More About UK’s Dictatorship: QE-II’s Perfidy

UK’s recent string of atrocious Prime Ministers have not represented a majority of UK subjects (subjects of the Queen, who is sovereign; they are not citizens of their country — a “subject” is the very opposite of “a citizen,” who possesses sovereignty, there being no dictatorship, of any type, over citizens). (To call a monarch’s subjects a citizen of a democracy is to lie, because wherever there is an aristocracy, there is no democracy.)

The only people the UK’s Government really represents are UK’s titled and untitled aristocracy. The late Queen was their figurehead, and she served them — not the public (who paid her “Highness”, in their taxes). She represented the aristocracy. Not every UK billionaire has a title, or is a member of the titled Nobility, but their media pretend that they rule a ‘democracy’, and many of their subjects believe it. Everything is rigged by the aristocracy’s Government, to deceive the public.

Queen Elizabeth II: a powerful figurehead to legitmate the ruling aristocracy, by definition an undemocratic regime.

This follow-up to that article will be about the ways in which that monarch (now to be in the person of King Charles III) serves its aristocracy, at the public’s expense — the UK monarch’s “perfidy” that’s referred-to in the present article’s headline — and so shedding further light on how the UK’s dictatorship actually functions.

On 15 May 2022, Kit Klarenberg headlined “Operation Surprise: leaked emails expose secret intelligence coup to install Boris Johnson”, and he presented documents that disclosed a cabal or conspiracy behind the scenes, within what turned out to have been the dominant faction within the Conservative Party’s faction of Britain’s aristocracy, to get Theresa May thrown out and Boris Johnson to replace her as the UK’s Prime Minister, because whereas May was pushing for a British exit from the EU (Brexit) that would nonetheless ally UK more with EU’s aristocracies than with the U.S. aristocracy, Johnson favored instead a “hard Brexit,” in which the “Special Relationship” with the U.S. regime would continue, and Britain’s influence within the EU would thereby, perhaps, increase even more, because the U.S. regime actually controls the EU. Here is how that works:

On 19 May 2022, I headlined “The Secret U.S.-&-UK War Against Europe” and placed Klarenberg’s revelations into a broader historical context of the origin of that “Special Relationship,” going all the way back to British aristocrat Cecil Rhodes’s original draft in 1877 of what became his final Will and Testament, wherein he set up the Rhodes Trust in order specifically to, ultimately, subvert the U.S. Government back into the British Empire (which then actually happened on 25 July 1945) as being its enforcement-arm and functioning arm-in-arm with America’s billionaires in order to become, finally, the first-ever hegemon, or all-encompassing global empire, ruling over the entire world (what today’s supporters of Rhodes’s vision are calling “the rules-based international order” —  that UK/U.S. dictatorship above all nations, replacing all international laws other than what this empire dictates to be adhered-to by all nations, as the international “rules”). Rhodes recognized, even as early as 1877, that, in order for the British Empire to be able to continue expanding, the pre-requisite would be “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire” (as that draft phrased it), reversing what the USA’s Founders had achieved in their Revolution against it, and transforming America again into being a mere extension of Britain’s aristocracy.

The EU itself was supposed to be also an agency of this hegemony. On 27 April 2016, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard bannered “The European Union always was a CIA project, as Brexiteers discover”, and reported:

It was Washington that drove European integration in the late 1940s, and funded it covertly under the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations. … The US has relied on the EU ever since as the anchor to American regional interests alongside NATO. … It is odd that this magisterial 1000-page study found only a French-language publisher. [Roussel’s Jean Monnet. The French Wikipedia’s article on Roussel says “En 1995, il écrit une biographie consacrée à Jean Monnet2 qui reçoit le prix de l’Essai de l’Académie française, le prix Guizot, et le prix européen de l’histoire.” Despite all of those awards, the work is little-known, even in France.] Nor are many aware of declassified documents from the State Department archives showing that US intelligence funded the European movement secretly for decades, and worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into the project. …

Here is how much of a dictatorship the EU actually is: John Hilary reported in Britain’s Independent on 12 October 2015:

When I asked the [EU’s] trade commissioner [Cecilia Malmström] how she could continue her persistent promotion of the [[Obama-created] TTIP [international trade]] deal in the face of such massive public opposition, her response came back icy cold: “I do not take my mandate from the European people.”

