Grand Jury, 2nd Day “The general historical and geopolitical backdrop to all of this” on February 12th, 2022
Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion
Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law
‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
in conversation with Viviane Fischer and Reiner Fuellmich
(Original language: English)
[Transkript vom Team corona-ausschuss-info.com Ed+]
[This transcription is for the “polished” video, which omits delays and glitches of the live program.]
Reiner Füllmich: [0:00:15]
Good evening, good day, good morning, wherever you are. This is the second day of the grand jury investigation. This is a model proceeding which will take a very close look into the entire corona pandemic– how it started, the details of the PCR tests. But we will start today with a closer look at the historical and at the geopolitical background. So let us start with our first expert and that is… Matthew, it’s not you, it’s… it’s Alex, Alex Thomson. Alex, please introduce yourself, and then we will go right into medias res, as the Latin speakers say. You’re muted.
Alex Thomson: [0:01:11]
Thank you very much, Reiner. I am Alex Thomson, and for eight years, I was an officer of Britain’s signal intelligence agency GCHQ, the partner agency to NSA. And I was a desk officer for the former Soviet Union and a transcriber out of languages including Russian and German of intercepted material. And in the latter half of that period, I was also a member of GCHQ’s cross-disciplinary team for chemical biological radiological and nuclear threats, CBRN, in which capacity I came to know something about how the Anglo-American intelligence and military establishment regards its state of dominance in knowledge in all matters that can affect health on a mass scale, and the potential for weaponization of such agents.
But you’ve asked me to give something like a 20-minute summary of the geopolitical situation as it was in the world in the crucial period leading up to the post-Second World War period, because most of the testamonies this evening, and I understand in subsequent sessions of the grand jury, will concentrate much on the post-1945 world. And that really being the time when a lot of plans for unification of world government began in anger, including the health issues that you are concerned with. And my contention is that the dominant power in the world, namely the City of London, the financial heart of the British empire, readied itself for that situation from roughly 1870, and that the modern world, the monopolization, the cartelization of the world, begins in anger at that time.
Everything that we do– and by we I mean UK Column News; I am also joined this evening by Brian Gerrish, the joint editor who will testify later– everything that we do in investigating the corruption emanating from British Crown monopolies and City of London money does seem to point back to this period, from around 1870, in which, in a nutshell, there were several revolutions by the British elite. And they all revolved around containing productivity and preventing a growth of intelligence and intellectual property among the native peoples of the British empire and in competitor nations. So there was a revolution in what you might call mindspace, which since 2010 has been an explicit term used by the British government’s central department, the Cabinet Office: a revolution in the quality of education offered to British and later other western school children, a revolution in the theft of intellectual property by the elite, a revolution in the model of health care and free access to it; and at home, a constitutional revolution from the classic British liberal democracy model, which I know that the continent of Europe and its law schools have explicitly copied from Britain, to a model in which there is close control of what happens in parliaments and in agencies under the control of governments, using the whipped party system.
[0:04:35]
This all happened, as I say, around 1870. And at home in Britain, it was largely complete by the crucial year 1947-1948 when Britain had a unique– other than Canada– a unique situation of a national health service and was pushing the way towards the military unification of the European continent and the whole of NATO and in many other ways, including planning law and citizenship, was leading the world in reinventing how it managed its population. The center note here is the City of London. That is the square mile at the very heart of what is now called Greater London. Why this is important is because the City of London and the Church of England are the only institutions that have endured every constitutional revolution in the British Isles, with their privileges and their vast wealth intact. The City of London is distinct from other world metropolitan areas, megalopolises, in that it chose to keep itself geographically small as the urban area around it grew. The City of London still has a legal status apart from the 32 other London boroughs and does not really form part of Greater London as such. Its privileges were entrenched as early as Magna Carta, 1215.
Its self-government has never been challenged. It has at many times in its history had power over the British Crown and hence over a large slice of the earth, during the British empire, notably during the civil wars of the mid 17th century, when the City of London continued as the financial power rivaling the Crown and even in some ways abolished the Crown for a decade. And after the restoration of the crown and ultimately the English revolution just six years after that, with the Dutch king William the Third coming to the crown of Great Britain. The Bank of England was set up in 1694, with a 12 and a half million pound injection of cash into the Crown by these private shareholders, which we are reliably told forms the basis of all the debt which has been leveraged since to this day. And the current descendants of those shareholders and others entitled to shares of the Bank of England are kept secret.
The City of London also has control over the so-called Mother of Parliaments, the Westminster Parliament, notably in the form of an official of the City of London known as the Remembrancer, who sits in the House of Commons where not even the monarch is allowed to enter, and records what is being said against financial interests. It’s too complicated to give a definition of the Crown in the British model, but what is important is that the Cabinet Office, a department which was set up in the early 20th century, is the repository effectively of Crown prerogatives. And so when people outside the United Kingdom think of the Crown, they often think excessively of the old situation with the monarchs standing on the coronation oath and being responsible to the people.
[0:07:35]
In practice in this period from around 1870, the constitutional revolution has ensured that financiers controlling political parties actually pull the levers of Crown prerogatives behind the scenes. The model of government Britain still has, which it has exported to the Commonwealth and the whole world, is that of an inner sanctum, the Privy Council, which actually governs in the name of the Crown. And it is only for show, as the main constitutional writers have admitted since the 1870s, only for show that Parliament and government departments are consulted, as if there were a separation between executive, legislature and judiciary. At Privy Council level, this is not the case.
In this crucial period about which we are speaking, the preeminent English constitutional writer Walter Bagehot admitted this. In the 17– in the second edition of his book “The English Constitution”, written in 1873, just when the modern whipped party and behind them the think tank were coming into their own to establish the will of monopolists in the City of London, Walter Bagehot wrote in one paragraph there about a distinction between the quote “dignified” parts of the government, that is the parts that are there for show, the crown in its personal sense; and the quote “efficient” parts, in the sense of the working parts of the machine. And he admits that the attractive parts do have a purpose, but that is only to attract the force of national support to the really working parts behind the scenes.
Now to simplify this as much as possible, what I think is important to point out is that the history academic at Georgetown University, Carrol Quigley– that’s C-a-r-r-o-l-l Quigley, who was the tutor of Bill Clinton, among others wrote quite frankly in his book “Tragedy and Hope – A Aistory of the World in Our Time” that there have been four industrial revolutions. Yes, that familiar language coming from the World Economic Forum, was being written about in the 1960s already by Quigley. And we will not understand this unless we see that the perspective which is being assumed here is that of who owns the population, first in Britain and then in the British Empire.
[0:09:50]
In the first revolution, the ownership of land, of agricultural means, provides wealth. Then there is a mechanical industrial revolution, a second revolution; then one in which financial capital dominates the world. And it’s from this period around 1870 onwards that the smart money in the City of London realizes that even that bubble is going to burst, and that the really important way to own the world in future will be to own the minds and the productivity and the thoughts of those in the model to make– to stop them running away and becoming– and out-producing their bosses. So the modern era of cartelization in both industry and geopolitics began around the year 1870. In the space of just a few years around that date, the world underwent a fundamental shift from a situation in which the City of London and the British Empire lacked any serious competition, to a world in which several industrialized economies were able to out-compete Britain.
The British Empire and its financial hub in the City of London had massively over-extended themselves across Asia in the previous generation, especially with the Afghan wars and the opium wars in the 1840s and the Crimean war and the Indian mutiny of the 1850s. One of the City of London’s most powerful banks, HSBC, dates in fact from the time of the Chinese opium trade. There is quite a lot of criminality involved in the City of London’s banks in the outset. In Europe, the post-Napoleonic order, imposed by Britain at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, had begun to crumble, with both the successful and the failed socialist revolutions of 1848. Russia and Austria-Hungary were the eastern European countries with the most powerful land armies at that time. And it was they who safeguarded Europe by restoring crowned heads.
Therefore, the obsession of British foreign policy from the midpoint of the 19th century– and this is something I saw when I attended Chatham House meetings, the supreme, the world-supreme geopolitical think tank in many ways, which tells the Foreign Office what to do– the obsession of British foreign policy from the midpoint of the 19th century was a new strategy, namely, to ally with the arch-rivals of the past, France and even the Ottoman Empire, against Britain’s historic allies in northern and central Europe, in order to prevent any future Russo-German alliance from becoming the world’s dominant bloc. And a secondary strategy there was to prevent the meteoric rise of American intellectual productivity and democratization of invention and to try to capture that.
[0:12:29]
As early as 1812, British troops invading Washington DC notably spared the Patent Office, because they knew that if they burnt that, they would be shooting themselves in the foot and stopping themselves from being able to continue to dominate American invention after the American Revolution. Now in the years around 1860, under Bismarck, Garibaldi and Tsar Nikolai the First, three major European nations which previously had been great only in cultural terms had suddenly become politically unified and economically modern states. And with the groß Deutschland – klein Deutschland [big Germany – small Germany] debate, there were serious indications that Germany might ally with Austria into a single German-speaking state. And it was obvious to the British elite that within a generation or two, all three of these countries, Germany, Italy and Russia, would become great powers at roughly the same level as Britain and France.
The United States emerged from its Civil War in 1865 and began a staggeringly rapid rise to industrial supremacy. Britain’s elite correctly foresaw that by around 1900, all four of these new powers would begin to have navies as strong as France’s or even as strong as Britain’s, and foresaw that the land armies of these European powers would be far stronger than Britain’s, so that only a previously unthinkable Franco-British alliance in the name of human rights and the spread of liberal democracy would be able to hold these powers in check.
By 1880, the so-called “scramble” for Africa was in full swing, which allowed even territorially minor nations in Europe, such as Belgium and Portugal, to acquire substantial resources from colonization of the African interior and to become serious rivals to British industry and commerce. This was a severe embarrassment to the City of London; because, for example, Portugal was Britain’s oldest ally, and Belgium was a state that owed its very existence to British negotiation in 1815. Serious arguments have been made by historians that the the wave of assassinations in the Edwardian era, including that of the Portuguese royal family in 1908 and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, were engineered with secret City of London connivance.
[0:14:38]
There was also an Asian country that became a great power in both industrial and military terms at the end of the 19th century, namely Japan, which to the world’s frank astonishment beat Russia in 1905, thereby giving many colonial populations in Africa and Asia the inspiration that there was no reason why they, too, could not assert themselves against European rule, in the way that the Latin American republics already had against Spain. The following year, 1906, was the year of the naval race, the dreadnought crisis, which perhaps inevitably started to count down to the Great War, the First World War, because both the British and the German elite were now determined to achieve weltherrshaft, world domination. Both were rightly suspicious of each other’s motives. Both were technically capable of achieving world domination, both industrially and in the mindspace, and both had powerful blocks of allies for the first time.
In a nutshell, the change brought about by the existential crisis of the mid to late 19th century was that the City of London’s trading model as described by Quigley, the successive waves of monopolies, this model came to emphasize the importance of controlling not just military force or physical assets any more, but the minds of people, now known as “human resources” in the British Empire and further afield. And this is why science fiction starts speaking about ownership of man’s genetic makeup from this time, in order that the City of London could sell goods and, increasingly, services to the rest of the world, which would never catch up in the mindspace.
It is the consistent finding of UK Column and of allied researchers and commentators that the City of London and Britain’s very wealthy soft power institutions, the ones that Tony Blair even this month has once again told us we must keep and become world-beating using such as the British Council, the BBC, British academia and the Church of England– that these institutions continue to regard that battle for the mind as their top priority for world domination, and that they regard health as a sub-sector of that battle. We are also fully convinced from repeated findings that the British elite regard themselves with some justification as still the world’s leading power in mindspace. In other words, the City of London gets other nations to do its donkey work and its dirty work for it, and it does this above all by pulling off the trick of making its own population, Britain and the Commonwealth and the elites of other nations, assume its perspective and its narrative rather than their own perspectives and narratives.
[0:17:12]
This is the concentration that I had in my British elite education, and this is the concentration that the British intelligence agencies have had through both world wars and the cold war. It is not a formal strategy that is taught in boarding schools or universities or officer training or intelligence agencies, but it is very much the credo of the leading so-called “bloodlines” of elite families that run the City of London. And it is the modus operandi of the Anglo-American tax-exempt foundations and of the think tanks such as Chatham House above all, which push the agendas of those bloodlines upon the western governments.
A key figure from the year 1870 is that of John Ruskin, seemingly an innocuous figure, because he was the first professor of art at Oxford, but he brought the doctrine that the British elite really had a duty to export its own world view to the rest of the world, in very broad-brush terms. And his key student whom he inspired was Cecil Rhodes, who of course, became fabulously wealthy in southern Africa. Cecil Rhodes– and this is all documented by very many historians– wrote secret diaries and formed secret societies. In 1891, after 16 years’ planning, his main secret society was formed. The Rhodes scholarships are part of that society. Oxford members of the Rhodes network were the likes of Lord Toynbee and Lord Milner, well-known geostrategists. In Cambridge there was the future Foreign Secretary Lord Gray and Lord Issha [Esher?]. In London, there was the leading journalist at the time, W. T. Stead. And initiates and members of the executive committee of Cecil Rhodes were the above named men plus Lord Rothschild.
After Rhodes’ death in 1902, other leading English bloodlines that repeatedly played in City of London history, such as the Astors, came into the same circle. The outer circle, to achieve the will of Cecil Rhodes, this seemingly benign vision of Britain forcing the world to accept its liberal democracy and accept its way of viewing the world, the outer circle became known as the Round Table groups, still functioning in the United States and seven other countries, set up from 1909 onwards. This group regarded the success of the Canadian federation, 1867, as its leading case study. You’ll be hearing more about that from Matt Ehret later. Canada was effectively politically unified, and later the other white colonies, the white dominions, in order to prevent there being a spread of different views, different English-speaking democracies in the world. They must instead all be traced back to the City of London’s control.
[0:19:51]
And this is very contemporary, too, because among the many Rhodes scholars that dominate world politics and push the world towards globalism are the aforementioned Bill Clinton; and from the World Economic Forum, the New Zealand lady, Professor Nyree Woods, who this year became very well known for her saying at the WEF that the elite can do beautiful things if they come together and if the people of the world simply accept that they are in the lead. Rhodes wrote in one of his secret diaries, quote: “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object:” meaning, with only one object, “the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule for the recovery” that means recovery for Britain, “of the United States and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one empire.”
He also wrote, “Let us form the same kind of society, a church for the extension of the British empire,” This is mindspace– my comment. Rhodes continues, “a society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire, working with one object and one idea. We should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands. Just one, perhaps, in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object.” This is what Rhodes scholarships are for. “He should be tried in every way. He should be tested, whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life. And if found to be such,” in other words a psychological test, “then he should be elected and bound by oath” that is, sworn to secrecy, “to serve for the rest of his life in his country. He should then be supported, if without means, by the society, and sent to that part of the Empire where it is felt he was needed.” And in this vision, of course, the United States is part of the Empire.
In another of his wills, Rhodes described his intent in more detail. Quote: “…to and for the establishment, promotion and development of a secret society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates,” modern Iraq, “the islands of Cyprus and Kandia,” that is, Crete, “the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay archipelago, those aboard of China and Japan,” meaning offshore of China and Japan, “and the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”
[0:22:38]
This vision did not remain the ravings of a particularly wealthy Englishman, but they nativised themselves in the United States in the so-called “eastern establishment”, the eastern seaboard, as the United States became the world’s dominant power. The key testimony on this is that of Norman Dodd, D-o-d-d, given shortly before his death in 1982 to G. Edward Griffin, easily found on line, as “Norman Dodd on the Tax-exempt Foundations”. Dodd was the key staffer for Reece, the congressman from east Tennessee, R-e-e-c-e, who in the 1950s carried out on behalf of Congress an investigation into the effect of these tax-exempt foundations in the United States, which implemented the City of London’s and Cecil Rhodes’ vision for world domination. Now I’m going to read what Dodd said in this interview. He speaks about having hired a skeptical, level-headed practicing attorney in Washington– this is in the 1950s– and sent her up to the library of the Carnegie Foundation, one of the key tax-exempt foundations, where she was given access with a Dictaphone belt, technology of the time, to record efficiently what she was reading, to scan the library and see what was being said in the years 1906, that I was mentioning earlier, and 1908.
