,” that means they can pretty much get away with anything — no matter how satanic. It is this claim — the claim of a “perpetual covenant” — that has proven so instrumental in buying the approval of Christendom. It is this pernicious and poisonous myth, now united as one with its sister Zionist myth, that Glenn Beck again invokes; a master meme targeting especially Bible-believing evangelical Protestants. The obvious purpose is to shore up Anglo-American-Zionist hegemony — which Beck calls “America.”
Their problem is, the “proofs” of a perpetual “Chosen” bloodline are easily debunked from the biblical texts themselves, which I did several years ago in a series of articles. (Since they rest on the very same mishandling of scriptures, British Israelism and religious Zionism sink together.) Although I only had time to utilize about one-tenth of the evidence I gathered, the articles still serve their purpose. Once I find a suitable blog home for that subject matter, I’ll post a link here.
See related post: Royal Obsession.
* In addition to “Joker” Roker’s GEMSNBC infodocumercial, GENBC (the dinosaur network) has been running a “Dateline” special with Chris Hansen, also advertising the DEA and their heroic war against …. plants … in the mountains of Utah. More dangerous than the plants are the Mexican drug gangs watching over them — who, for all we know, may have received some of their weapons from your BATF via Fast & Furious.
* June 5: In the midst of the orgasm of coverage surrounding the Diamond Jubilee, GEUKMSNBC’s Martin Bashir exulted on an on about how the Queen is so excellently devoted to “her duty.” In our self-interested world of today, Bashir claims, the Queen stands apart: she is not driven by self-interest; she’s a symbol of unity, blah blah.
Immediately after Bashir’s piece, we get Andrea Mitchell Greenspan frowning about the “divisiveness” among the electorate in Wisconsin over the impending Scott Walker recall vote.
The take-away from all this: QUEEN GOOD, VOTING BAD.
* July 26: The other night, NBC aired a Cadbury chocolate ad, intended to be humorous, which pictured a red-coated, Q-tip-hatted British Queen’s Guard standing next to an American woman’s refrigerator. Ha ha! Redcoats occupying American houses. Real funny, guys.
* July 27: To its small credit, CNN did publish an anti-monarchy piece on its website during the whole Queen’s Jubilee. Sadly, however, this dissenting opinion amounts to a whisper against the howling wind of pro-Monarchy advertising.