So who does Cecilia Malmström take her mandate from? Officially, EU commissioners are supposed to follow the elected governments of Europe. Yet the European Commission is carrying on the TTIP negotiations behind closed doors without the proper involvement [of] European governments, let alone MPs or members of the public. British civil servants have admitted to us that they have been kept in the dark throughout the TTIP talks, and that this makes their job impossible.

In reality, as a new report from War on Want has just revealed, Malmström receives her orders directly from the corporate lobbyists that swarm around Brussels.

Those “corporate lobbyists” are agents of the aristocracy; the EU represents them — not the European public. There is no way that any nation’s staying inside the EU can be authentically democratic. To be in the EU is to be in a dictatorship. Democracy wasn’t the issue in this cabal that Klarenberg was writing about: whom the ultimate dictators are was the issue. Should it be UK/U.S, or, instead, UK/EU? It would be subversion, either way; but which type?

The issue that determined the agent of the Conservative Party’s Rhodesists, Gwythian Prins (exposed in Klarenberg’s article and here in this video by Prins), to replace May by Johnson, was their desire to continue the “Special Relationship” instead of to abandon it in order to bind UK’s aristocrats to those of the EU, which would have meant an entirely new international power-structure. Prins was an extremely conservative Conservative, and had big money behind him. (Most of the Labour Party’s billionaires cared far less about this matter, and were instead determined simply to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn and restore the Tony-Blairite — i.e., pro-imperialist — Labour Party leadership, and so they were simply obsessed to smear Corbyn, so that regardless whether Corbyn or instead Johhnson would become the next PM, it would be a rabid imperialist who would.)

Wikipedia’s article on “First Johnson ministry” opens:

The first Johnson ministry began on 24 July 2019 when Queen Elizabeth IIinvited Boris Johnson to form a new administration, following the resignation of the predecessor Prime Minister Theresa May.^[2] May had resigned as Leader of the Conservative Party on 7 June 2019; Johnson was elected as her successor on 23 July 2019. The Johnson ministry was formed from the 57th Parliament of the United Kingdom, as a Conservative minority government. It lost its working majority on 3 September 2019 when Tory MP Dr Phillip Lee crossed the floor to the Liberal Democrats. An election was called for 12 December 2019, which led to the formation of a Conservative majority government, the second Johnson ministry.

On 29 August 2019, Craig Murray headlined “The Queen’s Active Role in the Right Wing Coup”, and explained (and this brings us to QE-II’s “perfidy”):

The monarch appoints the UK Prime Minister. The convention is that this must be the person who can command the support of the majority in the House of Commons. That does not necessarily have to be from a single party, it can be via a coalition or pact with other parties, but the essential point, established since Hanoverian times, is that the individual must have a majority in the Commons.

The very appointment of Boris Johnson by Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha was a constitutional outrage. Johnson may have been selected by Conservative Party members, but that is not the qualification to be PM. Johnson very plainly did not command a majority in the House of Commons, proven by the fact that still at no stage has he demonstrated that he does. I do not write merely with hindsight. …

Johnson’s flagship policy was always No Deal Brexit. Contrary to the monarchist propaganda spewed out across the entire MSM, not only is it untrue that the Queen had “no constitutional choice” but to appoint Johnson, the Queen had a clear constitutional duty not to appoint a Prime Minister whose flagship policy had already been specifically voted down time and again by the House of Commons.

On 12 September 2019, he bannered a follow-up “The Dogs in the Street Know”,  and he wondered why the ‘news’ media didn’t “know” like those “dogs” did:

There are some very obvious facts in British politics which nobody seems to be saying.

Joanna Cherry stated in her successful court case that “the dogs in the street know,” that the real reason that Boris Johnson had prorogued parliament was to prevent parliament from having an effective say on the outcome of Brexit. The documents that the government was forced to produce to the Scottish Courts proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that was indeed Johnson’s motive.

So why are we expected to believe that what you knew and I knew, what Joanna Cherry knew, what the very dogs in the street knew, was not known to the Queen? Do we really believe that the Queen was “misled” and that she and her courtiers were the only people in the entire country who actually believed that Johnson just wanted the longest prorogation for 89 years to prepare a really good Queen’s speech? Are we really expected to believe that the Queen had not noticed that Brexit was at a crucial stage and the effect that prorogation would have on parliament’s say in the process?