And this initially skeptical woman, quote “unsympathetic to the aims of the Reece Committee, found this, to her lifelong horror. She dictated into her belt, ‘according to God’– we are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations, and in that year,” she reads, as she is in the Carnegie Foundation’s library, “The trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. And the question is: is there any means known more effective than war, assuming that you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that no, no more effective means than war, to that end, is known to humanity.”
“So then,” continues the lawyer with her Dictaphone belt on, “in 1909, the Carnegie Foundation raised the second question and discussed it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?” I could go on, but I don’t have the time on that strand, but I think that is enough in itself to establish the key insight in people’s minds that it is not enough to be by far the world’s greatest military and economic power– as the United States has been arguably since before the First World War, certainly after it– if your mindspace is still controlled by this argument that the Anglo-Saxon liberal democratic model is the only game in town, if it’s still controlled by the unexamined assumption that everyone at the top of that model is paid up to liberty. Then you are still going to find that a club with self-interest is going to run the world, and even in areas such as healthcare, which Britain first, the first country in the world, socialized in 1948. You’re going to find that people wrongly and blithely assume that their best interests are… kept at heart.
[0:26:02]
In perhaps two minutes, I will make the other point that I wish to make, which is regarding the City of London and its offshoot in Manhattan in Wall Street, funding both sides of both World Wars. Now this is not, again, an original claim to me. Serious academics such as Anthony Sutton, who was at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in California, have written whole books about this, entitled “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution” and “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler”. This is well known to those who bother to find out about these things. There was a whole trail of documents which was recovered by Anthony Sutton. It cost him his tenure at Stanford. He put this all in his books, and what he found was that, in a nutshell, both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were brought into being for the interests of the City of London, and more particularly its Wall Street end.
So if you could bring up briefly the first slide which I asked you to put on screen, you will see just one outworking of that, which is that IBM had a monopoly subsidiary in Germany called the Hollerith Company. Hollerith was the name of the German owner– can you confirm whether that is on screen at the moment? Well, wait a minute– thank you, yes. So you can see here that Hollerith, the nominal German owner of this IBM subsidiary, is offering the Third Reich ubersicht, or oversight, using punch cards, an American technology licensed to the Third Reich. At the bottom you can read “Übersicht mit Hollerith lochkarten”, total information awareness using Hollerith punch cards. And the company name at the bottom is “DEUTSCHE HOLLERITH MACHINEN GESELLSHAFT M.B.H. [Mit Beschränkter Haftung, with limited liability] or dejo mark, which was in Berlin Lichterfelder [Lights Field locality].
The second slide which I have is just one example of the total reach of British intelligence in areas which it’s not constitutionally able or permitted to… have, which is that you can see a Christmas tree symbol here, indicating that MI5, even before the Second World War, was vetting who got onto the airwaves of the BBC, who got promoted and who got transferred. This was all done checking with MI5 in very brief terms British intelligence. Okay, it nominally is there for the nation, but it was set up by the bloodlines of which I speak to further their private aims. That’s certainly how they regard the running of British intelligence.
[0:28:43]
The third of my four slides shows how this breaks surface in 2010, where the British Cabinet Office is– with a– together with a think tank, the Institute of Government, is openly speaking about its control of the world’s thinking and the thinking of the British people. They are labeling parts of the brain under the label of “mindspace”, and on the right-hand side you have– I can see the– you put the key text from pages 66 and 67 of this 2010 document. It says, “Even if people agree with the behavior goal–” this is about nudging to get people to behave as was wished by bloodlines rather than to mandate their governments to act on their behalf– “Even if people agree with the behavior goal, they may object to the means of accomplishing it. The different mindspace effects will attract different levels of controversy. There are several factors that determine controversy.” In other words, they are foreseeing that they will be told this is a reversal of the aims of government, including in health care, of course.
They go on, “As noted, mindspace effects depend at least partly on the automatic system. This means that citizens may not fully realize that their behavior is being changed, or at least how it is being changed. Clearly this opens government up to charges of manipulation. People tend to think that attempts to change their behavior will be effective if they are simply provided information in an above-board way. People have a strong dislike of being tricked. This dislike has a psychological grounding, but fundamentally it is an issue of trust in government. A lack of conscious control also has implications for consent and freedom of choice. First, it creates a greater need for citizens to approve the use of the behavior change, perhaps using new forms of democratic engagement.” You see that in this model, democracy is the highest good that’s sold, but the levers of manipulating democracy are in the hands of the cartel.
“Second, if the effect operates automatically, it may offer little opportunity for citizens to opt out or choose otherwise. The concept of choice architecture is less use here. Any action that may reduce the right to be wrong, the right to refuse treatment for example, will be very controversial. Of course, some traditional attempts to change behavior are not explicit, and these have attracted controversy. But they rarely attract the charge of manipulation, because they are based on conscious actions to supply and register information, rather than relying on unconscious reactions.”
[0:31:20]
I think that establishes the points well enough in principle that we are trained in the modern world, dominated by the City of London and its soft power institutions, to think that we are in control of our destiny, because liberal democracy is held up as the paragon, on the correct argument, often, that all other systems are more tyrannical and less desirable. But the whole strength of the City of London’s model is that it can even operate at arm’s length through other countries, such as the United States and Germany, as demonstrated here, to persuade people that what they wanted before is not really what they want now. And it’s the filling of the mindspace, which is, I think, the most powerful weapon that’s on– that’s available there.
Now I can see that I’ve gone over the time allotted, so I will leave the rest of these details. I could never have hoped to be comprehensive here, but I trust that I have given people a small taste of the long track record of solid historical research that there has been, by people well familiar with the British establishment, in establishing this: that the British establishment hasn’t been fighting fair since about 1870, and that most of the revolutions it wished to bring about, control of democracy through party whipping, control of health care, through compulsory, state-provided healthcare in the British and Canadian model, were all in place by the post-war period, which is the time at which I understand Matt Ehret is going to pick up the testimony and take us into the post-1945 era.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:32:57]
Thank you very much, Alex. This is a perfect overview of how we got into this. If I may, I would like to ask just a few questions. Of course, my learned colleagues will do the same. But is it correct that the City of London is the real powerhouse in… the UK?
Alex Thomson: [0:33:23]
It is unquestionably the powerhouse. This is something that if you’ve had my background, you learn at boarding school, let alone at university. So rugby and Cambridge in my case, and by the time you get into the civil service, there is a lot of eye rolling if you ever suggest that the people of Britain or any other country in the Commonwealth have self-determination. No, the City of London is understood to own the population– body, mind and soul.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:33:51]
Ultimately, and this seems to have started fairly early. I don’t know if it started– I forget if it… was in 1870 or in the early 1900s, but ultimately it’s the control of the people’s mind that the City of London, to further their goal of world domination, that they really wanted. Is that correct?
Alex Thomson: [0:34:14]
Yes, and it is not a specifically Anglo-Saxon problem any more, because there are countries on the European continent which certainly since 1949– Germany is one of them, the Federal Republic, of course; Belgium is another, which, as I said in my testimony, was set up by British insistence in 1815. I translate at quite a high level government communications from supposedly the national health agencies of these countries to their citizens. I translate them into English for expatriates in those countries and the Belgian and German, to name these two examples, governments are explicitly following a City of London view here. They write to the population in terms of health management, telling them that the way that they exist is not good enough. Their bodies, their minds, their genetics, their intelligence have not been optimized. And therefore, this livestock, this population, is not competing as it should in the world.
So that is an extension of the City of London model to the European continent, where it turned out in many ways to fit in just as well to codified civil-law jurisdictions with high respect for the rule of law, as it does in a common-law jurisdiction.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:35:23]
So ultimately what we’re seeing is a very powerful, financially powerful and therefore powerful institution, City of London, which bridges the Atlantic. Because as its fifth column, as some people claim, they have Wall Street. Those two powers united used to be, or still are, the most– the center of power in this world?
Alex Thomson:[0:35:53]
Yes, I mean, you could– you can take many twists and turns, especially in the mid-20th century period, but what you have said is a useful diagnostic summary of the whole of the the 20th century. There are struggles; for a long time, there was the completely non-trivial cold war, with branches of the aristocracy in the City of London being both pro- and anti-Soviet Union. I could talk for hours just about that. But that is secondary to the determination that there must be only a German block and a Russian bloc in Eurasia, and that both of these ultimately must be controlled and hemmed in by British, or Anglo-American sea power and Anglo-American soft power, setting the paradigms for them.
Another thing that I wanted to clarify is: you mentioned that it is just a few families who really run the City of London. You mentioned the names of Rothschild and Rhodes and Astor. Is it true that it’s just a few families who are trying to dominate the world through the City of London?
Alex Thomson: [0:36:58]
Yes. I have never found better material than that of a writing duo which is Dutch-German-American. The Dutchman is Robin de Ruiter R-u-i-t-e-r. His American-German co-author is Fritz Springmeier, from South Carolina. They have the rather shocking book titled “Bloodlines of the Illuminati”, but their work is solid, and they consistently show that the City of London, Manhattan, the European continent are very much dominated by a small number of families. Often 13 is given as the top level of these families. Obviously, there are levels below that. The French, for example, often spoke about “les deux cent familles”, the 200 bloodlines, that run the deep state. But the senior ones terrorize the junior ones in this model, and the… highest you can get up before you disappear into nebulous claims of Satan running the world, which ultimately I believe he does, but the highest level you can get up to is a level at which central European Germanic bloodlines have an uneasy truce with British Isles bloodlines, most of whom are now based in the United States.
That is the… largest model, and all the geopolitical frustrations of the 20th century ultimately are to do with one or another wing trying to gain ascendancy– should we go with the City or overturn the City?– and that have to do with the frustration of emerging superpowers, notably the Russians trying to play on level terms with… that bloodline cartel, and failing.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:38:27]
Um-hm. And one of the major means through which these very few families are trying to dominate the rest of the world seems to be through mindspace, which sounds a little bit like mind control. Does that mean through psychological operations?
Alex Thomson: [0:38:49]
Very much so. No nation got into the game of psychological operations earlier than Britain. As soon as there were formal intelligence agencies in Britain, in the Edwardian era, just before the First World War, it was a major concentration. But they borrowed a lot of their insights from Vienna and from Germany, which were leading in the psychological space at the time. So this is a transnational interest, in… both the Anglo and the Germanic areas of world domination at the time, to use the tricks of mindspace. And these were largely perfected when America had unchallenged hegemony after 1945 using– as in so many other areas, such as Operation Paperclip for technical areas– using a lot of the Third Reich and Soviet minds, actually, brought over to the United States surreptitiously. It’s been regarded as– since the days of Edward Bernays and Freud– as the most powerful way of controlling action in the real world, because if you cannot perceive of there being a valid way of doing things other than what you’re told is the right way, then that’s obviously the supreme power that you can have. If you have that power, you control people who are more numerous, more intelligent and stronger than yourself.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:40:02]
Did I hear correctly that you use the term “livestock”? Is that really the view that these people have of the rest of the world?
Alex Thomson: [0:40:11]
It is explicitly the view that– certainly in the 1990s, when I was at a senior British boarding school, this… term was used explicitly to describe– by the grandsons of City of London seniors– to describe the British population who… went, who walked under their own windows on the way to– as we went to lessons, they were going about their business in town. The… terms that we used for them revolved around the idea that they were cattle and did not deserve a place in the world, other than under the direction of the British elite.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:40:44]
Thank you very much, Alex. I don’t… want to keep my learned colleagues from asking questions, so please, go ahead.
Dexter Ryneveldt: [0:40:58]
Good day, Mr Alex Thomson. Thank you so much for your evidence. Can you hear me loud and clear?
Alex Thomson: [0:41:02]
Perfectly well, thank you.
Dexter Ryneveldt: [0:41:04]
Excellent. Mr Thomson, I would like to know– and you have actually touched on the African continent, and specifically you’ve mentioned Cecil John Rhodes. I would like to know from you, what role does the City of London play currently on the African continent? Can you please just elaborate on that?
Alex Thomson: [0:41:29]
The role that it plays is a very dark and complex one, and is largely seen when coup d’etats and revolutions occur in former British colonies. Of course, there is a whole band of countries formerly colored pink on the map, famously from Cairo all the way down to the Cape, where Britain nearly installed a railway and a single colony. And in… these countries, you see it most clearly. Mrs Thatcher’s son was involved in a failed coup attempt in a _non_-Anglophone African country, Equatorial Guinea. This is just one example where the attempt was bungled, and the City of London sponsors left Mark Thatcher to… dry on his own, as it were, when this failed.
I think most particularly what we see in former Rhodesia, now the nations of Zambia and Zimbabwe, is that there’s been a node where the City of London has retained financially corrupt and powerful people and the local SAS contingents from the era of white rule, who have done a lot of the dirty work, even in London itself in the post-war period. And this has been done on the basis of having, on paper, ownership of rich mineral assets in southern Africa. That’s the most general way in which I could talk about it. There… are even suspicious deaths as late as the 1979 Lancaster House Accords paving the way for ZANU-PF [Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front] to take over from the Smith government in Rhodesia, as it became Zimbabwe, with lawyers falling supposedly to their deaths out of windows. It’s… an extremely dark picture, and the more you look at some of the companies involved– Kroll Security is one that comes to mind– the more you see that there is a nexus between MI6, SAS and the City of London. And it regards southern Africa in particular as its prime asset.
Dexter Ryneveldt: [0:43:18]
Thank you very much. So will you then agree with me, Mr Thomson, it really comes to financial dominance, when we look at covid-19, that is at the core. So you will agree that financial dominance is at the core of the covid-19 pandemic?
Alex Thomson: [0:43:37]
Yes, I would. And I would qualify it very slightly by reminding you that in Carroll Quigley’s summary of the Anglo-American elite establishment’s worldview, he points out that the ownership of financial assets is already outdated by the 1960s. And he knows that the… great brains, not necessarily the good brains, a century prior to him already saw this coming. They were regarding the real wealth as human minds and human health, and the ability to alter and to copyright, in time, the human being into a new model that would behave as expected. That is the great wealth in the world. But with that caveat, if we call that wealth, and in extension we can call it financial, then yes, that… is the greatest prize there is.
The whole point about the City of London is: if you are somewhat intellectually gifted and come up from a privileged British background into Oxford and Cambridge, you really only have the choice between money-making in the City of London or some branch of its national service, such as intelligence or officership. And the difference, time and again, I saw between myself and those who went the other way in my cohort was principle, that neither group doubted that the real power in the world was ownership of capital. It’s just a question of whether you wish to serve that by being an intelligence officer who reports to the City of London ultimately, or whether you wish to be part of the action making the money. There is no higher ideal than that, in the Anglo-American model.
Dexter Ryneveldt: [0:45:09]
Thank you very much. No further questions from me, thank you.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:45:14]
Any questions from Ana, or Virginie, or Dipali?
