Foundation Corona Committee, 89th meeting on January 28th 2021
Alex Thomson (Ex GCHQ , Niederlande)
Thomas Röper (Finanzexperte / Autor / Russlandexperte, Russland)
in conversation with Viviane Fischer, Reiner Fuellmich
(Original language: English)
[Transcript from Team corona-ausschuss-info.com + Ed]
Reiner Fuellmich: [1:58:45]
Good. Then let’s try now and look for a little more, talking with Alex Thomson. Alex I know you are a colleague of Brian Gerrish. Is that correct?
Alex Thomson: [1:58:57]
That’s right, Reiner. It’s been eight years now, nearly nine years, since I started cooperating with UK Column and a former British intelligence officer who now lives in the Netherlands, as you can see from the backdrop behind me, I have an interesting perspective on what you could call
Anglo-German-Russian geopolitics, the most complicated geopolitical question in the world, I think.
Reiner Fuellmich: [1:59:22]
We want to hear that, because I don’t know if you– did you get the translation of what we– oh, you speak German, don’t you?
Alex Thomson: [1:59:30]
Yes, I do. I’m a former transcriber of German and Russian at British intelligence, GCHQ, and I’m now an interpreter out of German, and Dutch as well, so I listened to Röper live, and I’ve also read his books and especially “Abhängig Beschäftigt”. That was really quite an eye opener for me.
Reiner Fuellmich: [1:59:48]
And what do you think? Is that– is his analysis correct?
Alex Thomson: [1:59:52]
It is spot on.
Reiner Fuellmich: [1:59:54]
Alex Thomson: [1:59:55]
And it made me think of the situation nearly twenty years ago now. I think of– its twenty years ago this year that I was one of the junior members of the British intelligence delegation to Langley to talk to the CIA about Russia and the former Soviet Union, and these things were already present. Leonid Kuchma was president of Ukraine back then. And the CIA, NSA, the British intelligence agencies MI6 and GCHQ already then were extremely interested in the petty rivalries between the oligarchs in eastern Ukraine, the aluminum magnates, the coal… bosses and how these guys are very suspicious. They are always trying to get one up on each other to… rival each other in business. And this has proven very useful in former Soviet politics and crime, which are closely linked, as you very well know. And it’s a… pool in which British intelligence in particular and the US have fished, in order to exacerbate, to exaggerate these rivalries.
So we keep getting– or even twenty years ago, we kept getting indications that one or other of the big metal or oil magnates was going to go over to the pro-Russian side or to the pro-Anglo side. This was basically the… chief task of Anglo-American intelligence with regard to Ukraine, in some ways one of the main ones for the whole former Soviet Union. Because the… petty rivalries that they are– they’re like Mafia family squabbles, to the insiders, but to outsiders they can be leveraged. They can be instrumentalised to cause conflicts if there are outside reasons for wishing to do so.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:01:35]
There is one thing … I meant to ask you before we go deeper into this story. There is– one of the scandals… surrounding Trump was a– I think it was a dossier by a former British intelligence officer–
Alex Thomson: [2:01:56]
He was a personal colleague of mine, Christopher Steele, who was the head of the Russia section of GCHQ, 2006 to 2009. I travelled with him to Langley on some of those– every six months, usually, the British intelligence delegation goes to the CIA or they come to London. But interestingly, the CIA usually don’t blend– GO straight onto the Bundesnachrechtsdienst. They’re probably not supposed to tell me that but one of the officers said to me, “We talk to you, the Brits, and then we talk to the Germans. They’re the only serious people we talk to in Europe.”
So Steele, I thought at the time, was simply rather over-enthusiastic. He was always fishing for details of rivalries between oligarchs in Ukraine and Russia, really for what is one cultural zone, certainly eastern Ukraine and Russia. Intermarriage thanks place between the mafia bosses who become the oligarchs.
And even then, he was seeing how he could use those connexions so that he would have an address book for his– what turned out to be his subsequent career. Like most retired MI6 guys who do this kind of thing touting his connexions to write private intelligence, in his case for Orbits Business Intelligence. But the the director of my old agency– this is after I came to the Netherlands, of course– but the director of the GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, was… caught up in this and resigned very suddenly after Trump’s election. Although as usual in all of this question, there are there are some claims which are too good to be true, too lurid and too sensationalist. You should always be careful about documentary claims, but the… general tendency is is quite right. The Brits used their contact in American intelligence to try to get rid of Trump, because of the issues that Thomas Roper has just masterfully outlined. At UK Column, in fact, we were in fact about the only people to cover the question of European military unification in the last five years. Particularly how it was in Britain’s interest since 1947 to… pursue that policy. We’ve written a number of articles that you can find on ukcolumn.org about that. And one of the points that we made then was we showed footage of the think tank the Royal United Services Institute the military think tank in London where a guest speaker from the European Council on Foreign Relations– so Soros has set up a CFR in Europe as well– named Nick Whitney gave a speech in which he said: Trump has now been elected. We can’t stop it but if you cannot be house-trained, than the British and French need to give the European Union their nuclear deterrent.
At the same time, Deutsche Welle started proclaiming in English: it is time for the British nuclear arsenal to become effectively a joint German asset. That is not in the interest– I know Germany very well to to know that nobody in Germany wants that. It’s… in the interest of a small fraction of your power crazed elite. If we could put it in very general terms– I will never be able to be exhaustive today, but just stop me and ask questions– the general tendency since both world wars is that you have a problem to tackle in Germany itself with power crazed individuals. You very well know it. Basically the way they have gone is: some have decided they will cling on to the Anglo-Saxon domination of the world, such as it still is, and go with that. And then we get claims about the so-called “souveranitäts lügen” [sovereignity lies], that Germany isn’t really independent. Has some truth to it, okay?
Another faction is more continuation of the Third Reich, but they’re not interested in Germany territorially. They’re interested in owning technology, intellectual property, blackmail, and control over Anglo-American politicians and deep-state figures, so that they can bring about in some sense acontinuation of Third Reich objectives, particularly with reference to Ukraine and Eastern Europe. So there’s– basically, you have two lots of evil guys to deal with in Germany. One masquerades as allies of the Anglos, and the other basically tries to steer the Anglos behind the scenes.
Thomas Röper: [2:05:50]
Let me ask a short question, Alex. If you’re not against. It’s Thomas. I would ask the guys here to give me your contact, or you take mine. I would like to talk to you afterwards.
Most certainly, yes.
Okay thank you very– Again I’m listening just– okay. Thank you, and I hope I get the contact.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:06:08]
Alex, say that again please. We have two lots of evil guys in this country. One masquerades as allies of this Anglo-American connexion. And the other?
One chooses… to go the route of German party politics, and– Okay, the… documents are false, but the claims behind the documents are right, that Germany is not fully sovereign, and the power-crazed minority in your political system jolly well know this. And they get to the top of the City or the SPD knowing that if they get into the get into the council d’arms, they will not be able to exercise, for example, a policy of neutrality towards NATO. They are– they will be obliged to take part in every NATO exercise and provocation. That’s… part of the price of– in business, they talk about the cost of doing business, you know. It’s a deal with the devil. And they– we see the same in the Netherlands, as well, but more particularly in Germany. So those… figures prefer to play along with NATO, to meet CIA, for example, to… talk about Russia containment and carving up Ukrain. The other group, and this goes back at least to the “maison rouge’ [red house] meeting in Strasbourg, when Martin Bormann who was Hitler’s handler by that stage, could see that Germany was going to lose the war territorially. They agreed with more particularly the City of London figures. That’s: give us a year’s time to get our assets out of Germany, some of which came back and is effectively the cause of the Veershafts Bunde. But these guys are no longer interested in the territory of Germany. It is analogous to how Britain decided to continue its City of London financial empire even after the United States was clearly top dog at the end of the first World War.