This is obviously complete and utter nonsense. The Queen has better sources of information than any of us and knew exactly what was happening. She was not “misled” by Boris Johnson, she was his ally in a common purpose. She absolutely understood both the context and the effect of the prorogation. All this utter nonsense about the Queen being “lied to” and “misled” is part of this strange myth of the ultimate goodness of authority which is a recurring theme in human societies. Peasants died under the knout while building the Trans-Siberian railway thinking “if only the good Tsar knew.” The Queen is not a naive figure of Christ like innocence taken in by Boris Johnson, she is an ultra wealthy woman of very conservative views embedded in a social circle dominated by very rich and reactionary people.

To repeat what I have repeatedly explained, it was unconstitutional for the Queen to appoint Boris Johnson in the first place when it was plain as a pikestaff that he could not command a parliamentary majority. That initial crime (and I use the word advisedly) was compounded by the decision to prorogue parliament to enable her no majority Prime Minister to govern. In a sane world we should be getting out the pitchforks. Instead people are tut-tutting about the poor Queen being misled.

The next fact that is plain as a pikestaff is that Tom Watson is seeking to throw the election. One of the few true things Boris Johnson said in his knockabout performance in Parliament’s last sitting was that there were some on the Labour benches who were worried that Labour might win the next election.

Make no mistake, the Tories are in trouble. They need to pile on millions of votes in Northern English Labour constituencies before they actually start to win any, and they have thrown away existing liberal Tory support in London and southern England in order to pursue that goal. …

The one thing the Blairites detest most of all is the prospect of a Labour victory and a Corbyn government, implementing comparatively left wing policies that might prove popular and cause a  real change in political discourse in England and Wales. Because that would be the death knell for the Blairites and their corporate sponsors.

Just as we are supposed to believe that the Queen is a naive waif innocent of Johnson’s schemes, we are supposed not to notice that Tom Watson seeks to damage Labour and ensure Corbyn does not come to power. We live in times when the media and the political class inhabit a world of polite pretence; a world where outsiders like me have a duty to point to the actual glaring facts, whether people listen or no.

On 8 November 2019, the Middle East Eye’s Simon Cooper headlined “Home Office-backed counter-extremism group waging Twitter campaign against Corbyn” and described an operation by Britain’s Conservative-Party Government to smear the Leader of the Opposition:

Faith Matters, which received support through the UK government’s flagship counter-extremism programme, has described Labour Party under Corbyn as a ‘Stalinist cult’

By Simon Hooper in London

Published date: 8 November 2019 08:13 UTC | Last update: 2 months 3 weeks ago 10.8kShares

An interfaith organisation which has frequently attacked Jeremy Corbyn over allegations of antisemitism and which has described the Labour Party as a “Stalinist cult” is receiving support from the UK’s Home Office.

Faith Matters receives funding through a Home Office counter-extremism programme, Building a Stronger Britain Together (BSBT), which offers grants and other assistance including social media training to help recipient organisations to “amplify” their work.

The organisation has regularly used its Twitter account to attack Corbyn, both directly and by retweeting critical articles.

A number of those attacks have related to Corbyn’s handling of complaints of antisemitism within the party which have beset Labour since he was elected leader in 2015, but are by no means limited to that topic.

It has also posted and shared content suggesting that Corbyn is:

• sympathetic to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad

• supportive of governments and organisations responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims

• considered a threat to national security by British intelligence agencies

The Home Office’s funding for Faith Matters appears to raise fresh questions about political attacks on the leader of the official opposition by organisations benefiting from government support.

Last year, the foreign office faced questions from Labour over its support for a Scottish-based think tank, The Institute for Statecraft, which was found to have shared material critical of Corbyn on its Twitter feed.

History shows that British voters consider that acceptable, and vote accordingly. They don’t mind being suckers of a fascist regime.

The reason why the UK has no constitution is that if one were to be written, it would either be so obviously fascist so that even Britain’s public would refuse to accept it, or else it would be lying so much so that any subsequent UK Government would routinely be violating it so blatantly as to spark a violent revolution. But, probably, that would be the only way to get there. It worked well in the U.S., until 25 July 1945, when the Rhodesists took over in America.