Ana Garner: [0:45:23]
No, I think this was quite excellent. The only question I would ask is, how do you turn this– you mentioned various things like copywriting the human mind, copyrighting the, maybe the genetics, even. Do you feel that there is a link between the current vaccines, so-called vaccines, the shots from Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen, Astrazeneca, do you think there is a relationship between those and this goal of copyrighting the humans?
Alex Thomson: [0:45:54]
I very strongly believe that. I’m not medically or biotechnologically qualified to explain how much truth there may be in this, but I’ve seen time and again that where there is hype and where there is a a pseudo-theological belief among the elite in Britain and America that you can achieve a certain aim by pulling a certain trick, such as by editing a gene and stamping a copyright on the human body, as it were, that is enough motivation in and of itself to fuel a serious attempt to go that way. And I know that when Debbie Evans takes part of Brian Gerrish’s testimony slot later this evening, she will be talking about that. I think that the very heart of it is the idea that genetic editing will allow de facto sneaky copywriting of the… number of souls and bodies in humanity that are affected, so that they’re no longer under the creator.
Ana Garner: [0:46:46]
Thank you. Thank you.
Reiner Füllmich: [0:46:49]
Okay, then that concludes Alex Thomson’s testimony.
Grand Jury, 2nd Day “The general historical and geopolitical backdrop to all of this” on February 12th, 2022
Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion
Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law
‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
Methew Ehret in conversation with Viviane Fischer and Reiner Fuellmich
(Original language: English)
[Transkript vom Team corona-ausschuss-info.com Ed+]
Reiner Füllmich: [00:46:53]
Now we will listen to Matthew Ehret’s testimony.
Matthew Ehret: [00:47:00]
Yes, thank you. I have to say that… presentation was… more than I expected, though. And that, I think, sets the tone very well for the torch that I’m being handed right now. I would just make– maybe push back on one single point, which is that no matter what the oligarchy might wish legally or formally to be the claim of who owns the soul or the the body and freedom of people, it has no bearing in reality. There is a natural law that is higher than the law that they wish to impose onto the universe, and that’s part of the problem with ivory-tower thinkers, right? They always want the universe to conform to their mathematical models, and they kind of go into conniption fits of rage when they discover that the universe is much more creative and non-linear than they want it to be.
So it’s the sort of God complex which is ultimately the downfall, I think, of empires historically. Every time you see the oligarchy sort of self-canibalise and melt down under its own self-contradictions, it’s a natural thing that should happen the way it does. The question is: are we willing to tolerate that level of folly and immorality, to the point that we go down with it, right? And that’s always the the challenge for every generation. This isn’t a new thing, and obviously we are at the end of a system.
[00:48:09]
I’m going to do something a little bit different I will deal– well, originally I was going to talk a lot more about eugenics. Now I understand that on february 26th, we’re going to focus a lot more on eugenics, so I won’t do that. I will carry on the theme that Alex raised, but I will do this by first dealing with about eight minutes of the present situation, just to get across what is the British hand in global affairs today, in a little bit more detail, using a little one-minute video from Justin Trudeau here in Canada, where we have this shadow of a shadow who’s been, you know, imposed onto the people to carry out a policy that really doesn’t come from him. And I think everybody recognizes that there’s nothing really there. He’s kind of like a young version of Biden. His whole life has sort of been handled, but the question being: well, obviously if this guy’s too… much of a Ken doll without a brain or a soul to actually carry out or make decisions, then what is the power behind the so-called throne? So I’m going to start with a video. Then I’m going to go back, after dealing with the present, a little bit more into the 18– the 19th century, a little bit with a Canadian focus, just because this is something on people’s perspective right now, being… what… is happening– is currently happening in Ottawa. And then we’re going to carry up to the battles in the post-World War II age, just to see how this thing transmogrified and recalibrated after World War II. So we’ll just do this in a summary way. I’ll try not to oversimplify too much, but obviously this is a complex issue, and I… will try to do justice and rigor to what needs to be understood. So the first thing is the video that I promised, which I’m going to play here. It’s about a minute and a half oh share sound… share sound. All right, I hope people can hear this. This is not the video. I’m so sorry. Let’s try that again. Okay, can people see the the Canadian press? All right.
VIDEO: [00:50:22]
I, Justin P.J. Trudeau, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, so help me God. I, Justin P.J. Trudeau, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity or that shall be secretly treated of in counsel. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty, so help me God.
I, Justin P.J. Trudeau, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will truly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as Prime Minister, so help me God.
Matthew Ehret: [00:51:43]
Okay. No one can hear anything any more, right?
Reiner Füllmich:
No, the video is over, but we can hear you.
Matthew Ehret: [00:51:50]
Great. Okay. Yeah. So that is a little bit of a confusing thing for some people who saw this in 2017. Not your typical thing you would expect a so-called democratic head of state to be doing when he’s declaring his oath of office after an election, but then again Trudeau is not really the head of state, as we’ve come to see. He’s both a member of the Privy Council Office, which you have to be if you’re going to be in a Cabinet position in government or in the opposition. And the actual head of state is the Governor General, that older gentleman standing next to him, who is the appointee carrying out the emanation, the powers and authority of the crown, to give royal assent to any law that becomes law in Canada. You have Lieutenant Governors, a position in every single province; you have a Privy Council office; you have this whole weird Byzantine structure above the apparent public aspect of our so-called democracy.
And this monarchy of the north, which is, again, very confusing for a lot of people– we’re going to go into a little bit more of what this is, what is this anomalous thing, and what is it a part of internationally? How did it come into being? So here I’ve prepared a series of slides just to get across the– Canada is, after all, a part of the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth. This is something that was set up in the late 18th– 1930s in preparation for, well, essentially the the transformation of the British Empire’s outward image. Today, there’s about 40– 54 countries in the British Commonwealth, with the center being the United Kingdom. The head of it is the the Queen of England. You have this thing occupying about 12.2 million square miles of territory. 2.4 billion people are represented within territories here. 21 percent of the world’s land area.
And, you know, people celebrate this thing as if it’s somehow a democratic institution. And it’s a bit weird, like what is… this thing that also– if you look at a lot of these territories, a lot of it is the Caribbean. The… Latin American areas aren’t so touched, but a lot of the Caribbean is, a lot of Africa. There’s 19 African nations in sub-Saharan Africa…. There are eight Asian nations, India being the biggest, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Obviously the “Five Eyes” minus the United States. But let’s just compare this to the… old British Empire. There’s a screenshot from an 18– a 1920 map. It looks pretty similar, doesn’t it. So people say, “Oh, the British Empire just– it disappeared after World War II. It let its territories go free, and now the empire is the big, bad American Empire.”
[00:54:35]
That’s the mythology that’s been passed down to us, and it is a mythology, as Alex went through very concisely. The real power the… that controls the fifth column inside of the United States, which has always been there since 1776, has always been centered in London. We’re going to flesh this out a little bit more, but it never disappeared. No, no empire of this sort ever just willfully gives liberty. Liberty is something you fight for. Just quickly the issue of current mining interests today. I mean, this is not something that just occurred in the 1880s, 1890s, with the the land grab for Africa and Cecil Rhodes’s creation of deBeers and… Launder Ho and other other mining interests.
This is something– This is a 2016 report. It’s a… fantastic report by a non-profit that conducted audits on the the British interests, those interests that are controlling mining in Africa with headquarters in either the UK or within Commonwealth territories measured on the London Stock Exchange. And just a small quote here: it’s a new colonialism written, scramble for African energy and mining resources. It says 101 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, most of them British, have mining operations in 37 sub-Saharan African countries. They collectively control over one trillion dollars worth of Africa’s most valuable resources. The UK government has used its power and influence to ensure that mining companies, British mining companies, have access to Africa’s raw materials. This was the… case during the colonial period, and it is still the case today. This report is available for free online as a pdf.
I’m not going to go into details. It is upwards of 70 of the mining interests which also include refining materials by companies that are in British-controlled territories. How– what is the infrastructure carrying this out? There’s something that a lot of people don’t even know about. This is an organization affiliated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as the World Bank, called Crown Agents. It was set up in 1833 as a– on its official, you know, self description, as an emanation of the Crown. It’s not part of the government, but its authority comes from the fount of all honors, the Crown itself. That’s the way the sort of Byzantine structure is… emanated, the shadow government. There’s a sort of hierarchy of authority. It doesn’t come from the consent of the governed. It’s– it comes from the singular… sovereign, the crown, whoever that may be, as a hereditary institution.
[00:57:07]
So this was set up in 1833 as a branch of the British Colonial Office to manage the infrastructure, hard and soft, a lot soft, of the colonies internationally, of the Empire. It did a few name changes over the years. And in 1996, it went through another name change, called the Crown Agents for Overseas Government Administration, where it also has been managing the… health infrastructure, including covid protocols of eastern Europe, especially Ukraine. It manages many African countries, South Sudan, Myanmar, and it deals with governance. It helps these countries adapt their… governing mechanisms according to World Bank and IMF standards. It’s been there and doing this for a very long time, and it’s a very strange thing. And again, they call themselves Crown Agents. It’s not me slandering them or calling them– And this has been around, as I said, for a very very long time.
So that’s one aspect of this thing, in terms of the maintenance of the shadow empire. Now one thing about the– about this Commonwealth-, City of London-managed system is that the Cayman islands and offshore banking is the center of this. There is a wonderful documentary that people can watch, called “The Spider’s Web” on Britain’s invisible empire, that is available on YouTube, even. It goes through this in a nice way, but it just gets across that internationally, you have 24 percent of the financial services moving through a lot of British controls– Cayman Islands, Caribbean and other offshore tax havens. But also within these is the center of global drug money laundering and terrorist financing. People think, “Oh, drugs, it’s just a natural plague of our society; terrorism, it’s just a natural thing that just happens.” And it’s like, no, no, this is very artificial. This is not the way human society just– not comes up with these plagues of sociology these were created diseases that are geopolitical in nature, not even religious in nature, that are cultivated from the top.
This is a 2012 Senate report conducted over many a long period by the recently deceased Senator Carl Levin on U.S. vulnerabilities to money laundering, drugs and terrorist financing. The HSBC case, whereby in the course of this, it was discovered that HSBC was the primary, number one offshore account– money-laundering bank in the world. As Alex pointed out, they were set up in 1865 in order to enforce the– or manage the opium trade, to destroy China. That never stopped. They were found guilty. They were slapped on the wrist with a… certain fine of 1.9 billion dollars. They were allowed to appoint their own auditor to sit there for five years, and as far as I could see, they’re still doing what they do. They have a huge stake in Air Canada, as well. Anybody who takes a plane to Canada will see HSBC signs everywhere. That is a huge piece of infrastructure as part of the Silver Triangle that’s been underway for the whole of the 20th century. Other than you have you have their picture of the Queen with Bank Coutts, that’s the Queen’s personal bank, which was also, 2012, found guilty for drug, money laundering. It paid its own little, I think maybe 10 million dollar fine, and the… bad publicity resulted in the bankruptcy’s offshore accounts that were conducting the… laundering to be sold off to the Royal Bank of Canada, which currently conducts the same operations.
[01:00:31]
So that’s… bad. Africa as well has 177 billion dollars of debt holding it hostage. Meanwhile, about 944 billion dollars of revenue from the extraction of wealth sits in British offshore accounts, so it is not a debtor but a predator nation en masse. This is… the whole story, unto itself, the City of London, as Alex pointed out, it’s a separate entity. Even the UK Government can’t really do much legally to stop it. They have their own courts, their own police. It’s a weird structure. So, okay, I just want to throw that out. And I didn’t even talk about Iraq, the Iraq war, dodgy dossiers being justified and created by British intelligence that justified the bombing of Iraq, Libya as well. That was more MI6 intelligence. I didn’t talk about that. I didn’t talk about the Syrian dodgy dossiers of chemical weapons that were never actually proven to be used by Assad but that have been justified for sanctions and justifying the regime change that has been attempted now for seven years. I didn’t talk about that.
But all that to say, it’s everywhere, the British hand, everywhere you scratch a little bit, even in the course of the dodgy dossiers to try to put Putin as the the big bad guy controlling Trump. Those dodgy dossiers were brought to us by people like Sir Richard Dearlove, the guy who brought us the original Iraq War yellow cake dodgy dossier. That was always a fraud. And the Chilcott Commission report proved that to be the case. So– and also the question of Rhodes scholars, people like Strobe Talbot, who was a Rhodes scholar, came in with Clinton and and has been there running Brookings for a very long time. This has also– he’s been behind Russiagate, with many other Rhodes scholars currently managing the Biden administration, like Jake Sullivan. Sullivan, Susan Rice, Eric Lander, the science czar, Rhodes scholar. So, I mean, they’re just everywhere. And I won’t go into that.
[00:02:22]
So okay, some historical context. I’m Canadian, so the question of Justin Trudeau. I hope that that’s still an imprint in people’s mind, is what the hell is that? So the Privy Council Office, unlike the United States Constitution or Declaration, the– Canada was founded in 1867. The original conference with our founding fathers was not something that was a part of a fight for freedom, unlike the U.S. This was something where– these were all British loyalists, anti-republican. They were all like our founding father who’s standing up there in the painting. John A. McDonald was an aryan, complete race patriot, wanting an aryan Canada and who said, “A Britisher I was born, a Britisher I will die.” He was a filthy, filthy, immoral scumbag. And these are the people celebrated as our sacred cows, that we’re supposed to honor in Canada. Now, unlike the US, which enshrines the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the idea of– the principle of the general welfare both now and into posterity in the Constitution, the Canadian founding document says literally “Whereas the provinces of Canada”– at the time there were four of them– “have expressed their desire to be federally united in one dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain and Ireland, with the constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom” which is itself a bit of a fraud, since the UK doesn’t really have a constitution, so it’s sort of a mirroring of a shadow, “And whereas such a union would conduce to the welfare of the provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire…”
So that’s our so-called preamble, is to promote the interest of the British Empire. That’s why we were created. We were also created– this conference that… drafted that was– it occurred three years earlier, in 1864, while the Civil War was just winding down, it was still being fought. The British had put a lot of resources into breaking up the union, as I’ve gone through in previous presentations. A lot of this is in my books as well, on “The Clash of the Two Americas” and “The Untold History of Canada”. The point that the British were afraid of, as I demonstrate, was that Canada had pro-Lincoln statesmen in positions of leadership who were fighting to create an independent country at that time. There were also the people who were working to create– an American “zollverein” and with the– Canada and the United States together, in one customs union, based upon industrial development, with the type of policy not like America today, but it was a different policy of the the Lincoln- McKinley orientation, of… a real long-term thinking, where human beings were seen as a good, a creature that money had to serve by virtue of investing into large-scale infrastructure, science and technology, but also working abroad, with Germany doing the same thing under Otto von Bismarck, with Russia, that had just sold the Alaska territory to the United States, with the intent of… building rail through the continent into Eurasia.
[01:05:12]
So this was seen as being a vital territory that had to be kept under the control of the British Foreign Office. And so this Constitution was drafted. Lincoln’s allies were ousted from power, and it was kept as a wedge between the danger of a U.S.-Russia collaboration. Except one Lincoln admirer did become Prime Minister at a certain point, Wilfred Laurier, and he did by 1911 organize to create a customs union. Finally all the bills had been passed, and it was about to go into law, finally. And unfortunately he was ousted in a… coup d’etat that was orchestrated by the Round Table and some Orangemen, freemasons that have the Queen, the Crown the… head of the these different freemasonic outfits.
A paper was written, that I’ve… published on the the Canadian Patriots site, going through those details. But just two years later, Wilfred Laurier writes to his close ally O.D. Skelton that “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting in London, known as the Round Table, with ramifications in Toronto and Winnipeg and Victoria, with Tories”– that’s conservatives– “and Grits”– that’s liberals, “receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.” So that was an admission directly from the man himself who truck he had a vision for turning Canada into a Lincoln- modeled nation with a population of 60 million within a generation, based upon large-scale electrification and industrialization.