And America, too, reached this point in the 1990s, you know. I think that Catherine Austin Fitts spoke about the manager of a California pensions provider– I know you lived in California– who told her in 1997 that the bosses have decided to abandon the country. In other words, maybe they’ll live there physically, but they will extricate their wealth and their intellectual property and their blackmail network, their “compromat” so that that can operate statelessly. So that’s basically– for sure, you can call it the Third Reich, the continuation on. Now these guys often are loyal to some idea of the Third Reich, even though they may not be necessarily German citizens or live in Germany any more. And they’re not interested in the political level.
Viviane Fischer: [2:08:35]
So what would happen if like Merkel or other people just would not have played along? Like what… concrete? So the NATO would have come in and said– or like they would like pulled the plug from the financial system or like what do you think is the threat in the…?
Alex Thomson: [2:08:52]
I think that’s– these threats the power of them is that they are so breathtaking that they tend not to have to be put into practise. It’s enough to… just handle the idea in front of a German politician that you might lose your NATO membership. It doesn’t need to be in a single document. The so-called “Kanzlerakte” is probably a gentlemen’s agreement in 1949 that when the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was set up, the chancellor would check everything with the allies — NATO policy, vetting the members of mainstream political parties, keeping the gold in the Federal Reserve. These are probably gentlemen’s agreements, and the documents that come out are just bad forgeries that came out in the 1990s.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:09:42]
Okay, so we… we’re back up again, it seems. We’re not quite sure if this was like a sort of a… an attack because of content, or if it was just a technical coincidence. Let’s just go for the coincidence theory right now.
Yes. Okay. Can’t we–
I think the translation is going.
Can– but Alex, you can hear us, right?
I can hear you. I can’t see you yet.
Are we back? Okay, very good.
Wait a second… because it seems that the translation is like entering the Zoom as well. I don’t know. Let’s wait for a second…
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:10:30]
I think the problem has been solved. Let’s… Let us take a look at those two evil gangs in this country again. One masquerades as allies of the Anglo-American connexion. They sort of want the territory back. They sort of– they… are the continuation in… some ways of the Third Reich.
The other is–
Alex Thomson: [2:10:54]
They want… what the the historian Fritz Fischer called, more than fifty years ago now, they called– they want the “grift nach der weltmacht”. And of course, he… is describing the First World War. There is a surprising amount of continuation from war to war, and we’re about to enter World War Three, God forbid, on the same basis.
So they want the… “die welt herr shaft” the world domination. And very got from the British this stupid geopolitical idea from SirHalford MacKinder, a Victorian era geographer, the father of geopolitics– they got from him the idea that if you control Ukraine, you control the world. Look up James Corbett on the heartland theory, or a number of other people. But you have the more practical corrupt politicians who just want to make a career in Germany on their way to be in EU or UN or whatever they want to be, or make a big name in business.
And just like anywhere else in the western world, and they are more prepared to play along with this idea that “Russia is a bad country. We must keep it in order. The Ukrainians are crying out for more European freedom.”
And they’re the ones who don’t care about the territory. They just care about money.
Alex Thomson: [2:12:06]
Yes. Well, I mean, to be brutally honest, the Mafiosi in question in eastern Ukraine and Russia doesn’t care about the territory, either. They’re much more interested in who controlls economic resources than they are in borders and membership of alliances.
Viviane Fischer: [2:12:23]
So how… much of a NATO or CIA operation do you think the… corona narrative is?
Alex Thomson: [2:12:33]
That is a difficult one, because NATO has effectively devolved, declined into just being a protection racket. Certainly since the old– the end of the Cold War. I would very highly rate the whistleblower from the FBI, who was– who joined the FBI more or less the same week I joined GCHQ, Sibel Edmonds, who is not personally known to me, but– that’s S-i-b-e-l. She’s written books. The best is “Classified Woman”, where she talks about something which what I was not aware of in GCHQ-NSA relations. It’s more general; it’s NATO-related. Which is that there is a group of organised criminals that use NATO for drug smuggling, for example. That’s patently obvious by now. And just like the five-Is countries have a hands-off policy– don’t spy on each other for signals intelligence, electronics purposes– so it turned out from Sibel Edmonds disclosures on other people’s since, that there’s something similar between Belgium, as the headquarters country of NATO, the United Kingdom, and… Turkey, believe it or not, that’s– they don’t spy on each other for the purposes of large-scale drug smuggling, because that appears to fund a bunch of crooks who think of NATO as their private army, as their Mafia protection racket.
So to that extent, there is organised crime within NATO for sure. Whether they are directly involved in… covid or the narrative preparation is difficult to say. We often get tied up in knots when we try to work out which organisation is responsible for what. it would be far more sensible to look at personal relationships and personal motives between the players. They can wear so many hats at once and be… in so many organisations.
Viviane Fischer: [2:14:14]
You said it’s a network bassically and do you think that the… all these secret services– I mean the tonnes in each country already– do you think they’re all intertwined in this– I mean, you mentioned that there like, reporting back and forth yet so it’s… maybe– I mean, are they officially separate, or is this like, now going into all kinds of directions that everyone is sort of intertwined with one another?
Alex Thomson: [2:14:41]
Most… members of the intelligence services in most serious countries are patriotic and sensible. The thing is, though, that the most use– the most useful thing about an intelligence service is that it represents a huge repository of data, knowledge, the ability to blackmail people. And a few corrupt individuals in each of these services ultimately can be very tempted to see their… day job, their membership or three-letter agency as just really a ticket to play the game. The game is “Let’s… carve up the world between us.”
The serious writers writing in Russian, German, French, English, they’ve all said this, actually, with regards to the… geopolitics of the twentieth century. A few people near the top resultantly– I think it’s a bit like governments, you know. When you get to the top of the bank or the top of politics, you regard your peers, your rivals in other countries, as more your kind of person that you can… see eye to eye with, than their own organisation and their… own national loyalties.
And Germany has got it’s– like a number of other countries, is gone it’s… own way here. But Germany has, because of it’s past, a particular temptation, or Germans who get to senior positions in intelligence, have a particular temptation to regard the project for which they are working as not Germany, which has all kinds of dark overtones to some of them, but something like Europe or freedom or the free west. And so that’s… a particular pitfall for German, I think.
Viviane Fischer: [2:16:22]
And do you think with regards to the, let’s call it the resistance against the… corona measures and this whole, you know, sort of system that we are seeing unfolding before our eyes, or this like, change, societal change– do you think there– in, there’s a lot of, like, secret services involved in like, maybe, you know, counter- like, or like stop this movement? Like say infiltrating certain activity groups or parties or other things. Like individual countries, like both Germany, but could also be like, in… other, in basically any country. So are they watching this closely and then interfering when they see someone, maybe even like even building up a person as, like, the big hero and then– but he’s really from the other side or…?
Alex Thomson: [2:17:11]
This happens a lot, but it tends to be police and internal security services who do this because they can use that to plead for more budget. In fact the German Bundesverfastungschutz [Federal Constitutional Protection] has a particular technique of funding groups of fake opposition and even, controversially, providing them with enough money to buy arms or sometimes providing them arms directly, in order to provoke false flags. Within the western context, Germany and the Bundesverfastungschutz have often been criticised for this, because they go much further in it than other countries.
