If you are wondering why our revelations are being posted here while our own investigation continues, it is because we already have had experiences similar to the one you see and hear about when you click this button ....
It appears that Malcolm Smith, who runs a business of his own using the name of 'Caroline', is unaware of the amount of money and time invested in our research project by our team. He seems to think it is the work of one person.
But the invested monetary value of this project is protected by a registered name owned by a team, and not by one person.
This project is rapidly reaching the stage where part-publishing can begin. It is such a huge research project that it cannot be compiled as a single volume with supporting proof in the form of references. That is why we opted for a series of part-work publications. Given the fact that it is now late in the year, we have also chosen to wait until the New Year, and given the first title and its relationship to the month of March, we think that would be the appropriate time to make it available.
However, Smith's public and published comments about this work seem to reflect an ignorance of our companion Blog. That is where he will find additional comments updating the progress of our investigation. He can find the link above, it is identified by the button marked 'Fragile Forum'.
You will notice that the original title of the part-work series will be used, and it seems that this is what is really troubling Smith. He is afraid that what we are about to publish in a related series of interlocking series part-works, will have an extremely negative effect upon his own future plans which are also based upon the original lie spun by Ronan O'Rahilly.
Smith admits to the world with each moment that passes when the young image of Ronan O'Rahilly continues to appear in the top-right-hand corner of his own 'Caroline' web site. He supports that image with a totally fake 'history' that he wrote about the creation of 'Radio Caroline'.
On one hand Smith writes in agreement with our summation of the character of Ronan O'Rahilly, and then, with his other hand, he writes more rubbish to support the lies spun by Ronan O'Rahilly.
Malcolm should immediately play safe and rename his entire business venture 'Radio Smith' and then "run 500 miles and 500 more" to get clear of the days when Rachman, the Krays and other wonders of the seamy side of London life, were names that appeared daily in the press.
Back in the Sixties, even they did not seem to have an overwhelming sexual fascination with under-age human beings. But some offshore radio disc jockeys did, and that is a fact supported by criminal convictions and prison records.
As for Ronan O'Rahilly, well there is no way of knowing why a 5 years-old and biologically unrelated girl seems to have motivated his own life.
As we have previously explained, what began as a basic answer to a basic question has now become a massive educational project providing a lot of answers to deliberately obscured information, and rebutting the really silly vanity publishers who mislead their gullible buyers. We, on the other hand, have not asked the public for money by donations or by sales in order to fund our research. Our research has been a self-funded charitable undertaking in the public interest.
But we are rapidly approaching the moment when we can begin launching a membership organization and commence commercial sales. But not yet, because our research is currently continuing.
One aspect of our research has revealed that in the instance of 'Radio Caroline', even the original deceivers employed to mislead, then split into two different camps.
One of them was focused upon the person of Ronan O'Rahilly. He developed a total fictitious storyline and a very unhealthy interest in a 5 years of age little girl named Caroline Kennedy. Others who had similar interests in the music business and shared similar interests with Ronan O'Rahilly in the behavior of underage girls, have included disc jockeys such as Jimmy Saville, as well as a bevy of other disc jockeys. Some of whom are now in prison.
Another group also mislead, but they did so without attaching themselves to O'Rahilly's unhealthy interest in a little girl. One such group was led by Ian Cowper Ross who created a new persona for himself, but using methods involving the creation of his own fictitious family in order to conceal his real family connections to the British Establishment.
On one site we will be showing who the deceivers were, and on another site we will be providing an overview of what we now know as the true story, and this will serve as a primer for what will later follow in a new member organization with publications and recordings.
In line with our prior announcement, we are now concentrating on producing the first overview book of our omnibus story which will be accompanied over time by a series of part works that will provide supporting documentation in the form of a part-work library of books.
Having now sounded out those who have stolen from our work in the past, who tried to cobble square pegs into round holes of fiction of their own creation, it is now time to reveal that much of the existing work about the origins of 'Radio Caroline' that appeared on 'Wikipedia', were created by our team - before we stumbled across the true and previously hidden story of that radio station. These details will be revealed in our overview book, which will of course explain who stole from us, why they stole from us, and how they refused to do their own research, which then led them to rely upon information that we later discovered was only part of the real and complete story about British broadcasting.
This information update is provided so that everyone who wants to know the real story will soon have that information made available to them in book format. It also serves as a warning to all those who have been publishing misleading information in the form of vanity books and magazines that their exposure will also will be forthcoming.
Now that "The BBC" has been pushed forward as the image of the United Kingdom, rather than the shambles of the monarchy (since Charles has not had time to make a mark on paper), "The BBC" has been brought forward as a substitute.