That was all ousted, ended. And again, the Round Table took control. Robert Borden, who was the, his replacement, was a Round Tabler who… ended up controlling the Chatham House of Canada at its inception, as its first president. By 1918, the Round Table had already initiated a takeover of the British Government. They had ousted Herbert Asquith in the Labor Government in 1916, not that he was such a great guy, but they really wanted to have their full controls on the terms of the Versailles Treaty and the end of World War I. One of the problems: they needed the United States. They really needed the power of the United States behind them, and that’s been always the objective of the Cecil Rhodes design.
[01:07:19]
Lord Lothian, who was a leading Round Tabler at the time– he was the ambassador to the United States, had written– his other name was Philip Kerr. They always have names that sound kind of like Star Wars villains. He wrote,
“The problem of the American psyche that had to be dealt with is that there is a… fundamentally different concept in regards to the question between Great Britain and the United States as to the necessity of civilized control over backward, politically backward peoples, the inhabitants of Africa and parts of Asia have proved unable to govern themselves. Yet America not only has no conception of this aspect of the problem, but has been led to believe that the assumptions of this kind of responsibility is”– iniquity, I can’t say that word– “iniquitous imperialism.”
So it’s a problem, right? The Americans have this– damn, they don’t get that there’s a white man’s burden, that they have to impose, you know, because they’re just scientifically better than the darker-skinned people. They have to morally and scientifically impose Anglo-American control over the backward peoples. And they don’t get it. And that was a problem, not– there were Americans that did get it, and that was, again, part of the American deep state problem that I had mentioned, that Alex went through a bit.
But what had happened– So there were several attempts at New World Orders, okay? What we’re seeing today is not a new thing. I alluded to this in previous presentations, but in 1919, you had the creation of Chatham House, you had the creation of the Versailles Treaty, the League of Nations, all orchestrated by by Lord Milner, who at this time was a leading figure controlling British foreign policy, along with many other Round Tablers. The idea of the League of Nations was to declare it a… collective security pact. Article 10 — get rid of national sovereignty over over economics and military affairs, and create effectively a one-world government.
[01:09:05]
Part of this was also part of the Imperial Federation, kind of like what the European Union is, is what they wanted for the all of their, you know, basically the world. That failed. Why did it fail? Because people in– both in Canada, the Tories, Liberals, were– had made a comeback through the 1920s, and they resisted it. Irish Free State movements resisted it. People like Warren Harding who was assassinated — I say assassinated. I’ve never seen evidence to the contrary — the American president, from eating poisoned oysters, died. But point being you had nationalists that didn’t– that resisted and didn’t succumb to this pressure at the time, so it petered out.
And they tried again in 1933. There was the international bankers conference in London, centered around the Bank of International Settlements, the Bank of England, and 66 nations had been a part of it all, with the design that the Great Depression would be solved by moving sovereignty economically from nation states into officially, essential bankers coterie under the Bank of England. And the only reason, after six months that failed, is that Franklin Roosevelt pulled the US delegations out of all participation and the thing just fell apart. I wrote about that in chapter seven of my “Clash of the Two Americas” in detail.
Then there was another attempt in 1944. Again, Roosevelt had not yet died. John Maynard Keynes was assigned this time to represent the British Empire at the Bretton Woods conference, with the idea of a one-world currency run by the Bank of England, called the Bancor, an international exchange rate that would be, again, effectively a one-world currency, with the idea of the Americans, who had come out of World War II as the only unbroken country, to be the battering ram or the enforcers of an Anglo-American reconquering of the nations of the world, many of whom had fought during the war and many had ideas of independence and freedom alive in their hearts.
[01:10:46]
That was not acceptable at their– I just have a little quote by Franklin Roosevelt which I really like, where he… made the point that “they who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new, and it is not order.” That was a sharp quote.
So to pick up here a little bit now where Alex left off, there’s a book called “As He Saw It”, written in 1946 by Roosevelt’s son and his assistant, his personal assistant, Elliot Roosevelt. And he documents a lot of the battles between Roosevelt versus the… Churchill gang that were trying to always pull the U.S. into a brotherhood of control, a la Cecil Rhodes, right, a la “Five Eyes”, which is already what was creeping up and happening, from the Black Chamber being transformed into the NSA in 1930, which became integrated more and more into this British “Five Eyes” thing, which was, again, always the Cecil Rhodes will orientation. But in this book– it’s a great book, people can find this on line… they can buy it, they should buy it. It’s on archive.org . I use it extensively.
But he talks in 1944, after a battle with Churchill, I think, at the Tehran conference, I’m not too sure which conference, but he speaks to Elliot, saying, you know,
“Any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there are not in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston, and as a matter of fact, a lot of the time they _are_ working for Churchill. Some have– stop to think of them. Any number of them are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then to copy that. I was told six years ago to clean out the State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office.”
[01:12:42]
So… the OSS had not been cleaned out, and the OSS had a lot of problems, but there were still a lot of patriots and nationalists embedded in American intelligence within the OSS that were problematic for those trying to take control, who had pretty much occupied most of the State Department by this time. Within Elliot’s book there’s… another wonderful battle between him and Churchill that was documented, over what would be the post-war era– what what type of operating principles would would govern it? were FDR’s vision for the greening of African deserts, the extension of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the rural electrification projects that pulled people out of poverty and backwardness inside the USA– that would be extended through long large-scale loans internationally to help other countries have their own industrial programs, their own Tennessee Valley Authorities, and really to extend the principle of the four freedoms to the world, that were not just about, supposed to be just, you know, nice flaky words, but real active, like, active.
Which is why Bretton Woods, the… Keynesian team, lost out and Harry Dexter White, who became the… first Director of the IMF, also dying under mysterious circumstances, the american delegation under him had won out and and made sure that even China, India, Africa, South America, all the many– Russia, would all be participants in receiving Tennessee Valley Authority projects that were all approved by the US delegation. They were all resisted by the… British delegation. And even at that time, when Roosevelt had a Russia-China-U.S. alliance as his bedrock, Russia was a subscriber for a billion dollars into the IMF originally, before the Iron Curtain caused them to be forced out.
All that to say– I… ramble, but in this small extract I selected, he’s describing now the evening talking with Elliot after the fighting with…. Churchill, saying, “I’m talking about another war.” He’s warning of a world war III. “I’m talking about what will happen to our world if after this war, we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery. Don’t think for a moment, Elliot, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight if it hadn’t been for the short-sighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch.” That’s the colonialists. “Shall we allow them to do it all… over again? Your son will be about the right age 15 or 20… years from now. One sentence, Elliott. Then I’m going to kick you out of here. I’m tired. It’s this sentence. When we’ve won the war, I will work with all my might and main to see to it that the United States is not wheedled into the position of accepting any plan that will further France’s imperialist ambitions or that will aid or abet the British Empire in its imperial ambitions.”
[01:15:22]
So tragedy strikes, right? Wallace– I don’t know, I got– I mean, it’s a long story, but Wallace is replaced by Harry Truman, who’s a… George Bush sort of prototype banker’s boy anglophile. And he’s brought in now as the new vice president. So Wallace was the vice president who was completely in line with FDR’s vision. Roosevelt dies April 12th. No autopsy is ever done. And immediately within the proceeding months, nuclear bombs are dropped on a defeated Japan by Truman, September 20th. The OSS, the American intelligence agency, is disbanded, and a purge, a massive purge begins. If anybody who hadn’t had an understanding of the Wall Street – London financiers behind fascism’s rising– eugenics rise, there was a lot– there were reports on this. These were all purged in the ensuing year, and at this point the Iron Curtain speech is launched, and people think, “Oh yeah, that was the Americans who did the Iron Curtain which turned Russia and China into their enemies.”
No, it was Winston Churchill who came to the United States, stayed at the White House for a sustained period, and delivered his speech where he said, “Neither the short prevention of war nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a Special Relationship between the United British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”
Henry Wallace, just before he gets fired, he’s now Commerce Secretary fighting against this insanity that was brainwashing the American people into these, you know, paranoid mobs afraid of Commie infiltration and conspiracy. I mean yeah, the whole McCarthyism thing was a real atrocity, run by the FBI as a dictatorship, which it was. The US became a dictatorship under the FBI. He says: “Fascism”, he warns, “in the post-war, inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances towards certain races, creeds and classes.”
[01:17:32]
Obviously here, there’s a… complete racist backlash against– sponsored by J. Edgar Hoover, another 33rd- degree freemason running the FBI for, like, seven american presidencies, that’s… supporting the rise of racism, the… dismantling of civil liberties for African-Americans and others, but also coordinating with the… CIA that is soon reconstituted to create a new management system, much more in alignment with British foreign policy. Things like MK Ultra that was originally using science crafted by Tavistock, the British intelligence branch of psychological warfare, COINTELPRO infiltration that also mirrored Operation Gladio in the unit in UK, in Europe.
These were all things deployed, justified by the the terms and conditions of the age of Mutual Assured Destruction. So it continues. Wallace is now fired after giving the speech. The Truman doctrine is announced. Again, who is the main organizer of the Truman doctrine? One of the key guys is George McGee, a Rhodes scholar. You have the central– CIA created on September 18th. Now completely– so, a new, reconstituted, cleansed intelligence agency. Harry Dexter White dies, IMF is hijacked. That was the guy who was on Roosevelt’s team who is now in. At that point in 1948 he was fighting to get Wallace elected under the Progressive Party leadership in the ’48 elections. You’ll find many great patriots of the United States either died or had their careers annihilated who were part of this network.
And then you have this famous July 1950 NSC National Security Council-75 memorandum, to… save the British Empire. I kid you not, this is literally a protocol issued to– under the logic that if the British weakens its imperial economic interests, then the Soviets will take and fill that space. So the US foreign policy interest has to be to preserve British interests abroad. And this is where the IMF, the World Bank increasingly became rewired to use economic colonialism wherever needed to, you know– if you can’t stop the political independence of a nation, at the very least sabotage their economic independence.
[01:19:44]
One guy who’s an interesting figure is Clement Atlee at this time, who’s you know, post-World War II Prime Minister. And he makes a… strong point that over and over again, we have seen that there is another power that– than that which is, has its seat at Westminster. The City of London, a convenient term for a collection of financial interests, is able to assert itself against the government of the country. Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which is being decided by the people. So again, you have– even British. So it’s not the British Government, right? The British people are also as much victimized by– as well as many figures within the British Government are victimized– by this power above the official, visible branches of government.
Throughout the Cold War, again, if– you can’t understand the architecture of the Cold War, of Mutual Assured Destruction, the asymmetrical warfare, game theory doctrines, the application of systems analysis to manage the geopolitical overthrows of governments, things like the Vietnam War, if you don’t look at people like Dean Rusk, Rhodes scholar, Walt Whitman Rostow, who ran the NSA for three years, who was a Balliol Rhodes scholar, Escott Reid, who was the architect of NATO to… break Russia out of any… influence in the Security Council over military affairs. NATO, that was Escott Reid, Rhodes scholar, William Fulbright, Rhodes scholar– I mean, there’s so many that overlapped. You can’t– so again, you can’t really understand what is this thing that JFK was pushing back against and trying to fight against, what was… the thing that… Eisenhower was warning about in his Military-Industrial Complex speech, you can’t understand that if you don’t look at these ideologues who have been penetrated over decades.
There’s been 3000 so far in the 20th century who’ve been processed through the halls of Oxford. Not that they’re all bad. I think Chris Christopherson is an okay actor, and maybe his his movie choices are not so great sometimes, but I don’t think he’s a bad guy, though he’s a Rhodes scholar. So you’ll find that, you know, you can’t be guilty by association, but you can’t understand anything unless you understand this very controlled, centralized hive that also coordinates with the… American Round Table movement, which is the Council on Foreign Relations, the thing that Hillary Clinton referred to as the mothership in a 2011 speech, that has always been, since 1921, the British Round Table in America.
[01:22:03]
And even people who you think of as being American geopolitical grand designers like Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, “Clash of Civilizations”, a Canadian, Pierre Eliot Trudeau, who did his own martial law in 1970 and really reorganized the entire government as a technocratic, cybernetic system. They were all processed under William Yandle Elliott and Harvard, who ran something that some have referred to as the Chatham House of Harvard. William Yandell Elliott was one of these guys who just liked having talented, young sociopathic boys brought around him. And he just trained generations of these geopoliticians who are processed talent, you know, that– it’s like a talent searching thing, as Rhodes describes. It’s exactly what they carried out and then brought back into positions of ideological authority to carry out a policy that they themselves were not the originators of, per se, but they were put into positions to make it happen.
We did have pushback, and I just want to have some counter voice, because it’s not like they’re God-like creatures, right? There was real human beings, real statesmen, especially throughout the 1960s. You have Enrico Mattei, the Italian industrialist. You have Dag Hammarskjöld, the Secretary General of the UN, who had a grand program to end imperialism and promote industrial development in a variety of countries, especially in South… Africa. Charles de Gaulle had avoided 30 assassination attempts. John F. Kennedy, obviously. You have Patrice Lumumba. I… didn’t put everybody on here who was either assassinated or overthrown in CIA- MI6-directed coups.
But all that to say, it was a major period of potential– where the common theme was cooperation and breaking out of the mathematical ways of governance, right, introduce new technologies, new discoveries that were not monopolized. And do it through a way of looking for win-win cooperation, points of common interest. That’s why JFK offered the Russians the ability to work with the United States on a joint space program together. So that would be something to break away, to liberate us from this mathematical, you know, balance-of-terror way of governance. I’m ending up now. I think maybe three, four more minutes.
[01:24:11]
So after the age of assassinations, again in the 60s, very parallel to the thing that was happening after the 1890s to World War One. Again, age of total assassinations and counter-revolutionary coups. You have a– the stage is set now for a full economic recolonization of the United States, especially. The focus has always been: take back control of the United States. You have this with– several things happen, and Kissinger is a key figure in much of this. You have the creation in January, 1971 of the Inter-Alpha Group, created under the blueprint of Lord Jacob Rothschild, who had the– was running M.M. Rothschild and Sons, but also has been a major banking financier, interest, as a part of a mercenary dynasty since the 1700s.
So the Inter-Alpha Group of Banks was a code three of– there’s a picture of it there– of the member banks with key major banks set up in each of the focused European countries, to advance a new doctrine of deregulation, central– taking centralizing power away from nation-states, especially in Europe, and moving it into the private supernational coterie of corporate and financial interests above national authorities. So you– I won’t go into, I don’t have time to go into detail there. That was 1971 that group was founded. It has since grown in number since its original founding six, many of these banks were all tied to, you know, financial activities supporting fascism’s rise, whether Franco, Mussolini or Hitler earlier on, a lot of that whitewashed. Then you have, same month, the World Economic Forum is founded by one of Kissinger’s protégés who we all know and… despise, Klaus Schwab.
Also one of the co-founders was Maurice Strong, a Canadian oligarch who was picked up by the Rockefellers and was a co-founder of the Canadian Club of Rome, major player, with Prince Philip, who is the guy calling– who’s called for being reincarnated as a deadly virus, who ran the world economic reform. In my February 26 presentation, we’re going to go into detail in… that, you know, ill gory. So Maurice Strong, another figure who was a co-founder, an inspira. then you have the big deal here, which is the August 15, 1971 U.S. dollar is floated. Kissinger and Schultz running the Nixon administration orchestrate the removal of the dollar from the gold– the gold reserve– the… gold exchange system, or the… fixed exchange-rate system that was preventing speculation on currencies and commodities that– you know, as long as you didn’t have speculation, it was difficult to conduct the sorts of economic warfare against nations trying to develop their infrastructure and their industrial base which has always been, even going back to the 19th century, a tool used by empire to keep nations destabilized.