But the top of the tree in… any serious– country that’s a serious player in intelligence, the top dog is the foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst, MI6, CIA, because they are closest to politics. And those guys regard the police and the internal security services as junior relations of theirs, and they regard themselves usually as too conscientious and too intellectual to get involved in games of paying informers and provoking false oppositions. It does happen to some extent, but the kind of players who are interested in the geopolitics of the Ukraine, whether they’re in MI6, CIA, the BND, they’re not going to be very interested in the day-to-day issues of covid. They– many of them regard themselves as… fine, enlightened and individuals who are simply seeking to preserve peace and harmony.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:18:43]
So it’s…. just the police and the inter– internal security system that will go that far and fund the opposition, create fake opposition, controlled opposition. And they’re doing this why? Because they want… to increase their budgets, or…?
It’s as simple as that!
Alex Thomson: [2:19:01]
Largely that. Well, again, you’re wanting information on Germany particularly. So what’s special about the German set up is, of course, again, it’s these gentlemen’s agreements. There were so many, like the Kanzler idea, the Kanzlerakte idea, checking everything with NATO and the Americans. That’s a gentlemen’s agreement. The– there was another gentlemen’s agreement that you wouldn’t build fighter jets or tanks, because you’d be the world’s best producers of them. So you leave it to others to do it. This– these agreements are fraying at the seams now, but they they still exist.
And another gentleman’s agreement was with regard to this: that you wouldn’t have the same kind of intelligence apparatus as other countries because what– the most successful German intelligence agency actually was the Forschungsamps [Research Camps], the equivalent of NSA and GCHQ. The electronic espionage people and their… techniques actually went to America, as I’ve said in talks which are on UKColumn dot org. If you search for “emergency briefing” on UKColumn dot org, you will see my talk about that. But what happened was, of course, you have this situation at the end of the Second World War where you had disgruntled intelligence offices who were convinced that Germany was going to be destroyed under Hitler, so you had the Schaufenberg plot. And some of these guys were recruited, particularly by the Americans but also by the British at the end of the war and set up, of course, the… foreign intelligence service that Germany ended up… getting. You know, you had the the General Major Reinhardt Gehlen was the… guy who did it. And as you well know, he was sniffing out partisans behind the– behind enemy lines on the Eastern Front. And the Germans– it’s roughly related to Operation Paperclip. A lot of the useful Germans with a questionable past were given new roles. And so they get an organisation which was extremely good at Communist hunting and extremely savage was left in place. It was BDR propaganda, of course, but it was true propaganda in this case, that they were– their crimes were ignored because they were jolly useful. And these guys became the peacetime Bundes Republic Deutschland intelligence guys. So they… uniquely among the western or American countries, they did have these techniques of, literally in some cases, arming criminal groups in order to plead for, as you say, more budgets. So there is the new uniquely German angle to it. But more generally that is the hierarchy of intelligence services in the west.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:21:34]
Budgets. They’re very interested in budgets.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:21:37]
I have– there’s a few things that Korwin jotted down for us and that I would like to ask you about. One of the questions he jotted down, which I think is a very interesting one, is why would the City of London want to break the German-Russian friendship and provoke wars in eastern Germany?
Alex Thomson: [2:21:55]
Yes, in fact these questions were worded by me to Korvin, so that yes, they were my suggestions. Well, again, we can get carried away with ourselves answering these, because it is so thrilling. This question of deep geopolitics, especially between Germany and Russia, and the Anglo-Saxons. But there’s a lot of good commentators in the free media who’s been at this question for enough years now that if you listen to them intelligently and if you read the source materials, especially those in German and Russian, you can reach a conclusion on this.
And it… seems now beyond doubt that in the late Victorian era, the British Empire controllers realised that now that Germany and Russia were for the first time modern, unified states, they were out-competing the British. There was also this geopolitical angle from Sir Halford MacKinder, M-a-c-k-i-n-d-e-r. This odd theory that if you need– if you wanted to control the so-called “world island”, Eurasia with Africa, then you needed to control Eastern Europe. So this persuaded a group of people around Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner, a group that was at Oxford in the 1870s, that they needed to control the world by bringing the United States back in and by… promoting the growth of a greater Germany and the greater Russia rather than independent states in Eastern Europe, which they thought would both be containable by the Anglo-Saxons, because they were the only sea power of the three. They could blockade the other two. This is what George Orwell expresses with his theory of 1984, with East Asia and Eurasia, that is greater Russia and greater Germany allying in turns with Oceania and Anglo-Saxons. The perspective, you will understand, is that of the Oceanians, the Anglo-Saxons. They think that they can always come out on top. So the… plan for a long time back, more particularly by the financial interests in Britain, the City of London, the Cecil Rhodestypes, was… counter-intuitive perhaps. It was “Let us unify Russia and Germany in totalitarian models. So that we… they will flatten all other possibilities, all otheropposition there, but we will come out on top, even if we have to ally with one against another and have a World War. We’ll still survive.”
That’s the mad thinking involved. It was largely discovered and brought to light by Bill Clinton’s history tutor at Georgetown University who was Caroll Quigley. That’s a man’s name, C-a-r-r-o-l-l, who was not himself conspiratorially minded. He was a mainstream historian of liberal persuasions, liberal in the American sense. And I’ve actually spoken to students of his who were full of admiration for him. They thought he was so enlightened. He didn’t actually believe conspiracy fully. If you listen to the only audio interview which I am aware of with him, he points out that he stumbled upon this truth: that a bunch of City of London gentlemen were steering American foreign policy and were very interested in controlling Ukraine. And they did so even before 1900 by setting up a group called Lord Milner’s Kindergarten, who became the geopolitical controllers of Britain. They were interested in having the First and the Second World War.
I know… it’s a controversial slogan in Germany, this slogan “Sie haben ein krieg gewollt”, “They wanted war”. But there was a group of gentlemen in the City of London who very much did want it. Again, if you listen to the testimony given in 1982by Norman Dodd, D-o-d-d– If you look on YouTube for Norman Dodd tax exempt foundations you’ll easily find it. He speaks to G. Edward Griffin in a 1982 interview about having sent a congressional staffer to the libraries of the American tax-exempt foundation, shall we say the City of London interest in America, in the 1950s for the Reese Committee inquiry into the over-mighty tax-exempt foundations which ultimately are carrying out the City of London projects to continue the British Empire. And they found that– these researchers found, as Dodd says, in the minutes, in the libraries of the tax-exempt foundations, notes from 1905-1906 that they wanted the World War. They would come out of it on top. We could go into all kinds of ins and outs of that, but that is the… general tendency of crazy elite Anglo-Saxon geopolitics.
And the… final straw in it was, of course that MacKinder’s theory, that you must control Ukraine to control the world, was sold to the Third Reich. And they did that, of course, by converting Baron Karl Haushoffer to this theory. Haushoffer became Hess’s tutor in geopolitics. And Haushoffer and Hess, because Haushoffer visited Lonsback prison often in 1924, Haushoffer and Hess probably wrote the geopolitical chapters in “Mein Kampf” with the famous quotation in it “What India was for the British, Russia will be for us.” We could go all kinds of directions with that but the… part which is, repeats from generation to generation is the… thing to keep your eye on: that behind every power-crazed German who wants to control Ukraine and Russia– and by the way, it was… I think Haushoffer who invented the term “lebensraum”. The– or popularised it– behind every one of these Germans, there’s an Anglo-American thinking “Well, they might win, they might lose the next war. They might end up at Nuremberg. What do we care? Our descendants will still come out on top.”
Viviane Fischer: [2:27:47]
So you say that Hitler has not written this “Mein Kampf” completely himself?