But like the UK Crown in 2022 (which Charles represents), "The BBC" is also putting forward the ridiculous idea that 95 equals 100.
How else could "The BBC" claim to be celebrating a Century on air?
It has only been on air and in existence for 95 years.
That is a fact.
We are now using their own absurd, illogical and totally fictitious claim against them. The present operatives hiding behind the initials "BBC" are doing so for one reason, and that is that the present operatives who share those initials are not one hundred years old. The British Broadcasting Corporation is only 95 years old. But by referring to 'BBC' instead of the name of the Crown chartered British Broadcasting Corporation, these operatives are trying to get the dumb 'BBC' listeners and viewers to believe that 'BBC' means British Broadcasting Corporation and that those letters have always meant British Broadcasting Corporation - even when they stood for British Broadcasting Company Limited.
The missing five years were occupied by the British Broadcasting Company Limited.
The entity called the British Broadcasting Company Limited was finally would-up in 1929 by none other than John Reith. He was wearing two hats and he acted quite illegally, because legally he could not serve two masters at the same time who both had common interests.
The fact is, that "The BBC" by its own definition regarding the falsity of its claims about its own longevity, is an entity founded upon lies and obfuscation.
"The BBC" claims that it is "your BBC", but it is not. It was the creation of the Crown and you have no control over the mythology it spins about itself and the world at large.
That is why we are exposing their big lie.
To achieve that end we are currently working on a single volume which will date from the birth of broadcasting by following key figures. It is not a complicated story unless you want to make it a complicated story.
The line we are following is tracing only three generations that will go from events leading up to the broadcast by Dame Melba in 1920 over radio station 'MZX', to the voice of Paul Kaye telling listeners that "Radio London is now closing down".
This book will be supported by a part-series of books containing documentation.
Details about this initial overview book, including its title, will be released within coming months, and will be published in 2023.
King Charles III seems to be a harmless latecomer to the throne of the United Kingdom, because as perception is currently received, King Charles III is but an aging and eccentric individual whose is monarch by the grace of the current Members of Parliament at Westminster. But if you believe any of that, except for the bit about his age and eccentricity, you would be wrong in your perception of real life in 2022 as lived.
We should begin by addressing the numbers after the name of Charles Windsor, and then take a detailed look at the throne upon which he has now been told to occupy.
His mother, Queen Elizabeth II was only the second Queen Elizabeth to occupy the throne of the Kingdom of England, because there had never been a previous Queen Elizabeth who occupied the throne of the Kingdom of Scotland.
However, Queen Elizabeth II became Queen of the United Kingdom, and not Queen of two individual kingdoms, and her mother Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon was Queen of the United Kingdom from December 1936 to February 1952, and as the wife of King George VI, she was the first Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. But when her daughter, who was also the daughter of the deceased King George VI became Queen, she did indeed become Queen Elizabeth II.
But this is where Charles runs into a problem because there had never, ever been a King Charles I, nor a King Charles II of the United Kingdom. Charles Windsor, son of Queen Elizabeth II, was the first King Charles to sit upon the throne of the United Kingdom. This is where perception of the monarchy becomes a deliberately confused mess.
The supporters of Scottish Independence refer to the merger of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to create the Kingdom of Scotland when complaining that Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom was only the first Queen of the Kingdom of Scotland, but that is of course a lie. There was no Kingdom of Scotland in 1952, and that is when Queen Elizabeth II took to the throne. But there had been a Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom, and she was the mother of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
So why is the present, and as yet un-coronated King Charles calling himself the third when numbers one and two never existed? Well, this is where the folks who want to reestablish the Kingdom of Scotland, if only temporarily to untangle it from its union with the Kingdom of England, then come out to play with past of events of yesterdays gone by.
To understand this mess, it is necessary to look back to when King VI of Scotland went down to London, England and created an anomaly. Because this same human being then became King James I of England, while still ruling the Kingdom of Scotland. There were two separate kingdoms, not one kingdom.
But the Privy Councils of both kingdoms had to keep their King James I of England who was originally King James VI of Scotland, and separately retained his occupation of that throne, from trying to promote himself as the King of Great Britain. That is the geographical name for the main island that both England and Scotland occupy.
After James his son took over, and he had a go at calling himself the King of Great Britain But since there was no such kingdom, he not only failed, but he made a lot of people very angry: so, in 1649 they chopped his head off.
Then the Kingdom of England morphed into a kind of military dictatorship as a quasi-republic. But up north, the Kingdom of Scotland would have none of it, and so under the name of Covenanters, this group began to wage yet another in an ongoing series of civil wars aimed at the dictatorship based in London, England.