[01:26:59]
This economic warfare– So the fixed exchange-rate had to go. It guaranteed too much stability; you were able to think long-term. 20-year projects could be conceptualized, when you had relative stability of currencies. And that was floated onto the… floating markets. So all of a sudden, the markets became the determinant of the value of the dollar. That became increasingly embedded again under Kissinger’s lead to the price of oil on the spot markets. So all of a sudden. this created a degree of very– of… chaos in– so you could no longer really build or maintain or improve your infrastructure, your capital-intensive part of your economy that you need to always have as the basis of your economic value. In this system, that became atrophied, and increasingly the age of deregulation, speculation was upon us.
I mention here for good measure the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 under Brzezinski, Kissinger and David Rockefeller. Again, the… hand of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is again, the Round Table movement, is always there, as well as the Bilderberger Group, which is always there. Many of these figures are overlapping with this other thing that I’m going to talk about on February 26th in more detail. So this is what takes over under Carter, the Trilateral Commission. Nearly every member of Carter’s cabinet is a member of the Trilateral… Commission. People like Paul Volcker, who becomes the Fed chair, calls for a controlled disintegration of the U.S. economy in 1979, which is where the interest rates are raised to 20% or more for two years, destroying small and medium businesses and only leaving these multi– behemoth multinational companies able to survive and thrive and gobble up under mergers and acquisitions. Henry Kissinger delivers at this time a 1981 speech at Chatham House in the UK, describing the difference between Churchill and Roosevelt’s views of the post-war age and describing– people can read this. It’s an appendix in my volume two, the full… speech.
But he describes how he preferred the Churchill way of thinking about geopolitics over the Roosevelt idea, which he saw as obsolete and incompatible with reality. But in it, he also describes his time as Secretary of State under Nixon, where he says the British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations. “In my White House incarnation, then, I kept the British foreign office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department.” It was symptomatic, total admission. They don’t even hide this, as saying, like, “Oh, they didn’t really say that.” No, they just admit it. They just– so they just assume that we’re too dumb to put words and actions together. Lord Jacob Rothschild, in 1983, delivered a speech calling, saying that two broad types of giant… institutions– the worldwide financial services company and the international commercial bank, with a global trading competence, may converge to form the ultimate, all-powerful many-headed financial conglomerate.
[01:29:57]
What he’s referring to is the breakdown of the division of bank activities from commercial investment, trusts, insurance. All of these had formerly under Roosevelt originally been designed in separate compartments, so you couldn’t speculate with people’s savings. You couldn’t legally do that. He was talking about taking that away, so that you can create a new type of universal banking that does everything, what today we might call “too big to fail”. This was done originally in in Britain under Margaret Thatcher’s big bang, where the first wave of universal banking was created and London again sort of restored even more of its control than it had formerly enjoyed. You have a near-total collapse of a speculative bubble that results in collapse of the… stock exchange in New York… As a response to avoiding the collapse, Alan Greenspan is brought in and immediately normalizes creative financial instruments, otherwise known as derivatives, that had formerly been illegal for the most part of that– I mean, these were known as, like junk bonds, securitized debts, and– that were worthless but that were still securitized, and then gambled upon, with insurance, that became also securitized, so that people could– I’m– it’s complex, but it’s insane.
It’s not a way that you make any value, and it became kind of like a cancerous tumor that grew up in the economy, to the point that by 1992, when the Maastricht Treaty was was effected, creating the European Union as a new consolidation to get rid of nation-states and get rid of the right of nations to emit their own– and control their own credit. In Europe, there was about two trillion dollars of derivatives. That same year you have the Soviet Union dissolving. The end of history is being celebrated. George Bush says in 1990… at the opening of the Kuwait war, that “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a New World Order. Where we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this New World Order.” So this is a point where Margaret Thatcher is bragging that she put the the steel into the spine of Bush, who was wavering on the on the issue of Desert Storm. But again, the idea was always: it’s the end of the nation-state system, now finally, at the end of the cold war.
It’s a unipolar era of… what today might be called the Neoliberal World Order. Soviet Union is totally privatized– destroyed, targeted for destruction– overseen by Strobe Talbot, who is the point man on the ground, Rhodes scholar, working closely with the IMF. NAFTA [North America Free Trade Agreement] is signed to again get rid of more powers of nation-states in North America and move powers into the hands of private corporations above nations, World Trade Organization and then big time Glass-Steagall the separation of U.S. banking, commercial from speculation, is broken down by Clinton, Rhodes scholar, last act in office.
[01:32:42]
And then from that point forward, you have the ushering in of just the biggest cancer of derivatives, going from 2 trillion in 1992 to 70 trillion in 1999, by that point overlapping the U.S., global… GDP, to the point that only 10 years later, you have the deregulation completely of over-the-counter derivatives, because Glass-Stegall is now gone. Too-big-to-fail become bigger than God, they– or so they want us to believe. So we have to bail them out. It’s like a gun to the head if they go bankrupt. And by 19– 2007, when the next collapse hits, there’s 708 trillion dollars of derivatives weighing down the system, far outweighing the 15 trillion of the U.S. GDP. Strobe Talbot in 1992 made his manifesto, saying,
“All countries are basically social arrangements, no matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time. In fact, they are all artificial and temporary. Perhaps national sovereignty was not such a great idea after all, but it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clench the case for world government.”
That’s from his “Birth of a Global Nation”. Just two last slides here I’m done. Just to get clear the… takeover of financial services over the– and the collapse of the real economy, the real part that has value, that sustains life– that has been the trend. You have the crossover of the– which– what you have there is the the real estate, rental, leasing, finance speculation overlapping in 1987 with the physical manufacturing base. That’s just one of many graphs put forward to, you know– and this is– a real economy only works if you have the financial side always servicing and improving upon the real side– manufacturing, infrastructure, science. If the… financial side is not servicing that, it’s a fake, it’s the bubble. And the bubble will pop, and that’s why the bubble that was created today, which is popping, was a planned disintegration. It was always designed from 1971 to disintegrate. The question is: when would be the pinprick? The pinprick has happened.
[01:34:45]
Point is: why is there an encirclement of China, of Russia by the U.S. military, by the British? Why are there all these psyops [psychological operations]? why are these– there are so many different types of CIA-connected operations to destroy and destabilize Eurasia right now. And I mean, I’ve talked about this in my last presentation. And there’s– this is well documented– what’s going on? What are they afraid of? I just– I’m going to end with this last quote by Putin. People might feel feelings of rage when they see Putin’s face, because they’ve been fed a lot of propaganda in the media– I don’t care. But in a recent speech, Putin just said,
“Only sovereign states can effectively respond to the challenges of the times and the demands of the citizens. Accordingly, any effective international order should take into account the interests and the capabilities of the state, and proceed on that basis, and not try to prove that they should not exist.
“Furthermore, it is impossible to impose anything on anyone, be it in the… principles underlying the socio-political structure or values that someone for their own reasons has called universal. After all, it is clear that when a real crisis strikes, there is only one universal value left, and that is human life, which each state decides for itself how to best protect, based on its abilities, culture and traditions.”
I went over my time. I’m really, really sorry I did that. But I really wanted to just drive home a few key lessons of world history. And if there’s any questions, if there’s time for that, I’ll happily answer them.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:36:12]
Thank you, Matthew. Let me just verify that I understand you correctly. The main point is that the British Empire has never ceased to exist. It is still there; colonialism is still existing, except it’s… existing under a different name. It has never stopped to try and pull the United States back in, but for some reason it hasn’t really been successful. Is that– is– the outcome… of this is that what we’re seeing with the… deep state idea is: the deep state, that part in the country that tries to… reintroduce the United States into the Anglo-American system and into, well, the City of London, basically.
Matthew Ehret:
I have no problem with what you just said… yeah. I have no problem with that.
Reiner Füllmich:
Okay. Now it… has not, as far as I can tell from what you’re telling us, it hasn’t failed in Canada. Their attempt to keep Canada under control has been very successful. I mean, just from listening to how Justin Trudeau took his oath of office– he… swore allegiance to the British Crown, to the… Queen of England. Doesn’t… that bother the Canadians?
Matthew Ehret: [01:37:49]
For those who know, it’s a paradigm shifter. It’s… a big– but there’s a big cognitive dissonance that’s been put there by years and generations of conditioning, of– I mean, here’s the thing: in one of the chapters, I go through the the creation of a synthetic nationalism in Canada, arranged by none other than Lord Milner himself, who ran the Rhodes Trust in 1909 and came to Canada with… [Halford] Mackinder, who is at the time– I mean, he’s the founder of geopolitics in its modern form. But at the time, he was the head of the… Fabian Society’s London School of Economics. Now he quit his job as the head of the… London School, based upon an offer made by Lord Milner, who is from the Round Table, right?, who runs through Oxford. So you have the LSE and then the– in Oxford. So he quit his job to come to Canada with Milner to formulate a grand strategy to figure out: how the hell do we keep Canada as a wedge between Russia and the U.S., and also with Germany, because at the time Germany was still– it is not, it wasn’t a fascist state at all. Like there was still a lot of anti-colonial, anti-fascist impulses in very high positions of power around the Frederick Liszt Society and other, in others.
So Milner actually– there’s a quote where he says of the three greatest dangers to the British Empire, the preferred thing is greater cohesion. So the great, the first– the top three scenarios for the future regarding Canada [are] number one: greater cohesion and integration into the British federation. That’s probably not going to happen. You still have Wilfred Laurier, Lincoln admirers, other things, right? So it was not going to happen. He said the greatest danger is greater cooperation with that United States of 1909. That’s the greatest threat to the British Empire.
[01:39:31]
The… middle ground is the growth of a Canadian nationalism, and he says– he actually says– the Canadians are so wonderfully ignorant to the longer forces of history, and they are even– so they feel that they’re superior to the… Americans in almost every way. It’s bumpus, and it’s… fantastic. Those are his words. It’s just fantastic how ignorant they are, and we should go with that angle, and really craft a new nationalism for them. And that is exactly what became the entire trend of the 20th century, leading up to the creation of the artificial Canadian flag with the maple leaf that doesn’t mean anything, unlike other countries who have flags that mean something. It’s literally just a maple leaf. That’s what it means, and people like Vincent Massey, who was his… protégé, became our first Canadian Governor General, who ran and managed much of this. These were all eugenicists. They created the Canadian Fabian Society as well, which is a whole story, run by five Rhodes scholars in 1931. But yeah, I mean Canada has been– there’s a lot of… cognitive dissonance and… myths that have been created that are sacred cows, that our minds are afraid to wake to. But now that we actually see the system demonstrating its true tyrannical hand, which it always has had, right? We just didn’t push on it, so we didn’t get to feel it. But now, as soon as you demand something human, like liberty, you actually see the… mask coming off.
Now people– I think they’re much more receptive to figuring out, well, what the hell is really going on? What… is this thing called Canada? And I think that overall, the… lessons of great patriots who were ousted in Canadian history– I mean, we had our last national government in 1963. That was ousted in a Rhodes-scholar-run coup. 1963 — that was our last national government. So… you definitely have a hunger. And I think the more people see and think about what Justin Trudeau just said in 2017, and look at what has happened, it’ll piece– and it does piece a lot of things together. The thing that is very important is a sense of, well, what should a true sovereign nation be? We know what it isn’t, now, but what should it actually do? Because we do have some serious, objective crises, right? A breakdown of food production, supply chains, infrastructure– how do we actually manage coherently to make sure our children not only don’t become slaves under this dystopic system, but that they actually have a life that can thrive? Where we can invest in… a national bank that serves the interest of the people, with other nations organizing themselves in a common, you know, way? That’s… a whole discussion that has to really take hold, and I think the current protests in Ottawa are a good start, spark plug. Like, there’s a hunger now like I’ve never seen for these bigger ideas.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:42:12]
That is, Canadian national… nationalism, rather, asserting itself against the British Crown in essence, right?
Matthew Ehret: [01:42:23]
In essence.
Reiner Füllmich:
Okay.
Matthew Ehret:
In essence, and it– I mean, it’s based on something principled. It’s not artificial. It’s really based on the right to feed our families, to work, to have a life, you know, the basic, fundamental things.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:42:34]
One… final question… the power of the City of London, combined with its fifth column, Wall Street– is it really true, did I understand correctly, that all that money, all that power, was capable of starting two world wars, World War One and World War Two, with these financial behemoths financing both sides?
Matthew Ehret:
Oh yeah. Oh yeah, absolutely.
FR:
Okay.
Matthew Ehret:
Yeah, I feel like I’ve taken up too much time, but yeah.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:43:11]
Okay, that’s… I just wanted to make sure that I didn’t… misunderstand you. And finally… the… two world wars– anyone who can… start two world wars probably has no problem– because I wrote this down when you said it– to create diseases like terrorism and drug trade. So that, in essence is also started, or was started by this financial behemoth, City of London plus Wall Street.
Matthew Ehret:
Yeah, and I would just add one quick thing on that, which is that the British– I… conducted an interview with Alex Krainer, based on a wonderful trilogy he wrote on… the… original British design for a new world order under… people like Lord Halifax, the… appeasers of Britain that were like– people like Neville Chamberlain, who were part of an operation which all the way up until 1939, 1940 still wanted to have an Anglo-American fascist alliance with Hitler and Musssolini and… others, to manage a, you know, the… world as… a new world order, and being forces of the eugenics policy of population control under a scientifically managed society from the top. That was a design all the way up until the ouster of Neville Chamberlain, when Hitler became a Frankenstein monster that was no longer sort of behaving according to its commands and had bigger ambitions, to be sort of, at the head of the helm, instead of a secondary, you know, enforcer for the will of a banker, banking class. And they had to sort of change strategy and abort that plan. There’s a whole story there, but yeah.
The… oligarchy– the lesson I carry out and I want everyone to carry out of this is that THE OLIGARCHY isn’t– they SCREW UP A LOT. THEY’RE NOT AS POWERFUL AS THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE THEY ARE, which is a… you know, an intimidation of the mind. Every time you look at what they’re trying, the thing that they’re trying to do today is not new. They’ve tried many times, and usually it blows up in their face, and just, like, undermines them, too. So then they have to reorganize and try something new.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:45:14]
I do understand now, however, that Vera Sharaf, a holocaust survivor, says that she can’t believe that she’s fighting the same people, the same structures again, that she fought 75 years ago. Because it looks as though what happened then is happening again. Matthew, I don’t want to keep my esteemed colleagues from asking any questions, so please, go ahead with your questions.
Dexter Reyneveldt:
I… thank you, thank you so much for your evidence. At the onset of the statement, your evidence that you’ve given, you’re talking about natural law. As we all know, the substantive law that we are using in this grand jury is natural law. So I would like to find out from you, based on all the research that you’ve done, how important is natural law for humanity’s survival? And most importantly, how is it related to constitutional law?
Matthew Ehret:
Thank you. Dexter, that’s an amazing question. That’s… a very good question. In my understanding, all of world history has been shaped by a battle between either artificial law– I mean, mankind is the only species that we know of that… creates and improves upon the laws of the systems that we self-organize around. Other animals are… ordained by their genetics, by their environment and their wiring, to be what they are, and that’s great. But human beings are uniquely able to craft conceptions and apply those conceptions to manage willfully our own existence, and then again, identify problems with the so-called invisible metaphysical machine of statecraft and improve upon them. But upon what standard do we improve? Upon what… center do we judge our man-made laws, to say, okay this one squares with something that is designed by God, and which ones are out of whack, out of harmony, that we have to correct, that are illegitimate or, as Thomas Aquinas would say, forms of violence?