Yes. I haven’t done textual studies of it. But I know that there are serious contentions by those who have researched it well, that the chapters in “Mein Kampf” which talk about dashing to the Donbass were probably dictated, almost literally dictated by Karl Haushoffer to Hess. We could– well, we could go any number of ways. There’s.. so many unverifiable claims about Hess and his relationship with MI6, his flight to Scotland, all the crazy things. But it is interesting that he and Göring were the two Anglo-friendly, well-educated gentlemen in the Third Reich, and thtey were the two who were absolutely shut up. They weren’t allowed to speak. Of course Göring was already dead before the trial and in the case– or before his execution, I should say. in questionable circumstances after his conviction. And Hess got a total of twenty three seconds to speak at Nuremberg, in which he started to say that British psychiatrists had played with his mind. And then he was shouted down. Göring was still in the defence dock at that point, and he was basically saying, I’ll summarise now, sort of– “Shut up, don’t… give away our big secrets that we went into the Third Reich as… Hitler’s Anglo handlers.”
Thomas Röper: [2:29:06]
May I ask a short question?
You mentioned the Kindergarden at the beginning of the 20th century. What do you think about the war– the second Thirty Years War, die Zweiter…
Alex Thomson: [2:29:22]
Yes. The period 1914 to 1945 is a repetition of the unparalleled tragedy that Germany suffered in 1618 to 1648, the Thirty Years War, a war on the middle class, the Mittelstand, and provoking of a civil war in the most productive part of Europe. If there is any truth to that, then it would be… some– something like: the… City of London being interested in reducing the productivity of greater Germany, so that the mercantilist Anglo-American empire still comes out on top. You can go all number of ways with this. The Russians are way ahead of you Germans in these– writing about these things, and the French, too. They have lots… more material about “perfideous Albion”, you know, being betrayed by British interests. … You can get too far with it, because most intelligence officers and strategic political thinkers in Britain and America don’t really look further than tomorrow, you know. They… they’re really not that interested. But there are a few, more in, particularly in the financial world, who regard the countries and the intelligence services as their pawns, as their tools. And they do think in these time scales.
Viviane Fischer: [2:30:43]
I mean, with regards to what they said in front of the the trials, you know, I mean, of course, it’s not easy to distinguish with, like, what they maybe say to claim they weren’t guilty, you know, they might come up with all kinds of storeys. As, do you know, as a– defending themselves. Or it could be that they really, in that stressful situation, maybe, you know, talk, speak the truth. I mean that would need to be, like, much further…
… investigated, I guess. And I don’t know if it’s…
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:31:11]
But the… incident that you just described about Goring telling Hess– I think it’s that way around–
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:31:17]
… to stop talking and not give away the secrets, which means that “We were the handlers of the Anglo American– of the City of London, basically, and their American counterpart. There are other–
Alex Thomson: [2:31:33]
No, not quite that. The secret was “We, as the well-educated guys who had done business with the Anglo-Saxon elite before the Third Reich rose, before there was an NSDRP, we agreed at some level with City gentlemen, City of London gentlemen, that, you know, that our– if Farben wants… a guy to go and invade Eastern Europe, therefore we have decided to support Hitler. So the native bad guys in Germany the I.G. Farben guys who want to support Hitler, who went up in the European Commission I think you know, Haustein, these… figures. The agreement was: we will ally with the _external_ D that the London and Manhattan interests that want the same thing, and Hitler will be our useful idiot.
Alex Thomson: [2:32:15]
And when you get to Bormann– Bormann, his family interests and his wartime record was– show that he’s much more interested in Ukraine, in possession of that territory, than in Germany, you know. And he– the well-educated level. There were two or three
well-educated senior Nazis, but the rest were, as you know, low-level folks. But the well-educated once thought, “Well, we’ll probably lose this war geopolitically, but… we’ll at least manage to get our… ill-gotten gains out and… set them– and be part of the New World Order. That’s the thinking which you still have, dominating a number… of German corporations.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:32:52]
I get it. And that’s why Vera Sheraf… I guess not so much, in a rational manner, but intuitively says “I can’t believe I’m fighting the same people again… that I fought 80 years ago.”
Alex Thomson: [2:33:06]
Yes. Well, they… do have to Satanic strength behind them. One of… Brian Gerrish’s most pertinent observations is: there is no explanation, purely humanly speaking, on the human level, for how the same interests can come up generation after generation, even if there’s a change of organisation, a change of citizenship, the same loyalties and the same plans keep coming up. And it’s not a sinister Anglo plot, because, you know, the global revolutionary thinking, often called Trotskyism, is actually very interested, ultimately, in destroying Anglo culture, you know. They– Christopher Storey was the best writer on this. He points out Trotskyites both in Britain and America and in our former enemies, Germany and Russia, have long said, the final goal is to destroy Anglo societies from within. And then we will have the world power. So Ukraine is simply a sort of a geographical staging post on the way to this Weltherschaft [world domination].
Viviane Fischer: [2:34:04]
And so the EU and, like, for instance, this HERA, you know, this new agency for health system or, like, control, helping in emergencies– do you think that’s… supposed to play a major part in, like, transforming the the world to like… you know, like unifying it under some sort of world government?
Alex Thomson: [2:34:26]
Most certainly, because since the end of the Cold War, even before the end of the Cold War, the big enemy that has been sold to the western public, or the world public now, has always been an invisible energy– enemy. It’s… either ideological enemies who you cannot tell by sight, because they are your own countrymen, or it’s been terrorists, or it’s gone on to biological, radiological, nuclear, chemical weapon threats. It’s… never something that you can quantify and see. And so Britain, as we often report on UK Column News, is in the lead globally in setting up this idea of national health security, often called the bio-surveillance state now. Some of the Italian thinkers are some of the best writers on this, constitutional thinkers.
But it’s becoming increasingly clear across the western world that we are facing a bio-security threat. It gives a new pretext, a new reason for intervening in people’s inalienable, God-given rights… by balancing them out. Did… you see this Bild Zeitung footage the other day, of a so-called heroic, brave Christian policeman, in… I forget which city in… Germany it was, who was facing an open-air prayer meeting of people who didn’t like covid restrictions, and he said, “Of course you have your Grundrecht, you have your inalienable right, to worship in public, but other people have the right to life, by not being infected by covid.” Yeah? So that’s what health security is. It’s doing away with inalienable, fundamental rights, not by repealing them, but by saying, “Yes, they exist, but they’re counter-weighed by, outweighed by… something we just invented yesterday, like “the right of everyone on earth to feel safe”.
Viviane Fischer: [2:36:12]
I mean if it was really like a… disease, you know, that you get it and you’re dead, then maybe you’d have some sort of balance in, do you know, that it’s, that you have to balance it out. But if… we facing a threat as has been, like, discussed several times, you know, it’s not really dangerous to the population as a whole, it’s… clear that it’s… something else is behind it.
Very much so.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:36:40]
Alex, from– I’ve seen a couple of videos of, I think, former Russian intelligence officers who explained in great detail how for some reason the Russians wanted to undermine Anglo-American society, particularly the American society and destroy it from within. What– how much truth is to that? Is… this really– who is _really_ behind this? I mean, if that is the ultimate goal, to even destroy the Anglo-American society from within, who is behind this?