This time they were fighting against the man who emerged as a military dictator, and his name is Oliver Cromwell. When the Covenanters got hold of the son of the executed King Charles, they converged on Scone Palace in Scotland where the kings of Scotland had all been crowned.
Their idea was to crown him, King Charles II. So, the republican forces under Oliver Cromwell charged into Scotland and tried to arrest or kill this would-be Charles II.
But too late. When they got to Scone, the Covenanters who had also raised an army fled with their own King Charles II of Great Britain. Of course, he had been crowned king of a country that did not exist. His father had only been crowned King of England, and separately became King of Scotland. There never was a King Charles I of Great Britain.
In time, the Covenanters were defeated, and the former Kingdom of Scotland was merged into (for want of a simple name) the new Republic of England. So, Scotland, for a time, became a part of this same united republic. But then, Oliver Cromwell the dictator died, and Cromwell's son did not want the job.
Into that political void General George Monck rushed down from the territory of Scotland with his own army, and he placed the son of the executed King Charles on the throne in London as King Charles II. Monck then arranged for a coronation in England, but only a proclamation in Scotland.
Monck has switched sides and was well rewarded for being a traitor. Over in what would become the War for Independence led by George Washington, another General named Benedict Arnold who fought under General Washington, came to the erroneous conclusion that the American rebels would lose, so, adopting the code name of 'Monck' he too switched sides and fought for the British. Of course, the British lost and so did Arnold. He then went down in American history books as a traitor, while in British history books the real General Monck went down as a hero. But those events were all in the future.
To slam the lid of censorship upon the story of the British republic under Cromwell, Monck and his puppet Charles created a General Post Office (GPO) to weed out any disloyal communications. They also enacted a criminal law called an 'Act of Oblivion' to prevent anyone from referring to anything that took place between 1649 (when King Charles was executed), and 1660, which is when Monck placed Charles II on the throne of England.
Up in Scotland the independent Kingdom of Scotland was revived without a coronation. Then Charles II died, and his brother James was put on the throne in England as James II, but up in Scotland he was already James VII. That is up until 1688, because that is when the Dutch under William of Orange invaded England James had to flee when William and his wife Mary took over both thrones as well as the separate Kingdom of Ireland.
After William died, this mess resulted in the daughter of James who had fled, being put on the two independent thrones of England and Scotland. Then the long-touted 'merger' took place and Queen Anne became the last Queen of England and the last Queen of Scotland the first Queen of the Kingdom of Great Britain.
The year was 1707, and in 1776 when a German King George III occupied the throne once occupied by Anne, the thirteen North American colonies declared independence.
By the time that the calendar had moved on to 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain then merged the former Kingdom of Ireland into its membership. The last big jump was in 1923, after most of Ireland had freed itself from the grip of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It left behind only a handful of its northern counties under the control of London.
So now we come back to Charles III and ask: who is he?
He is not King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which has only existed since 1923, because that entity never had a King Charles I or a King Charles II.
So, who is he?
More important, with all of these various coup d'états taking place, who has really been running the show, and who is now running the show?
The answer is the highly secretive core of the Privy Council's Judiciary Committee. They control the money, and the money controls the legal system of 'might make right'.
Today this body hides behind a bogus past; the English laws creating the GPO and the 'Act of Oblivion' which is illogically smothered by the term 'Interregnum' Add to that the various 'Official Secrets Acts', and the forced creation of a broadcasting Trust which was replaced by a Crown corporation sole entity called the British Broadcasting Corporation. To manage all that the Crown hired John Reith, and Reith's dad was a minister or religion who seemed to love singing a song about the glories of the 'Covenanters'.
In short, the United Kingdom is a bogus entity whose creators became wealthy from an Empire that was built upon the backs of Black slavery. So much for 'Black Lives Matter', because neither 'Black' lives nor the majority of 'White' lives mattered when it came to the totally undemocratic and thuggish rulers of the British Empire. They accumulated wealth which enabled them to build stately homes and palaces, and those tourist destinations mockingly stand as a reminder of the real story behind the creation of the United Kingdom today, and of course its farce concerning its so-called King Charles III.
On this date, our next presentation will focus upon events that link three kings named Charles.
Current events have now collided with known past events in such a way that from our vantage point, what were once seemingly obscure and unrelated topics (see our 2008 monograph here), have now come to together in such a way that our studies of the past have now become pointers to future events. This has only become apparent to us in recent days. For that reason we have decided to refocus upon what we do best, and that is putting contents into context, as a result of our own original research. However, on this Blog will use our 'Pebble Theatre' audio-visual approach, while on our 'Fragile Forum' we will delve into topics rather than only presenting an overview.