[01:47:17]
So if a law can– actually destroys, deprives you of your innate ability to express your your life, liberty, happiness, creative powers, if that’s what a law is doing, it’s not a law. It’s a form of violence. It does not have to be respected, and that’s what the founding fathers from– if you read the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, they were very sensitive to that fact, that there is a higher law. It’s… not even separate from scientific law. That’s why Benjamin Franklin was both a scientist, who discovered principles of electricity that he shared, but in his mind, his discoveries of the laws of electricity were not separated from the metaphysical, moral laws that became the foundation of his life’s effort to create a republic of self-governance, premised on the inalienable rights of the individual, and not the hereditary institutions that had governed society for thousands of years. That was the first time it was done.
And again, in his world, it was two sides of the same thing. Real science is not mathematical description or trying to impose a formula on to the universe and expect the universe to abide by it. It’s about tuning our own creative reason in harmony with that universe. That is always going to be more discoverable. And every time we transmit those new… eurekas in any domain to our fellow mankind, and then apply it to the the productive process, the universe responds by giving us greater standards of living, right? We can sustain more people at a higher standard of life than we could have if we didn’t have electricity, if we didn’t have knowledge of fire, where we were like, living kind of like, you know, whatever, cattle and pigs. So– but it this… reciprocal nature of the universe, having this quality that mankind is made in the image of that universe, under certain conditions– if we… abide by those… certain principles, as Benjamin Franklin and others understood, we will have greater emancipation. The empire, the oligarchical system of a hereditary elite, will lose its claws– places to put its claws, like a parasite that it is, into the host. It won’t have much to grab on to, and it will lose its power, and it will self-implode, as I think we’re seeing right now.
Alex Thomson: [01:49:19]
May I add something very briefly? What we are now seeing in the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom– there’s the jurisdiction of England and Wales, jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, jurisdiction of Scotland– the court systems in all of these realms, which are basically common law, are starting to … arrogate to themselves at judicial level the power to decide _mens rea_. They are further ahead than any common-law or civil-law jurisdiction, in our repeated findings now, in asserting that even if there is a jury there for show– and they are, seem to be, trying to get rid of them now, under the spurious claim that international treaty requirements require them to dwindle the use of juries– even if a jury is there for show they… reserve the right to determine what was in the mind of the perpetrator, and very often now, it’s a drafting which comes from the tax-exempt foundations such as the Carnegie Foundation that I spoke about earlier, via the House of Commons library, tells the legislators in Britain– which then will lead other countries in the same way– the legislators are told there is an ersatz version of the public good or the public welfare now. It’s called “collective well-being”, “collective welfare”. That’s what the foundations were doing all through the 20th century, creating enemies for that very purpose.
And now the courts are saying, “If you have offended against society, then there is no redress. You are guilty.” And that is the the furthest towards getting rid of natural law that I’ve seen anywhere. It’s gone further than any European totalitarian state, any international court. It’s now coming through at the British national level, through legislation, ultimately, from the think tanks– the abolition of the concepts that natural law decides whether you’re guilty or not.
Viviane Fischer: [01:51:04]
Can I ask like your opinion? If because we’re seeing this not a 100 percent lockstep in constellation right now. We have this like, still very strict regulations in Australia and in Canada, and these places. But… then sort of– you’re saying that in England it’s basically, they’re preparing it like, from a different angle. So it’s seemingly like… more relaxed, at the moment. But I mean, they’re preparing to… you know, finalize the totalitarian grab from, through a different angle, basically.
Alex Thomson:
Yeah, I… am absolutely convinced of that, that the United Kingdom is in the lead, the Anglo Commonwealth is second, and the resistance to this will actually be largely in central European countries, because they give more weight to the rule of law and to the institutions, of course, than they do to juries, for example. They will show more resistance, welcome resistance, to this idea. It is definitely Britain or British-based think tanks that are pushing on our legislators, more than anywhere else in the world, this idea that if someone meets the requirements in a code, they are convinced– they are convicted, with… no defense possible. So it’s this spurious idea behind it: have you offended against the interests of the common good, that I’m afraid it– and you could, from what Matt said, you understand, I think now in some detail who is saying that, why that– what they are afraid of. They don’t want any threat to their narrative.
Reiner Füllmich:
Any further questions from Ana or Dipali or Dexter or Virginie?
I.. have one question… is it possible that not only in Europe but also in the United States there is a movement that, having understood what is going on, is trying to distance themselves? I’m talking about the United States trying to distance themselves from the Europeans, and in particular from the City of London, because we are simply buried under debt, and we carry too much dead weight with us. I’m saying this in layman’s terms. What do you think, Alex and… Matthew?
Alex Thomson: [01:53:35]
For my part, absolutely. And the recent testimony I gave to you, I spoke about that, that there is a large… belt of heartland America that has woken up to this, and now sees what they regard as an Anglo or an Anglo-European problem steering them. And I think that they are getting heartily sick of it all, because of the amount of treason involved. I mean, just as codicil to Matt’s testimony: about 1971, when the financial coup was pulled off, one of the indications that the Americans were being used as hapless pawns in this, is that that very year, Kissinger is said to have said that the military, by which he largely meant the U.S. military, were brute dumb beasts sent to do others biddings.
And in that same year, being the new Secretary of State under the incoming Nixon administration, he got a Massachusetts-based manufacturer, the only manufacturer in in the world that could produce precision ball bearings, Bryant Chuck and Grinder, to supply the ball bearings to the… Soviet Union to allow them to develop Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle warheads, which I know that one of our… extra testimonials this evening from Jim Bush– well, he personally was involved in the American side of that. So the… amount of treason involved is such that where the United States had even a military or an economic lead, the cabal we’re talking about deliberately abolished that. And I get a very strong sense from my extensive U.S. contacts that a large swathe of the Americans do not wish to abolish their Anglo heritage, their common-law heritage, but they have completely had it, now, with British and European intellectual leadership.
Reiner Füllmich:
Um-hm. Makes perfect sense.
Matthew Ehret: [01:55:16]
I don’t want to say– I don’t speak too much, because I know I’ve gone– we’re going far beyond schedule here. But just to say quickly– there are fifth columns in… Russia, in… every country has their own fifth columns. They’ve got their own battles between legitimate forces who represent these cultures versus these other parasitical penetrations. I would say in Eurasia, you actually have had… serious, more serious pushback in a serious way, to the point that there is… a genuine– I don’t think this is a game. I think there’s an actual, genuine, alternative strategy that has been deployed outside of the framework of the cage of NATO that is imploding and designed, oh it was always designed to implode. And I think you’ve got forces within the United States. I… see it more currently on the state level… that don’t want to go down with the sinking ship. There’s… forces all over Europe, unfortunately. The federal executive branches of most of the transatlantic governments have been in large measure captured, not entirely always, but in, you know, depressing level. So I don’t… have a– I’m not an expert in geopolitical planning, and I do hope that the creative forces are able to utilize the self-contradictions and insanity of the empire to their benefit, since again, this empire is… it can only– once it succeeds, it can only destroy itself, as well. And I do see that there is, there are people that want to have a future, that want to survive and that are organically organizing.
And I just think they need to sharpen up their their game plan of what they understand the world to be, because a lot of people still think, especially in America– and a lot of the patriots who don’t like the Great Reset, they tend to have fallen for certain traps that have put– given them a narrative that– it’s the cold-war narrative, that the real enemy behind everything is not the British Empire, it’s not the oligarchy, it’s not that. It’s… the Chinese Commies that want to destroy your freedoms. That’s who’s behind everything. And, you know, a lot of people fall into that. And I… think that to the degree that they hold on to those cold-war narratives, they’re going to self-sabotage their overarching desires to have a successful battle against this oligarchical thing. Yeah, that’s… what I threw out there.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:57:32]
Thank you, Matthew. Any further questions from Ana or Dexter or Virginie or Dipali?
Dexter Reyneveldt:
No further questions for me.
Ana Garner:
None from me, either. Thank you, what a wonderful presentation.
Reiner Füllmich: [01:57:46]
Yes, thank you, Matthew. If there are no further questions then, this concludes your testimony, Matthew. Thank you very much.
Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion
Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law
‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
Brian Gerrish and Debbie Evans in conversation with Viviane Fischer and Reiner Fuellmich
(Original language: English)
[Transkript vom Team corona-ausschuss-info.com Ed+]
Reiner Fuellmich: [01:57:55]
Now we will turn to Brian Gerrish and Debbie Evans for their presentation to us.
Brian Gerrish: [01:57:58]
Reiner, thank you very much for inviting me to do this. You asked for a little bit of an introduction, so I’m going to say that… my first career was as a Royal British, Royal Navy officer. I was specialized in anti-submarine warfare, so I spent a lot of my time finding, tracking Russian nuclear submarines. That was the height of the cold war, and, of course, I’m going to say that… as time has moved on and as I got older and wiser, I realized that much of what I believed at that time was incorrect. But just to give part of– my experience was very much within the military system during the cold war time. And when I left the navy in 1993, I was to discover that all was not as it seemed within society and UK.
And as a result of tracking mainly fraud and corruption in my own city and getting in contact with people who were seeing fraud and corruption in other major UK cities, I then started to look at organizations which I could see were controlling events. But those organizations were not well known to the public. And where did that take me? It took me ultimately meeting up with a great group of people, and now we are running the UK Column, producing news three times a week. Previously we produced a written newspaper, but we are constantly analyzing what’s happening, so it’s on the basis of my previous military experience, my experience in the civilian world including analysis through the UK Column that I can give my testimony to you this evening.
And I’ll also add, I’m delighted to be joined by a lady called Debbie Evans who’s been doing some very deep research with us. And I felt it was only appropriate that she should be able to give first-hand some indication of what she’s found.
[02:00:23]
Now I’ve only got 30 minutes, so I’m going to try and move very quickly. And the first thing I’d like to do is try and bridge the scope of what our initial speakers had to say in their evidence. And I believe an analogy would be: they have described the founding, the start-up and the growth of a, an organization of gangsters. And… we’ve heard about the history, we’ve learned something of the people, their networks, their mode of operation. We’ve had some evidence of world events that show us that these groups are operating. But then I’m going to say that if we look back on how gangsters were dealt with and successfully brought down in the past, if we look at Al Capone or other gangsters– probably America is a good place to go for that sort of image– they were brought down by looking at the crimes they carried out and ultimately collecting the real evidence of the crimes, whether those were murders or it was drug running or prostitution. There had to be the real evidence of the crime. There had to be the attempt, there had to be the named persons who were involved in those crimes.
And it was only when the evidence was brought forward they could be brought into court and subsequently found guilty or at least brought before the law, and then ultimately served their time. So I’m going to say that for our jury, which is a world audience, the first two speakers have done a great job of saying that there is a– there’s a conspiracy, there’s a… group of gangsters that are operating. They’ve got huge power and wealth. What are those gangsters trying to do? I think the aim for those gangsters is world dominance. They want to control everything– society, raw materials, methods of production, people, politics. Everything must come under their control; and ultimately, we then say, what are their crimes? Well, the crimes– I was jotting them down while I was listening to the speakers– we’re looking at oppression, we’re looking at slavery, we’re looking at poverty, hunger, we’re looking at human trafficking. And ultimately, we’re looking at death. And at that point, I believe that we now have a very important major world event happening, and that is the so-called covid-19 pandemic, followed by a vaccination program.
[02:03:15]
Because in my mind, the overwhelming evidence is showing that these gangsters are killing people. So we are here as a… call to law to talk about the crime. What is the crime? In my view, the crime is death. In previous years, we’ve seen people dying as a result of their created wars. But in modern times, we’re seeing people dying as a result of the introduction of a pandemic. And how that pandemic was handled and how it is being ‘treated’ (inverted commas) with a vaccination programme. Now both speakers mention something which I think is very important. Alex talked about they want to control our minds, said they want quote “civilized control over politically backward people” And that latter quote absolutely shows the arrogance of these individuals, these gangsters, because they believe that any opinion they hold is the correct opinion, the correct value. And anybody who challenges them is a being who I would just– ultimately they want to remove from their field of operations. And what does that mean ultimately? They would like these people to go away and die.
So let’s just remind ourselves and bridge across to the fact that Alex said that this is a battle for our minds, and this is very true at the moment. Right now, when I gave you my initial thoughts on what was happening, I said we need to be aware that alongside the covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent vaccination program, we need to be aware that there is a battle for our minds by an applied political-psychological attack. So if I bridge the gap– I happen to have a couple of papers with me. The first one is entitled “Mental Health”. The subtitle is “Strategic Planning for Mental Health”. It was by a certain “Jail Wreath”, and interestingly enough, the date on this paper that I hold is October, 1940. So in the middle of the Second World War, at the start of the Second World War, I should say, we had a group of people who were later to become very powerful within the world health and World Health Organization system discussing how they were going to implement what they called “mental hygiene” in the new society. And they didn’t mess around, because they said that in doing it, they were going to infiltrate social organizations, they were going to attack the professions, they were going to infiltrate social activities and… and professional societies, and that they were going to unleash a long-term… plan of propaganda.
[02:06:27]
And I’m going to reinforce that 1940 paper by saying very quickly I have another one in my hands, which I’m, of course, happy to share as evidence. It’s entitled “Psychiatry”. It’s part of the Journal of the Biology and Pathology of Interpersonal Relations. It’s dated February, 1946, and it’s talking about the re-establishment of the peacetime society. And the author is a certain G.B. Chisholm. And if people research that name, they’ll find another figure who’s deeply connected with the sort of societies that Matt has very concisely put… in front of us. why should we pay attention to this second? Because it’s talking about the use of the psychiatric system in order to implement yes this program of mental hygiene. And if if our jury wishes to know what mental hygiene means, it essentially means that you’re not fit to be a human being unless you adopt the views and values and opinions of the gangsters that we’ve already determined have a plan for domination.
So I’m going to say that when I began to research what was happening in… UK from a point of view of crime and fraud… threats and bullying at local level, I quickly established to my astonishment that there was a charity– it was called Common Purpose– that was acting in a very political way, in creating future leaders. And I was fascinated that these people were installing themselves in UK cities and effectively manipulating, taking control, you could say, of politics within those cities. So here was a group of people recruiting people they… considered to be future leaders, starting to take over the control of cities within UK. Well, if I broaden that out, within a few years, that organization was operating overseas in countries like Germany, Holland, India, Australia, where they were recruiting people in those countries in order to bring them within an agenda of change agents, to change the way we think and conduct our business in society.
And if… we say where did this… organization come from? Well, it was started in about 1985 as a result of one particular lady, the chief executive at the time, Julia Middleton, coming back from– I believe Chicago, but certainly America– saying she’d learned some amazing things about how to change society. And the interesting point was that a large sum of money was collected from a number of banks– and remember the monetary power has been central to the first two speakers’ dialogue– but Common Purpose was able to get going with funding from major banks that were never disclosed. However, I can say with great confidence that Deutsche Bank was one of the key banks working with that organization.