Alex Thomson: [2:37:17]
Well, perhaps my answer will not surprise you, Reiner and Viviane, that ultimately, it’s only the devil who can have such a level of… malice, of evil. But only on a human level, you don’t need to look for a religion or a nationality that would be interested in this. The few people we’re talking about regard themselves as ubermensch. They regard themselves as… above all that. No, literally, as a… famous book called it, “Jenseits des Bösen”, Beyond… Evil. It’s not a category that’s… relevant to them. So, it’s been a feature of world communism since its inception, to talk about Anglo-American Christian capitalism as the main enemy, and Anglo-allied countries such as Germany and other western European nations as the sort of subordinate enemy to the main enemy. So obviously, in early Bolshevism, this was a big talking point. And then it became one in Britain when… communism was native-ized among some of our traitor elite, around the time of the Second World War.
But we cannot then say that the Trotskyites who wanted this were loyal to the… Russian people, or to the Soviet Union, or even to communism. They simply wanted a unified world. And if you want to unite the world, obviously your main enemy is going to be whoever the most powerful block is in the world at that time, especially if it is the culturally stable and generally beneficent cultural power in the world. Obviously you’re going to have to take that out of the way before the world will accept rule by you.
Viviane Fischer: [2:38:49]
Like the– what’s the point in, like, having this one-world government? So it’s the same– you would… think it’s, like, the same things, like control, like that has been discussed also here before. Like it’s controlling the resources and, like, having full control on… the human beings. And, do you know, like, maybe a transhumanist agenda. Or do you think it’s the other things in the forefront, or like…?
Alex Thomson: [2:39:16]
It has to be hatred and suspicion of humanity, in the end, you know. It’s a well-known rhetorical question: if you get to be ruler of the world, what are you going to do with your power? Very few people can answer that. Some people have religious convictions that allow them to answer this question, or very few have philosophical ideas. But generally this question is unanswerable by most people, because they are not disturbed enough to want to dominate the world. But there are a few who do, and if you have that level of drive, then you’re– almost by definition, you’re going to be somebody who is afraid and suspicious and incomprehensive of… ordinary people, don’t understand what makes them tick. So you’re going to want to see population reduction, absolute conformity between people, and this kind of thing.
Yes, go ahead.
Alex Thomson: [2:40:09]
Yeah, before I forget to show this… graphic, just to show you that this is not merely a controversial question of the Third Reich, but it’s something which confronts Germany from generation to generation. The father of German liberalism the… man whose name is almost the FTP’s think tank, is Friedrich Nahmann. And, of course, he popularised– ultimately, it was a Bismarkian-era slogan– Mittel Europa, that Germany should dominate central Europe. Look at the French language first edition, French translation, of his Mittel Europa. Here is the French, here is the… title… page, sorry, the cover of the French edition. Can you see that Mittel Europa in this French edition– it’s more honest than the German… otiginal– can you see that it includes Denmark, Benelux, the Baltic, Ukraine, Croatia and Slovenia, the countries that Hans Dietrich Genscher basically acted on behalf of and started the Balkan wars of the 1990s for? All the countries that ended up being geopolitical allies of… you can call it Gros Deutschland, Greater Germany, in the later 20th century before, during and after the Third Reich period, and even after the… Venda.
All of these countries were already described by Naumann in 1915 as the resource pool which Gros Deutschland must be able to… count on the loyalty of. Yeah? So I’m not suggesting that the SDP is the root of all evil, by any means. But I am suggesting that there is always the same temptation by evil doers from generation to generation to… maximise what they can do. And if you are in control of Germany, then the strongest thing you can do, obviously, is invade eastern Europe and make it a pool with cheap labour and raw materials. That’s always been– because evil-doers in the top of the Anglo elites know this very well, they have thrown everything they can at stopping Germany and Russia getting their act together.
So even when Nakaida Wilhelm went to a Swedish island, Bjorka, in 1905 and signed a treaty with the tsar on technological cooperation, this petrified the City of London. And Wilhelm’s ministers were prevailed upon to… repeal this treaty of Bjorka almost overnight. Again, the– after the First World War, it was– under Ebert, there was a very strong fear among the City of London that… the Germans would reach a separate honourable peace with the east, that they would a– in fact, there was a strong effort to do this. The treaty of Rapallo in 1922 agreed, basically, that Russia would provide its vast raw materials for German vast know-how. And this would have made a Eurasian state the top dog, and not the Anglo elite.
So this was reversed almost overnight, with the Dawes plan, which, of course, with– was one of the main things that the Third Reich used as an excuse for why it has to come to power– to return, to reverse the Dawes plan and the Young plan. So all of these things go in cycles. The elite on both sides are extremely suspicious of the other one coming out on top. Now, that’s the only ideology they have at the very top of the intelligence agencies: stop the other guys being top dog. And Germany is in this unique position because for historical and geographical reasons, it always wavers between these two — which of these two top dogs are we going to go with?
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:43:32]
You know, this all sounds– it’s very simple, really, when it… boils– it is– this boils down to megalomaniac behaviour, people who are, in my view, completely crazy. But is it really as simple as that? Is it really that some of the people who have gotten to the top of the hierarchy, both in business and in politics, are simply psychopaths who are, like in a James Bond movie, trying to rule the world? It sounds like it.
Alex Thomson: [2:44:07]
I think so. And there’s also a level of people who will tolerate the rise of the psychopaths.
Alex Thomson: [2:44:14]
A classic example is an old wartime GCHQ man who lived to past a hundred years old, he was very close to UK Column, called Harry Beckhough — B-e-c-k-h-o-u-g-h. After the Second World War, because he was one of the German speakers in the wartime precursor of GCHQ, he was sent to the British-occupied zone of Germany to help with the process of de-Nazification and re-education of the elite. And he became a personal friend of Konrad Adenauer. Now, no… matter how how anti-German you are, you cannot say Konrad Adenauer was a Nazi. That would be a step too far. However, Adenauer did confess to Beckhough that he employed 134 senior ex-Nazis just in the Kanzlerampt in the– and the Kanzlerei. This is… an example to illustrate your– the answer to your question, which is: is it just psychopaths? Well, there are a lot of psychopaths. I would say the 134 re-employed senior Nazis were psychopaths, but Adenauer knew jolly well what they were, and yet he still used them for the sake of continuity? through the government? whatever you want to call it.
Thomas Röper: [2:45:25]
Even more. Adenauer said _because_ of their parts in the Nazi time they were controllable. They… never would have done their own agenda, so he took them because they– he could take them under control because of that.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:45:38]
Makes perfect sense. To let you know that– if you know the skeletons in the closet, you know how to control these people.
Alex Thomson: [2:45:45]
Well, let’s balance that with the other big revelation that Harry Beckhough gave us, which cuts the other way, which is that Sir Edward Heath, later the Prime Minister who brought Britain into the European Economic Community, was a controlled asset by some strand of German intelligence, since before the Second World War. It turns out that he was compromised by a homosexual encounter in Germany in 1939. And Beckhough talked about this in quite some detail in his books and writings. And many people thought this was just a paranoid conspiracy theory until a police chief, Mike Viel, in Britain came out with the report on Operation Conifer after Sir Edward Heath’s death, which confirmed that they had six independent witnesses that child– Sir Edward Heath was an abusive pederast–
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:46:30]
Alex Thomson: [2:46:31]
a child molester. Right? So this is been covered on UK Column and a number of other reliable free-media– reliable newu media sources, with documentation. This is well-known stuff. So Mike Viel came out in public and said– of course, he got a lot of flak for it, but he did come out and say that if he’d still been alive– he died in 2005– if he’d still been alive, he would have faced police questioning for child rape, right? So that confirmed what Beckhough had been saying, that– but we mustn’t run away with this idea that the Germans blackmailed Heath into bringing Britain into the EU, as it finally became the EU. No, it was one particular strand of interests which had a geographical presence in Germany that was interested in doing that.