[02:10:01]
Now why have I brought in Common Purpose? Well, Common Purpose was a key example of an organization you could track. You could see the documents, you couldn’t see the people, and you could see that it was unleashing a plan to change our society without the average member of the public understanding this. So where do we need to come to now? I… think, really, we need to just do a little recap on what… Alex mentioned, because I’d like to bring you back to the mindspace document, which is my slide number one. If we can bring this up on screen…. And this… document, produced by the British Cabinet Office, was a document where they had been working with psychologists for a long time to learn how to change the way that people thought and behaved without people understanding this was happening. That’s not an opinion by me, because if we go to the second slide– hopefully it’s coming up on the screen. If you read the text on screen, it says that the Government, the British Government would be able [to control] the way people thought, the way… they believed, their behavior. And people would not necessarily recognize that this had happened. It would be subconscious. Their behavior, their thoughts would have changed, but they would not know. But the document further qualifies it by saying that if people did realize how their behavior had changed, they would not necessarily know how it had been done.
Now let me connect that more or less right up to date with the covid-19 pandemic. Because– if we bring slide 3 onto your screen– these are the minutes of the “SPI-B”, as it’s called [Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours]. It’s part of the British Government’s wise scientists group, SAGE, who were commenting on how we should be quote “fighting covid”. But SPI-B was a team of specialists, including behavioural specialists, who were going to use applied psychology to get people to adhere to the British Government’s policy on covid-19. And why– what I draw people’s attention to are really two paragraphs. One is at the bottom of the left-hand page, where it says, “the perceived level of personal threats” sorry, “the perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased amongst complacent using the hard-hitting emotional messaging.” So here was a Government team advocating the use of applied psychology in order to make people fearful. And I would say that it’s no wonder that we now have trained psychologists and psychiatrists pointing out the danger of making people fearful, particularly if you use techniques which mean they have no way of grounding where that fear has come from.
[02:13:20]
This is not my opinion. I’m quoting directly from the British Government’s own version. and what is equally concerning is a later paragraph, paragraph seven, talks about coercion, in which it says, “Consideration should be given to the use of social disapproval, but with a strong caveat around unwanted negative consequences.” What they’re talking about is using people to police each other, people to say, “I’m wearing a mask. You’re not wearing a mask. You’re a bad person. Get out of my way.” But the caveats that they introduced to this was because they recognized that this psychological technology could unleash violence in communities. Now I have taken, in one quick step, discussion about how you can dominate people into an area where we are seeing the British Government in 2019, in 2010, which is the original document, but also through to the present day, boasting that it could use applied psychology… to change the way people thought and the way people behave. What did they do with that psychology? That psychology was actually.. was sold initially to America and Australia. Look at what is happening in Australia in relation to covid lockdown at the moment. But ultimately the technologies, as Debbie will indicate in a few moments, was actually sold off worldwide.
So now we have world governments able to use this applied behavioral psychology to change people’s views, values, behavior. And they simply do not know this has been unleashed on them. Anjust to reinforce this point– if I can bring up on screen slide four. This is a document which I’ve only found very recently, but it’s entitled “Behavioral Insights Applied to Policy — Germany Country Overview”. This is an EU document which is effectively boasting of exactly the same thing: how applied behavioral psychology can be used to change community, public political opinion. And it’s giving a whole list of German organizations which I’m sure will be– sorry– I’m sure will be much more significant to the panel than to me. But a lot of them are universities and research organizations.
[02:16:13]
This document is effectively simple proof that these political psychology techniques have certainly been spread throughout Europe. So I’m going to suggest it’s very clear that we have a team of gangsters in power, whether we’re talking UK or the European Union or the US. And in the hands of these gangsters, we have got a very dangerous weapon of applied behavioral psychology.
Let me now jump to the subject of covid-19, and in particular vaccine effects. In the United Kingdom, we have the Medicine and Health products Regulatory organization, the MHRA. That organization supposedly is tasked with keeping the public safe with regard to pharmaceutical products and vaccines. And as part of the vaccination program in UK, they’ve been collecting data on vaccine adverse reactions and– excuse me– which they call the Yellow Card system. And to date– if I can just find the figures because I noted them down– to date, their own statistics say that there have been nearly one and a half million adverse effects from vaccines, and there have been close to 2000 deaths, with a caveat they have made themselves to say that they believe it likely that only 10 percent of the vaccine adverse effects that have actually occurred have indeed been logged.
So, of course, that takes the number of deaths from 2000 to 20 000. And what is interesting when you do this is we’re now starting to see vaccine deaths outstrip the dangers of covid-19. But we have to remember that the MHRA as a government department is perfectly prepared to use the same skills in applied psychology that the British Government has boasted they can use to mislead the public and change their behavior. So when we approach the MHRA and say to them, as we ask them a simple question: where is your quantitative risk assessment, to show that the vaccine adverse reactions are not resolved to the vaccinations themselves? The MHRA stalls, fails to answer, produces very confusing replies. But the number of– it is that this key organization, the MHRA has not conducted a quantitative risk assessment into the adverse effects of vaccines.
[02:19:18]
And I’m going to put it to the panel: we’re in– if we’re effectively in a court– that the MHRA who holds the duty of protecting the public from dangerous pharmaceutical products know and– excuse me– knows that people are dying as a result of the vaccination campaign. And I’m going to add that the British Government certainly knows that, but is prepared to use psychology in every single verbal written and media xxxxx dance around the dangers of the covid and the vaccine policy. Now just before I hand over to Debbie to to get into some of the… way that the system works, I just wanted to point out that, of course, the… whole of the control of covid-19 policy and the so-called “health care policy” around covid-19 and vaccinations has been carried out by the British Cabinet Office, who have an embedded applied behavioral psychology team with them. So we know what they’re capable of. They’re boasting of it in their own document, and ultimately we’re seeing the real evidence of people suffering and dying. But I’d like to just hand over to Debbie, because if we follow this trail on, we come to how the system works, in UK at least, where we’re seeing a form of medical fascism between government and the global pharmaceutical industry, working alongside universities and charities within what has been named this the “Golden Triangle” in UK. So if I could just hand over to Debbie, just to take the last 15 minutes.
Debbie Evans: [02:21:23]
Thank you, Brian. Good evening, everyone. My name is Debbie Evans. I’m a retired state-registered nurse. I trained at the Royal Free Hospital in London, where, coincidentally, they’re now nursing Lassa Fever, as of today in the UK. And I did postgraduate training at Saint Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London, and I was a Government advisor at the Department of Health for the UK Government for five years. And I’m a medical researcher. And Brian led us very… nicely there into what we call in the UK “Loxbridge Triangle”, or the “Golden University– the Golden University Triangle. And there is a screenshot of a map of the UK– if you can put it up just to show the locations of Oxford, Cambridge and London in the triangle. I don’t know if you’re able to see it or not. You can see it — fabulous.
[02:22:23]
Cambridge is the highest digital tech center in the UK. It’s ranked 12th in the European digital index, and it’s actually known as “Silicon Fenn”. It’s got a huge biomedical campus on site– there is a screenshot of the biomedical campus– which will tell you… what is on the biomedical campus. And what’s on it, amongst other things is Papworth Hospital, which has been moved to the biomedical campus, which specializes in heart and lungs. We’ve also got Adam Brooks Hospital, which specializes in donation– donated organs and transplants. We’ve also been told by Boris Johnson, our Prime Minister, that there will be a cancer research hospital being erected there as well, at a huge cost, despite the fact that cancer rates in the UK have been falling. We’re to have a cancer research hospital also on that campus. It’s the Medical Research Council Cancer Research UK, which I’ll come back to in a minute. The Ann Mclaren Regenerative Laboratory and the NHS Blood Transfusion Center. So that’s, amongst other things, that’s at Cambridge. And Astrazeneca– Astrazeneca’s headquarters, with GlaxoSmithKline, too.
[02:23:49]
What’s interesting about Cambridge is that Cancer Research UK, which is meant to be a charity but would appear not to be a charity at all… Professor Robert West is a consultant for Cancer Research UK, and he’s also on the SPI-B team, the behavior team that Brian was just talking about, with regards to SAGE. Professor Robert West’s wife, Professor Susan Michie, is the head of the Behavioral Insights team at the Cabinet Office. She’s a long-time– she’s a lifelong Communist. And it has designed the behavior change wheel and has rolled that out into many countries. The Behavioral Insights team appear to be global now. With regards to going back to the Golden Triangle, in Oxford we’ve got one of the most dynamic digital tech economies in the UK with a big campus there, with Oxford Nanopore, very, very high tech, by a medical campus. We’ve also got– Milton Keynes is mentioned in this Golden Triangle, because it’s the UK’s first smart city, using sensors, which I’ll come on to, and big tech innovation. So, going down into London, there is another slide, Med City, if you can see that, which is a knowledge economy. It’s seen– it’s… meant to be the digital capital of Europe, and it’s been named by Tech Nation attracting 2.1 billion– billions worth of investments.
[02:25:39]
So the Golden Triangle within the UK is where all the attention seems to be focused. And the UK Government has actually just announced it’s… investing 5.5 billion into infrastructure around the Golden Triangle, which is sometimes known as the Loxbridge Triangle and the brain– the Brain Curve, I think it’s known as, as well. So when we look at the Golden Triangle and the universities that are involved, we can see that the Golden Universities, Oxford and Cambridge, have also got attached to them the Russell Group, which are 24 universities within the Russell Group that work very closely alongside the Golden Triangle universities and receive a lot of funding.
Where I’m seeing– what I’m seeing, really, is two things coming up ahead. One is that the MHRA in the UK would like to become the global regulator. On their board sits Raj Long, who’s the Deputy Director for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She specializes in safety and pharmacovigilance, and also the chief scientists for Microsoft. So we see huge conflicts of interest there. We also see some conflicts of interest with regards to the British Government, to… ministers. And some of the ministers’ interests are into the big four audit companies KPMG and Microsoft also; Deloitte, Astrazeneca; Goldman Sachs and the European Investment Bank. So a lot of our ministers have conflicts of interest within those… areas.
What we can see coming up is that Deloitte, in particular– I just focus in on Deloitte for a minute, because Deloitte, Ernst Young, KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers take up 67 of global accounting. All four are based in London, and they– Deloittes have been central to the test and trace. Lord Bethel, who has now resigned, had a company that was purely for lobbying on behalf of Deloitte for… bids. And it’s very concerning to see that when you see all of these people intertwined with one another, what could be coming up in the future.
[02:28:27]
And I just want to go back very quickly to how charities seem to be involved in this, as well as government organizations. And what I would call in… fact a quango cancer… UK. I can just find my notes. I’m so sorry. I’ve got a book of notes to try and… be very quick, because I realized we haven’t got very much– Cancer UK is funded by many pharmaceutical companies. In fact, I would say it’s the research and development center, actually, for pharmaceutical companies Astrozeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bill and Melinda Gates, but also advising Cancer Research is Professor Robert West, who’s professor Susan Michie’s husband, a Behavioral Insights team funded by Pfizer and funded by Cancer Research UK, who are also right in the middle of the Cambridge biomedical campus, as well as that with regards to the UK Government, they published a vaccine hesitancy guidance, with interventions on the 27th of september 2019, way before Wuhan was even mentioned.
They are also looking at– and I’m very concerned, with regards to antimicrobial resistance. The UK government has its own UK envoy, named Sally Davis, who used to be our Chief Medical Officer, who is the chief envoy, the UK envoy for antimicrobial resistance. And what I’m seeing coming down the line is: we appear to see… people being tested for HIV, but according to Forbes, the next pandemic would be expected to be tuberculosis. I know that Professor Montagnier– I’d like to send my condolence, my sincere condolences to his family, and all those that know him, by the way, extremely, extremely sad, and that he passed recently. But Professor Montagnier was mentioning to one of his colleagues with regards to the BCG vaccine– and it would appear that Professor Chris Whittie, our Chief Medical Officer, was giving a presentation at Gresham House three nights ago, and was linking also tuberculosis and HIV. And the World Health Organization is very keen on eradicating antimicrobial resistance and TB. We’ve had BCG for TB for a long, long time, and it’s thought that the TB levels are rising exponentially, including here in the UK.
[02:31:17]
And we’re now seeing new vaccines being developed for TB and new testing facilities for TB. So I’m looking down the pipeline and seeing reference to tuberculosis. I’m also looking at cancer and dementia, because that would appear to be on the rise as well, in particular with regards to cancer. Obviously, we don’t know the long-term side effects of the vaccine and– or whether it could be carcinogenic…. But certainly one of the antivirals that they’re using here in the UK. and the UK alone, Molnupiravir, would appear to be carcinogenic, teratogenic and mutagenic. We’re using it here as on a clinical trial with Panoramic. So patients that are receiving it are immediately hooked up onto the trial. I’m also seeing all of these things that we are now seeing on rap now in– I don’t know if you’re aware of SPARS Pandemic 2025 to 2028, which was a futuristic scenario. And I think Brian could probably show up a copy of it. I think he’s got one handy. There it is, “SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028” [St. Paul Acute Respiratory Syndrome], which was a futuristic scenario from the Johns Hopkins Center, on what would happen if a corona virus… infected the world, basically.
[02:32:50]
And it takes you on a month-to-month basis. So: what you could expect from the media, what you can expect from pharmaceutical companies, what you can expect from governments with regards to lockdowns, with regards to testing, with regards to antibiotics, and also antibiotic resistance. So antimicrobial resistance is a really, really big subject, one that pretty much everybody’s looking at the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the UK Government. Pretty much every government in the world is looking at antimicrobial resistance. So I’m looking at thinking, well, maybe possibly we could be looking at superbugs in… the future, with regards to going back– sorry– to go back to the big four again. But it would seem that we also have conflicts of interests with regards to those.
[02:33:43]
The CEO [Chief Executive Officer] of Deloitte has now left Deloitte, retired, but is now on the board of Pfizer. We also had the UK Government… Hansard, I think I’ve actually got the Hansard numbers, in… May, 2014, there was to be a merger between Pfizer and Astrazeneca, but the UK Government were very undecided about it. So there is a reference in Hansard, in volume 753. It was debated on the 6th of May, 2014; and again in column 161 on the 7th of May, 2014, with the past Secretary of State Matt Hancock talking. So our British Government are in it up to their necks, I believe.
With regards to pharmaceuticals, we seem to be heading for global life science superpower. Since we’ve left Brexit [BritishExit from EU], most of the agenda is with regards to life sciences and how we can be the global life… science partner. Cancer Research UK and the Francis Crick organization work together, and they purely are funded pretty much by public donations, but also by big pharma. There’s also mainstream media adverts going out for a company called Omaze, O-m-a-z-e, and it’s a competition line where you can win a three million pound house, but donations and proceeds go to Cancer… UK, Cancer Research UK. Some of the funders of Cancer Research UK, which are based on the Cambridge biomedical campus, are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, the World Economic Forum, Imperial College, Cambridge, UKRI [UK Research and Innovation], Bank of England, Astrazeneca, Crick Institute, CQC [Care Quality Commission] and… the BBC.
[02:35:52]
So they are very, very heavily funded. And I don’t think the public know this when they’re jumping out of aeroplanes trying to raise money for cancer research. Professor Whitty and all of our experts tell us that cancer rates are falling; however, we appear to be testing healthy people in the UK for cancer using Bill and– Bill Gates, his company Grail, which was a joint venture with Jeff– with… Bezos, Jeff Bezos. It’s now been contracted to work within the National Health Service in order to genome-sequence– using it by genome-sequencing for cancer. We’re testing healthy people, and I would ask why we’re testing healthy people. The reason that the Government are giving is that the cost, the burden and the cost of cancer and aging and dementia is so high that we need rapid acceleration of diagnosis, rapid acceleration of treatment. So basically safety goes pretty much through the window, as in the vaccine development, which is now going to be under Bill and Melinda Gates and Patrick Valance’s 100-day mission. So any other pandemic that could be called, you can guarantee that you’ll have a vaccine within 100 days, according to 100-day– 100-day mission. But I don’t know if anybody wants to ask any questions. I’m very aware of time and that we’re running over, so I don’t want to take up too much of the floor.