Viviane Fischer: [2:47:15]
And now, when we look at, again, the corona situation, how crucial do you think it is for the whole system that Germany continues, like, believing the narrative, or you know, like, continues with the measures? Is– are we, like, a cornerstone in this system, in this whole picture?
Alex Thomson: [2:47:35]
I’m speaking from the Netherlands, and it… seems to be that most countries in the western world have this idea that: poor us, we are the cornerstone of globalism and… yeah? So the Dutch attitude is often: yes, so much of the the world pedocracy is based in the Netherlands, which is true. The British seem to think the same thing… as well. But– while we’re speaking about the Netherlands, actually, I have spoken individually with the chairman, not the leader, but the chairman of the Dutch political party who said: “Britain can leave the EU, but the Netherlands can’t, because we are a province of Germany.”
And by that, he means the same Third Reich continuation corporations. He knows very well that there’s nobody in… political circles in Berlin that wants the Netherlands to be part of a Fourth Reich. No, it’s just a question– it’s Mittel Europa again. Remember, Benelux was part of Mittel Europa on that map I showed you. No, they they can’t have independent geopolitical interests. So that doesn’t serve the interest of the German people, no. But yes, Germany is the keystone state, just like Pennsylvania in America was the keystone state at independence, because it had such a bulk– and still does in America– such a bulk of population, central geographical location, technological know-how, industry, high-quality population– all of these things make Pennsylvania the state that would make or break the Union.
The same is true of Germany. In any project which is launched in the European continent, Germany, just by dent of its population and its expertise, is going to be the key state. Clinton, having been well schooled by Quigley, said on a visit to Berlin in the 1990s: Germany is the natural leader of Europe.
Viviane Fischer: [2:49:13]
And now again, because I’m really interested in that. The, you know, wouldn’t it then make sense for the… ones who are– I don’t know, like here, playing this game, to set up, like it– quite a bit of, like, controlled opposition anchors, like, you know, even, like, when the narrative started. So they were maybe in place before or, like, now being placed somewhere so if, like, resistance becomes too strong in some… area, they… have ways to, I don’t know, to… do some counter-engineering here and there. When you– what’s your opinion?
Alex Thomson: [2:49:52]
Most… certainly. And this is why we need decentralised opposition, opposition based on individual conscientious people who will not go along with things that their conscience and their intuition and their intelligence tells them is nonsense, is tyranny. Every week– and the British scene is the one I know best, but I know it’s the same in Germany– every week, there are some anti-covid protesters or networks that’s revealed that they have been infiltrated by police informants. The only way to avoid that is by having a decentralised cell-type of… organisation. Obviously, the– part of that is not telling outsiders what you’re planning, necessarily, too much. And avoiding electronic communication where possible, and communicating on paper and by word of mouth.
But another part is retaining your intellectual independence, not being whipped up… I love and know the Germans well enough to say this, and you won’t mind my saying it: the Achiles heel of the German nation is over-enthusiastic following of a plausible leader. This– the British ambassador writing his report, foreign office paper, Germany number one, 1939, said of this: the Germans are great nations who run away with leadership, get carried away by leadership, and this is… well known. But you have to know your own weaknesses out of love for your own people. And so it’s true of anyone, but particularly of Germans who are waking up to tyranny, I would… say, don’t follow leaders.
Viviane Fischer: [2:51:26]
But can I ask you something? So, if you–
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:51:28]
That’s what we’re all about, actually. We want to go back to the roots, and we want to set up our own structures– political, economic, etcetera, etcetera, in our regions, all over the world.
Alex Thomson: [2:51:38]
Yes. If I may, Reiner, I think because you’re a German American, you’re a lawyer, you’re the ideal guy for me to… suggest this to. I don’t want to tell the Germans what to do, but I want to raise this issue. American patriots, as I think you well know, of– are now divided over the question of whether they should get into the better states and seceed from the union, in order to stop the country being used as a mighty basis of evil in the world. And some of them say– I think Catherine Austin Fitts is very much in this camp, for understandable reasons– No, we need to keep the bulk of our nation together, even politically and economically, right? So America is– it has a unique position in the world.
But it may be time for certain of the the states in Germany which have the longest retention as happy, independent countries before Bismarck particularly the Freistaat Byern, Baveria and Saxony, I think, which used to be regional powers in Europe. It may be time for them to think seriously about secession. Because generally, Germany’s big enough and diverse enough to have a graphical aspect to it which other European countries don’t. You have a decentralised system. There are– vaguely speaking, the Catholic south and the socialist east of Germany are _not_ Russophobic. The Anglo policy of making… Germany Russophobic and whipping up war in the Ukraine works better and has done since the days of Naumann, a liberal Protestant, it’s worked better with the northern and western sort of liberal, nominally Protestants, Germans. So you have a very difficult judgement call in Germany, as to whether you break up the federation or not, in order to prevent Germany being used as a… crowbar to attack other countries or to dominate Europe.
Personally, I think that the Germans would have a happy, prosperous, culturally vibrant future, as they did in early modern Europe, as a… group of semi– of mid-sized, influential states, but I don’t want to press that solution on the Germans, because there are… downsides to it as well.
Viviane Fischer: [2:53:45]
I think that there are quite a few downsides, because I think at the moment the advantage is that, you know, the… protests are peaceful and that is, you know, they’re really not so confrontative. Plus they are, like, very regional, you know, like… in very small entities, and I think that’s maybe– it’s my opinion, like this, at the moment, you know, the way to go. Because if you are if you’re, like, going for, like, a proper, you know, secession, then you’re going to have, like a civil war. At least, you give, like, the… government, the rulers who want to keep Germany together, like, to bring the whole of Germany into, like, a new power structure to, you know, maybe the reason to bring in like, military and media tech, the ones who want to go for secession. So I’m… I… don’t…
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:54:35]
That is… by the way, the reasoning behind Catherine Austin Fitts’ assessment when she’s saying we can’t do that. We can’t seceed in the United States. I’d– I– my approach is a little bit different, because I do believe that the only way you can have true sovereignty is by letting the family, the communities, the regions decide their own fate. And they– they can set up their own power structures, their own health care system, judiciary. And then they can connect with the other regions. But one thing that seems to be very obvious to me is: what got us here are these globalistic structures and the psychopaths who are behind these globalistic structures. Because basically the… reason why we have this corona plandemic is because someone told someone to create panic and to create cases. Ultimately it’s the puppet Drosden, but who is the someone who told him to go ahead and invent this PCR test? It’s the WHO.
Alex Thomson: [2:55:49]
We don’t know. Brian Gerrish– he… comes out with a number of analytical one-liners which are pure golden. One of them is… this: if the real controllers don’t show us their faces, what are they afraid of?
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:56:01]
Alex Thomson: [2:56:02]
We’re not going to find out in one go, who gave Drosten, or the equivalent figures in the British health security… state the orders.
Alex Thomson: [2:56:10]
The only analytical reason that makes sense– especially we’ve been talking about geopolitics and the World Wars– if you keep that in mind as well, these guys never show their faces. There can only be one reason: that they are afraid. That they don’t have power if they show their faces,
Viviane Fischer: [2:56:26]
Like the Wizard of Oz. But… one question again. Like with, you know, like, what we saw, like, with a lot of things or, like, a disturbing remember this, like, they did in… some countries. All of a sudden, you know, someone pops up who is, like, the new… leader, and he comes back like, has a Harvard degree, you know, like, trained in America, you know. And then — boom — all of a sudden, he’s… there, and he’s like, supported by the local press. And he’s like, you know, the new hero and leader behind [whom] everyone gathers.
And– But I have the feeling that maybe this kind of script, this, do you know, that they have explored like, over from many opportunities, is maybe a little bit at a loss here in this situation. Because, like, if some– if people are really waking up to the corona problem, you know, and see this, that it’s… a fake narrative and it’s not meant to… do them any good, then I think they will have quite a few doubts of, like, do you know, with regards to people who pop up out of a sudden and, you know, have a non-, do you know, not like, trackable history of, like, resistance, don’t you think that that’s a problem for like, the social engineers who now maybe want to install like, a new leader, you know, that we could then all turn to in awe.
Reiner Fuellmich: [2:57:47]
Alex, I think the bottom line is the German saying: “Wer ein mal lukt dem glaubt man nicht.” [If you think once, you don’t believe it.”] If we manage to expose these– the structures, at least, not necessarily the individuals wo are really behind this– even though I do believe that will come out in time, too. But if we manage to expose these extremely fraudulent and very very evil structures, then our– the people who are understanding was going on won’t be fooled again as the Who once sang.
Alex Thomson: [2:58:19]
The biggest… mechanism to fool the people is this idea of party politics. In some countries like the Netherlands, where I’m speaking to you from, it has been the only game in town. They– there’s been _only_ proportional representation.
Alex Thomson: [2:58:33]
This is the ultimate confidence trick, because it sells a whole manifesto as a fait accompli, and it allows blackmail. The British are the world’s leaders at party-based blackmail. We call it “whipping,” and it’s been admitted on camera that it involves covering up the abuse of children in order to buy people’s loyalties, right? The only way to re– to reverse that is to– and… Germany is already halfway there, happily, unlike some continental European countries– if they go completely to what you call the “direkt kandidaten”. It’s not coincidental that Doctor Wolfgang Wodarg was a direkt kandidat and has become conscientious enough to join the Stiftung Corona Ausschuss.
And from the other mainstream party the same is true of Willy Wilma who became the number two at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE. He likewise from the other side of the political spectrum he was a direkt kandidat. He had the conscience to say, I may represent two very different zones of Germany, Protestant and Catholic, but they both said this is a load of nonsense and then they left the Bundestag in the same year, 2009. And between them, they basically prevented a war with Russia and the previous covid scam. So they’ve… got a lot to be thanked for.
You have I think 99 of them in the Bundestag, and they’re not all high quality but at least they were elected on an individual mandate. Right? So that in theory, Britain andAmerica should be in a better position than you because in theory, we still elect people geographically by their name, by their individual reputation. But of course, it’s all done by the control of the party system. If you outlaw political parties, that’s the single… biggest thing you can do to restore constitutional governments and liberty under law.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:00:10]
I think I agree with that, and I think Wolfgang Wodarg agrees with that as well, because when he, or all of us decided we would join this party, dieBasis, of which the Viviane and myself are now the leaders, we were immediately told by Wolfgang and also the people who have joined that party, I think roughly 32,000 in the meantime, immediately told “We’re here, but we really want to get rid of the party system. We want to get rid of political parties. And I agree with that, because the only way to have direct democracy is by voting for people directly, instead of the party which was–
Alex Thomson: [3:00:52]
Can I add, about foreign policy, in any western country now, foreign policy is nominally in the… hands of a minister or secretary of state. In practise, it is bureaucrats. And the top-level decisions are made by the think tank alied to the party to which the minister belongs. Right? So the Adenaur Stiftung in your case or the Naumann Stiftung or the Imdut Stiftung. We have equivalents, and they’re even worse– the Chatham House and the like, right? These think tanks can sway foreign policy and thwart the will of the… people, of the voters, only in party political model.
If the minister is– has to go to a parliament that consists of independent men women, elected on their own reputation by ageographical constituency, says “We’re going to invade Russia next week”, those independently-elected parliamentarians can say, “Not on your life”, and if they’re not in a party, it’s much more difficult to blackmail them.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:01:48]
Viviane Fischer: [3:01:50]
Yeah, but however, it has to be, like, an evolutionary way to get there, because right now, I mean, we have, you know, also the parties in, as part of our basic law. And I think we are… we– I really believe that the basic law is something that we should absolutely stick to, for the moment. And then, in, like, discussion with the people, you know, that the sub– sovereign, basically, you know, we can maybe then switch to a different kind of system. I mean, okay, it is true that right now, we could also send, I think– at least half of the… members of parliament could be, like, directly voted for, which is an option. And I think what should be– also, you know, be used in the in the near future. But it’s– Yeah. I think it’s an evolutionary process, and not something that… we can
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:02:38]
… changes overnight. And what… we’re really trying to say here is that again, we have to emphasise, we are– we need to fight the system, because it’s been… hijacked by those who are pushing this corona plandemic. But we’re not fighting our constitution or the American constitution, because the these are really great documents that underpin our democracy. It’s the system, or the people who have hijacked the system, who are trying to get rid of democracy. It’s not the… constitutions. There– We need these constitutions. We need to stick to them.
Viviane Fischer: [3:03:21]
…stick to them, we wouldn’t have had this problems, you know.
Thomas Röper: [3:03:24]
May I add one, just one thought. Think… about the question where the parties are a part of this basic law in Germany. Think about that. There’s nothing which has been entered by somebody. It was constructed like this, the parties have to rule because the party– the parties are something you can control. I absolutely agree with Alex. You can control the parties, you can blackmail everyone you want. And I’m not against democracy or anything– vice versa. I want more democracy, and more democracy means no parties. So I absolutely agree. And ask yourself why it, the parties, have such an important role in our basic law, and who wrote it, in which time. And then you understand the way.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:04:10]
I agree with both of you.
Alex Thomson: [3:04:11]
Even… in… the area of taxation law– My father was, before his retirement, an adviser on tax and had a lot to do with German companies “gehen behas” which wanted to get foreign ownership or a foreign member of the board. He was surprised at how incredibly difficult it is under the 1949 regulations for Germany, for western Germany, to get a foreign-owned “Gehen beha”, and he worked out in the end that the American occupiers had– and the British did the same, too– had hired taxation prrofessors to make it as difficult as possible, without making it outright illegal, so that they would have maximum control of the German… well, some… sovereign entity, shall we call it.
Viviane Fischer: [3:04:59]
It’s crazy wherever you turn, there’s new things to learn.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:05:02]
But the most important thing– and I think this is something that tells us that we can, not very clearly, but we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Everything is coming out into the open. This is– what we’re doing right now is brand new news to most people in this world. And if– ann I think it is _so_ important to be able to understand, to see the whole picture rather than just pieces of the puzzle, because only if you can see the whole picture will you be able to react accordingly. If you only look at for example one piece of the puzzle, meaning the PCR test can’t tell you anything about infections, it’s not enough. You have to ultimately be able to answer the question: if it’s not about health, what is it about? And then you have to take this deep dive that you have taken us into. So I’m really grateful for that, Alex.
Alex Thomson: [3:05:58]
May I round off by saying that we have been thinking about this historically in this discussion. We’ve been thinking about forces in Europe and in Britain that like controlling the world and controlling America secretly. And this has been the big issue of the 20th century. America has now matured to the point where _it_ might actually cut _our_ elite loose, and leave them to sink, including economically. You– I know you have good connexions in America, but you might not be fully aware that in, shall we say, the more Bible Belt parts of America, they’re starting now to think seriously about: shall we just get rid of these German, British and other foreign controllers, ditch the debt-ridden European continent, get rid of covid measures which were not our idea, ultimately, and live happy and free?