Anna Garner [02:37:32]
I would like to ask questions of each of you, please, pertaining to the psychological manipulation that’s been going on. I’m Ana Garner, from New Mexico, the United States. And Ms Evans, you mentioned that you had been a government advisor to the Department of Health, and this is very pertinent here, because I feel that this has been going on in the United States extensively. As an advisor to the Public Health Department, have you been aware that they use the behavioral psychology, psychological techniques that Mr Garrish discussed, as a way of enforcing their agenda of coercion and social isolation, coercion of people undergoing experimental medical interventions. Have you noticed that that is part of their operating– modus operandi, shall we say?
Debbie Evans: [02:38:30]
When I was an advisor at the Department of Health, what was becoming blatantly obvious was that any advisor was really there as a tokenistic approach and that we weren’t actually being listened to. Many of us were ignored. I wouldn’t say that we were coerced. I certainly don’t feel as though I was coerced into saying or doing anything. I’m pretty strong, so I did… challenge, in fact. Probably my challenging people was causing more of an upset, because I wasn’t compliant. But it was purely tokenistic. But as [for] coercion, yes I could see huge problems within the civil service. Many personal problems, many bullying. I was– got very close to one of the senior civil servants on our particular board. that was run by, then, Norman Lam, who was the Secretary of State. And there was a huge amount of bullying. There was a huge amount of competition within the civil service. We did notice that, but as an advisor, I… wasn’t part of the civil service, so it was just my observations.
[02:39:40]
And… not to interrupt you or anything, but what I was referring to was the psychological techniques of basically coercing the people, as opposed to people who are involved in the advising, but rather the public.
Brian Gerrish: [02:39:56]
Could I… help here?
Anna Garner
Yes.
Brian Gerrish:
Can I respond? As part of research that the UK Column did, we did through the UK Column, one of the areas that we were very interested in was training within our National Health Service by this charity, Selecting Future Leaders. So this was Common Purpose. So we saw manipulation of people and their values by this particular organization. And it morphed into a specific sector of the NHS called NHS Leaders. And these, supposedly, were fast-tracked people who were going to lead the NHS into even better health care. But what we see is that, as these leaders with their newly-acquired values were unleashed, the management style in the NHS became increasingly domineering and bullying. And the ideas became less and less about the treat– the care and treatment of… people who were ill or injured, and it became much more about the importance of of profits and money within the NHS. And I’m going to say it was apparent that the psychology of people was being manipulated. We… have up on the UK Column website an article which is entitled “Towards a Million Change Agents”, and that was not our title. That was the title of a paper written by an NHS Common Purpose-trained individual, who said that the NHS, in order to reach– my words– a future utopia, was going to need a million change agents. And what they mean by that people who were going to disrupt the performance of the NHS in order to get it to transition, to transform into what was supposedly to be a world-class health provision. So I can give that to you as one specific example where we were looking at how the… management and leadership inside the NHS had changed.
[02:42:25]
But I’ll give you a very simple one about applied psychology in the NHS during the covid crisis, because mantras were introduced instead of medical decisions. Nurses and doctors started to follow mantras, and one of the ones that we were told about by a fully-qualified, a highly qualified doctor in the last few days is– and… relatives of somebody who had suffered– was that, the mantra was “Covid, unvaccinated, death pathway” “Covid, unvaccinated, death pathway” And that is, simply if the person was deemed or labeled as having covid, if it was determined they were unvaccinated, the only result of their health care treatment was the death pathway. And there is no question that these particularly three-word mantras that we’ve seen used by the Government in particular, have been driven through the NHS to the extent that qualified doctors have said to us they’ve been amazed when they cannot discuss genuine government figures on, for example, vaccine adverse reactions, because the person simply turns away or refuses to talk to them or becomes very aggressive.
And the psychologists support that we’re able to call on at the moment is self-witnessing, is cognitive dissonance in individuals, the result of their mental values being rebranded. So I… could talk for a long time on this, but I’m going to say yes, we are certainly seeing that there is the application of psychology in many areas in the NHS. And its overall effect is a degradation of healthcare treatment, to the extent people are being killed, when they could have survived quite happily had they been given the right treatment.
Anna Garner [02:44:45]
Yes. Thank you for that clarification. And I had a follow-up question for you as well, Mr Gerrish. And that was: this psychological operation by definition seems to be very subtle and below most people’s level of awareness that they are being manipulated, if that’s the case. Do you have any opinion about how… those people can be reached in a way that can wake them up? I hear about the psychological dissonance and that sort of thing, the cognitive dissonance. Is there a way in which these people can… be encouraged to see what’s really happening, that they are being manipulated?
Brian Gerrish: [02:45:27]
Right, that, of course, is a very important question. And the response– and… I qualify myself here, because I’m not professionally trained in psychology, but as a result of my work and investigation into the matter and advice I’ve received from fully qualified people, I– I’m going to give this as personal comment. But… I believe it to be very accurate. If you apply… a form of hypnosis to people, the effect on a target audience generally forms a bell curve. You will find some people can be completely hypnotized. I have stage hypnotists demonstrate this, when people will go and do things they won’t normally do in front of an audience, because they’re in a trance-like state. But if we use more forms of manipulation, the effect on the target audience is a bell curve. So some people are very consumed with the message that’s been put across, but it drops off either side to some people who are unaffected totally. And indications to us to date– and this is also supported by qualified psychologists– is that in the first instance, we need to concentrate on the people who are clearly not affected in order to spread the warning message to what’s happening.
We clearly need to be targeting the professions of psychology and psychiatry, to say this is the abuse of those particular professions, particularly clinical psychology and psychiatry, which we can say has got a health beneficiary result. And also to realize that people who have been subjected to this form of reframing or mind manipulation are victims, and therefore they need to be treated in a very gentle and reassuring way. Because if we come at them in a in a very blunt way, black and white way, to try and make them see the truth, the result is that either they’re going to become very hostile with cognitive dissonance, or possibly they’re going to become unwell mentally, as a result of the immense assault on their value system. And can I just say to you it is very significant that in all the documentation about the British Government’s use of applied psychology get its political agenda enacted, there is absolutely no assessment as to what the adverse effects of such psychology may be on people who perhaps have underlying mental health issues, anxiety or depression.
[02:48:31]
And indeed, where people have got undiagnosed mental health conditions, so they’re not even aware that they’ve got a problem, somebody is using this psychology on them, you can do immense damage. And I believe it is– excuse me– no coincidence that the official statistics in UK now show that the lockdown policy has caused a huge surge in suicides and mental illness, particularly among people– tragically amongst young people. But again, we can demonstrate that the UK Government is hiding or manipulating the data sets that show this. Or they’re using applied psychology in the way they present those data sets to the public, in order to further mislead the public. This is the nature of the beast. Once you understand that you have what I’m going to call a criminal political system that has the ability to use applied psychology to change the way the… public thinks, we’ve got a very, very dangerous weapon in the hands of these elitists, and this this is easily evidenced.
I’ve… put up a key document where the SPI-B was boasting that we need to make people more fearful, more anxious. And there are many other documents and are also demonstrated for the benefit of… the Germans amongst the audience, on the team, that… applied behavioral psychology has now been let loose within Germany, certainly within France. Because one of Sarkozy’s personal team, a gentleman called Oliver Willier, had meetings in UK facilitated by the Franco-British Council in 2010, to discuss how French neurological and psychological experts were going to work with the British in order to develop these political– these applied psychological attack techniques. The evidence trail is there. It’s– when you know what you’re looking for, it’s obvious. But my goodness, this is the most dangerous thing I believe we’ve ever seen. If you have propaganda and political manipulation within– of a type within Nazi Germany, in many ways it could be seen– the parades, the banners, the lights, the rhetoric, the posters.
[02:51:24]
But what we’ve got unleashed on us now is a subliminal attack on our minds. And until we bring the full light to this, it’s going to be very, very difficult for us to take the lid off what these people are doing through their covid and vaccination attack on people. Each of the pharmaceutical companies has access to this psychological… weapon. Each of the legal companies they consult the… sorry, I’ve forgotten, Price Waterhouse Cooper, yeah. Debbie, help me out. What do we call these companies? Auditing companies.
Debbie Evans: [02:52:04]
Big four. The big four.
Brian Gerrish: [02:52:06]
Yeah. So everywhere we see charities, industry, public bodies working with the British Government. We know that the use of the psychology is spread between them, so we– we’ve got to start talking about this in a very big way. And we’ve got to be, first of all, dealing with the people who are unaffected. They realize something’s wrong, but they don’t know what it is. And then the public equally. They could be very intelligent and highly qualified professionals.
And I’ll just leave you to think about– A well-qualified psychologist said to me– that’s hearsay, but I’m going to repeat it– said to me, Brian, the thing to remember is that people who are intelligent and have highly questioning minds can be more susceptible to the use of hypnosis, reframing, applied psychology, than somebody who’s less intelligent and has less of an inquiring mind. So it is very wrong if anybody is thinking, “Well, I’m… a bright person, I’m intelligent, I’m highly qualified. This won’t affect me.” On the contrary, you may be more vulnerable.
Debbie Evans:
And could I just–
Alex Thomson:
Perhaps– sorry.
Debbie Evans:
… that the cascade of information– the NHS professionals that I’m speaking to, and all of them that I’m speaking to, are completely confused. They’re having a cascade of information every single day. Things are changing. They don’t know– I mean, I am seeing NHS professionals doing things that would be completely alien to them. I’m giving respiratorial depressants to respiratory patients. It’s just alien to what we have been taught.
[02:54:06]
So people are frightened, and… I would echo what Brian said. You know, people, when they are starting to wake up, they’re scared. They don’t know what’s happening. They need us to reassure them, because at the moment, the agenda is confusion, chaos and crisis. And… you know, going back to what Brian just said just now about Deloitte’s and about the big four. I mean, for anybody that doesn’t know, Deloitte’s are– they’ve written papers on the future of the City of London, the clinical trials. Their… past CEO is now a board member of Pfizer, they’re involved in the NHS, they’re involved in corporate intelligence, as are the other three. And clearly, when Brian was mentioning SPARS pandemic, that goes hand in hand with Operation Clade X and Crimson Contagion. Now Clade X was held by the Johns Hopkins University in 2018, I think, simulating 900 million deaths. And Crimson Contagion, another exercise as well, that went on during the Trump reign, for a response to a pandemic, an ongoing pandemic of flu.
So all of this has been well documented, and well documented in the patent for the covid testing by the Rothschilds, which again– everything that we can see within that patent in the main paper, we’re seeing being rolled out now, including bio sensors. You know, many people have spoken about RFID chips, but not many people are speaking about the advent of biosensors, and how bio sensors don’t need the internet. You can have them in your clothes, on the sole of your shoes. They can be in your food. And biosensors seem to be the way things are going, to the point that there is a Biosensor Institute here in the UK, in Bristol. And the MHRA have actually approved one of the sensors, because you’ll have bio– people will have bio sensors in their cars, on their laptops, and their biometric data will be fed back, so that all of your biometric– Are you fit to drive the train? Are you fit to… drive a coach? Are you fit to do anything? Your biometric data will be stored, and it will be– it’s… happening now.
Brian Gerrish: [02:56:37]
So… if I put a little summary on that. What… we are seeing is a political system integrated with… global commercial companies, pharmaceutical companies, unleashing an agenda which has been to test vaccines on a population without any care for the damage and the dying. Where are they going? They’re going for manipulation of our genes. There’s no question of this, and Britain– all the data we’re seeing at the moment is that it is UK that says it is going to take the world lead in putting this agenda together. The UK– and I’ll qualify that and say I believe this would ultimately be driven by the City of London. But all of the UK documents say, “We will take the world lead.” And this is the same UK that’s unleashed this malicious applied psychology to change the way our cognitive processes work. It’s a very, very dangerous combination.
Debbie Evans: [02:57:53]
And just– final point, sorry, my final point, Alex, is that the unique selling point for the United Kingdom is the National Health Service. There is no way to opt out of it. From– so from the moment that you’re conceived and you’ve had a, your– you know, the pregnant moms have a scan, there’s data on that particular human being, until the day we die. There’s no way of opting out of the NHS. So NHS data is very, very precious, and it’s completely unique to the rest of the world.
Alex Thomson: [02:58:31]
If we could succinctly illustrate that with the one slide I didn’t show, I think it aptly summarizes what Brian and Debbie have just said. If Paul can find it within a few seconds… It’s a slide that UK Column has used quite a lot, of an organogram of the British Government’s ruling agency, the Cabinet Office with a new group, new since, in the decade that I left British intelligence, called the National Security Council, like the American example from the FDR era. It’s not original and not constitutional.
And all of the bodies that fall off, away from the Cabinet Office under its control on that organogram are to do with controlling the agenda. And to answer the question that was asked here, to stop us from being able to show more people what the paradigm is, to stop them from being afraid, by the applied psychology that is being got to them. The military is involved. There’s a 77 signals– a 77th Regiment, a 13 Signals Brigade. There are entirely new British Government security agencies– the so-called Health Security Agency, the Joint Biosecurity Center– all of these new since my time. And the… buck stops with this Cabinet Office. And all the good studies of the Cabinet Office will show you that the leading committees there have a direct line to the City of London. They represent elite, corporate will. There is no democratic control, and even the personal crown, the monarch, is not involved. So I don’t know whether that was shown on screen a moment ago or not, but people can also easily find it as one of the main UK Column graphics. Cabinet Office Censorship Network, I believe we call it, in one version.
Reiner Fuellmich: [03:00:08]
Ultimately, what we’re dealing with is a British system of psychiatric manipulation which has been sold worldwide, more or less. We have the City of London again aiming for world control. Is that why the Common Purpose people are creating their own future leaders? Is that… a special position, apart from the Young Global Leaders program?
Brian Gerrish: [03:00:44]
Well, as with these things, the attack comes in from parallel directions. So I… would strongly suggest that many people with Common Purpose network will have no idea of what the wider objective is. They are recruited– in the time I was really researching in detail, somebody would be recruited locally and asked to join. It wasn’t as… if people were going to Common Purpose to join. Common Purpose sought out the people they wanted. And the agenda was clearly to train that future leader to work with other Common Purpose future leaders. And this is why it’s so significant when you see Common Purpose now operating, for example, very strongly in India. And former Prime Minister David Cameron was part of the team promoting Common Purpose in India.
So Common Purpose is one of the routes by which people are being recruited and reframed. The World Economic Forum, Young Global Leaders would be another route by which probably more powerful people are recruited, reframed, to bring them in line with what their new role is. So Common Purpose is particularly operating at low level, public level, in the first instance. But as time went on, from 1985 it was clear to see that they… got involved with the… they got involved with the… corporate, the big global companies much more strongly. And… then from there they’ve gone to their world… status. But what are we doing? We’re selecting people, their egos are being stroked, because somebody’s suggesting they’re going to become a very important future leader. World Economic Forum calls them Global Leaders. And then these people are being put together in… order to change the world. That… is the objective.
Reiner Fuellmich: [03:03:11]
Thank you very much. I think… our next witness, Whitney Webb, is under a little bit of stress. That’s why– I hate to cut you off, but that’s why I think we have to… give her a chance to maybe fill in the gaps which we will try through asking questions, unless my esteemed colleagues have any further questions, we would very much like to thank you, all three of you, for your excellent presentations. And then we would turn over, switch to Whitney. Is that okay? Well, thank you very much, Brian and Alex and Debbie. This is very important, as far as the geopolitical and historical background of what we’re witnessing is concerned. And Matthew, of course.
Imprint / Privacy Policy / Contact Send / support