And a very good example of that, which I recommend to those listeners who can follow a podcast in English, is podcast 93, the most recent podcast, in the series called “Gold, Goats and Guns” run by an American called Tom Luongo. In that episode, he interviews the hedge fund guy from Croatia Alex Kreiner, who brought out the expose on how the Bill– Bill Browder, this Manhattan guy, tries to spin a storey involving Putin as a villain. And it was is very interesting to listen to, because they go into detail there about the British, the City of London financial empire, and how the beating of war drums with regards to Ukraine is ultimately a British project, because the City of London needs more collateral, Sicherheiten, for the… loans they give.
And people might be shocked. This is why I’m recommending it, because even those who think that they know America well might be shocked at the self-confidence which American philosopher– podcasting philosophers like that are now showing. “We’ve had it with Europe; let’s go our own way.” You know, historically this was called isolationism. And in… Britain you’re always taught that the… role of America in the 20th century was to ride to the world’s rescue, and lets all criticise the isolationist periods in American history. But that’s the whole role of America from the founding fathers onwards– is to be a City on a Hill, and if necessary to keep their distance from all the craziness going on abroad. So we might find that the American people, almost over night, decide to ditch us and become a beacon of liberty and get out of covid tyranny faster than anyone else.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:08:21]
That’s what it looks like currently, doesn’t it?
Viviane Fischer: [3:08:24]
But I think this could also be a very strong time for us, you know, if it really– if it was possible to really, like, free America, then, do you know, I think it would be– it’s, it will be impossible to keep it up in… Europe and other places in the world. I mean, I think these are, you know, like maybe America and as we said in the beginning, also Germany as part of, like, a major entity in Europe, meaning then also the other… states in… Europe might fall. And I think then this could also be a, do you know, like a liberation, domino kind of situation for everyone in the world. And you know, but what– at the same time, I think, yeah, this might be a tendency but I also see this sort of humanity rising happening at the same time and also connecting to other people that you see as tortured as yourself around the world. And I… think it’s maybe… I mean, we have to think about new constellations. And I think it doesn’t need to be like, in this institutions that we’ve had, you know, basically in that problem–
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:09:22]
We don’t need to be members of any power, political power structures, global power structures. I think it’s all about regionalism, and then connecting, but not being part of any structure that will allow– Yeah, just like you said we… should… keep the resistance not unified. Because if it were unified, it would be very easy to infiltrate it and bring the whole resistance down. If we’re not– if you’re not under one huge umbrella, but we’re independent… parts of the resistance, then it’ll be very difficult to bring us down, because they have– they’re going to have to bring each and every one of these resistance centres down. And that’s going to be next to impossible.
Thomas Röper: [3:10:06]
I would like to add something, because this is a very crucial question. If you see all these coloured revolutions work out because there is distraction: opposition with a leader. And of course, they are under the control of somebody. But this is the way– why they are effective and they work. So you are right. You needed it decentralised– but if it’s decentralised, it will not… have success, because for having a success you have to coordinate it, and then again, then you have to centralise it, because without coordination it will not work out.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:10:37]
No… not centralization. Connecting is the… secret.
Thomas Röper: [3:10:44]
Yeah, well, it’s…. you have to organise, like a military because otherwise it’s won’t happen– be successful. I work very much and I think Alex may agree with me– when I look at all these colored revoutions end protests which were just connected like the Geldfesten, they didn’t… do anything, they didn’t reach anything. And… the colour revolutions are organised they have success, So this is a different topic. I had it in a… conference Moskow not long ago, where there are people here, university professors who study this kind of stuff request what was quite interesting to talk with them. So this is a very complicated question somehow.
Viviane Fischer: [3:11:24]
But you said the revolutions, they were not real revolutions. So I mean, it’s no– no, not you know, not surprising that they actually went through, because like, if you don’t have the media pushing them and you have like a–
Show me an example for one real revolution in history.
Maybe… there’s none, but maybe now we’re going to have one–
Thomas Röper: [3:11:44]
That’s the point, because it does’t work. It works only if it’s organised. Otherwise it doesn’t work.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:11:49]
Yeah. Organisation still doesn’t mean you have to have centralization. But, again, it’s complicated, definitely. Now we are…we… must come to a conclusion at this point, because Matthew Ehret has been waiting in the Zoom for about a half an hour but I don’t want to cut you off, Alex. This is one of the most interesting conversations, one of the most interesting interviews we’ve had. Is there something that needs to be told that we haven’t touched upon yet?
Alex Thomson: [3:12:21]
Just a closing thought from me and it’s an honour to be between Thomas Roper and Matthew Ehret, two men I greatly value listening to. But I’ll say this we will have to look at our own national shortcomings, confront our own demons. I’ve told you Germans what you need to do in that regard. The Brits have a particular problem with their soft power, their propaganda. We’ve seen that it has basically manipulated America, Russia and Germany through the 20th century. So even– just with that closing thought that Thomas gave, of decentralised opposition– it’s not enough to do just that. I do agree with him it’s not enough, I do agree with him in what he says, but it’s not enough, because you need finally to get your mind space clear of propaganda, you know. This… term mind space is associated with Brian Garrison, UK Column, because we’ve shown how from 2010 onwards, the British Cabinet Office has used this behavioural change and sold it to the world. You know all that.
Well, you know the old saying “They’ve got you body, mind and soul.” The… British establishment basically is a triangle that controls you, body mind and soul. Body is the National Health Service, mind is the BBC and soul is the Church of England or in Scotland, the established Church of Scotland. These are the… most pernicious and long-lasting of the British establishment presences in the world. They regard themselves as having a worldwide remit to shape people’s fears and concerns. So why do I mention that? It’s because even if Britain lost its economic clout and its military ability to manipulate bigger countries to go to war on its behalf, we would still have this problem: that some people would undeservedly look up to the BBC, the Church of England, the National Health Service, as if they were beacons in the world.
So that’s why a large part of UK Column’s mission is to keep shining a light on the ridiculous situation in each of those institutions, the hollowing out of those institutions, because if you just take that closing thought of protesters, people will only come out on the street if they have a sense of moral outrage; so that’s the religious element before they even come out. So if you control the pulpit, you control what people get outraged at. When they come out on the street, they need to know a protest is happening. That’s the media. That’s why the BBC is so important. This week, the BBC is telling us that the war with Ukraine has already started, it’s just invisible. So that’s how powerful and clever and… wicked they are.
And finally, of course, why do people get disuaded from staying out on a protest? I followed the Georgian and Ukrainian revolutions close-up in British intelligence, as you can imagine. Well, they… manage to do so because they hadn’t got health scares. Yeah, but nowadays people will be, for example, with covid, disuaded from coming out on the streets or staying out because they think, “I could catch some disease”, you know, the invisible enemy. So that the– these… monopolists that America blessedly never inherited from Britain or never developed, because we… developed them after the American independence, actually– monopoly broadcasting, monopoly healthcare and monopoly religion. You’ve got to address those as well.
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:15:19]
Absolutely. It makes perfect sense to me. Things become clearer and clearer. Thank you very much for these insights. I think we’ll be in touch. We’ll talk some more, because this… historical background is extremely important for our understanding of the larger picture. You cannot understand what’s going on unless you know the historical backdrop.
Alex Thomson: [3:15:46]
Ich würde sagen dass da ein reines vergnügen. [I would say that it was a pure pleasure.]
Reiner Fuellmich: [3:15:48]
Danke, für uns auch. Vielen danke. [Thank you. For us also. Thank you very much.]
Okay, thank you so much and have a great weekend, Alex.
Alex Thomson: [3:15:55]