Back in the days when King Charles III was Prince Charles (who was married to Princess Diana at that time), he told a BBC-TV interviewer that he could "throw a rock into a pond and watch the ripples create a certain amount of discussion". But by merely becoming King Charles III, the former Prince Charles has created "a certain amount of discussion" concerning the identity of King Charles I and King Charles II that he probably does not want to discuss today.
His ex-wife Diana is dead and Prince Charles has now morphed into King Charles III.
But even if King Charles III does not want that "discussion" to now take place - we do!
That "discussion" concerns the execution of King Charles I, and a King Charles II who was crowned at Scone in Scotland as king of a country, a nation, that did not exist. Yet, the former Prince Charles now claims to be King Charles III, so it is fair game to ask about King Charles I and King Charles II who King Charles III now claims to follow.
But if King Charles II was only crowned in Scotland as king of a country, a nation that did not exist, then what did exist in England and in Scotland which were two separate countries? The answer is that they were well on their way to becoming integrated into a united republic!
However, 'King Charles II' decided to ban any mention of that republic by signing an 'Act of Oblivion' which made it a criminal offence to even refer to that united republic.
King Charles II performed his act of fantasy, and that act was certainly not 'magic', because any fool could see that what King Charles II was proclaiming was absurd at face value, in order to stop, not create discussion.
Because King Charles II wanted everyone to believe (under penalty of criminal law for not believing), that the years between 1649 and 1660 did not exist, and that they had never existed!
King Charles II came up with a silly word to explain those disappearing years. He called it the 'Interregnum'.
But the fact is, those years did exist, and there was a united republic on the mainland island of Great Britain. But if you relied on your own common sense and refused to go along with King Charles II and his mythology, you would be breaking his law that commanded you to never mention what took place between 1649 and 1660! That yesterday, he said, never happened! But it did happen. What did not happen is the fantasy lie now being endorsed by King Charles III.
King Charles II of England was never crowned King Charles II of Scotland, he was merely "proclaimed". The military sycophants who enforced belief in a chronology that never happened, did so with the help of a communications organization which they created!
What is more important to anyone who is interested in the story of free radio or communications in general, is that these folks of 1660 created an entity which was used in 1967 to shut down the offshore radio stations. But back in 1967, they went further, and they extended their power over the Isle of Man by proclamation - in order to silence (by "outlawing"), 'Radio Caroline North' .
Those "ripples" that Prince Charles once referred to on BBC-TV, are the same ripples of timely reaction to the actions taken by individual human beings who included King Charles I and King Charles II. Now we have a King Charles III to contend with, and apparently he intends to carry forward the same bedrock of lies and deceit! If he did not, he would certainly not call himself King Charles III.
The Establishment in London, England during this first segment of the Twenty-first Century in London, is still doing its best to obfuscate reactions to the past by diverting your attention elsewhere. However, thanks to the invention of the world wide web and the preservation of contemporary news reports kept elsewhere outside of the clutches of British censors, we can all view those "ripples" from the past, for ourselves. They are not obfuscated.
The real story is not the same as the one that you were taught at school, or the one that Prince Charles alluded to on BBC-TV. In fact, with the song and dance show being created over the death of his mother, her son, who is now King Charles III, many will be extremely upset to know that this issue is now being discussed today. Especially today, the day of his mother's funeral which has turned into something quite horrific as a political pantomime, rather than an act of genuine mourning over a family loss of companionship.
What is being recalled today is more of a yesterday that never happened.
It is an obfuscated, skewed and absurd lie that stretches all the way back to the years when a King of Scotland went to London and was also crowned King of England. It was the son of that King who then became King Charles I, and it was King Charles I whose head was officially, and with all due pomp and circumstance before a general audience gawping at the spectacle, then had his head severed from his body by the blow of axe wielded by an Official Executioner.
To anyone who wants to challenge that statement it is suggested that you first should take a look at the title of King Charles III and what that title really represents. It is itself a rather sick joke, but the death of Charles' first wife was anything but a laughing matter, and many, many questions still swirl around her tragic demise. Yet on this day she is part of the obfuscated story of the man who was once known a Prince Charles, the man who threw an imaginary rock into an imaginary pond.
Charles, it was you who suggested, with your wife Diana sitting by your side, that if you watched the "ripples" you could "create a certain amount of discussion".
Here is that discussion.
We call it 'Pebble Theatre'.
A few days ago we began this Blog with these words: "While we began this research project in 1985 with the question: “Why can you play rock and roll all day on the radio in America, but not in the United Kingdom?” - we have continued to move on in a step by slow and methodical step - until we have now arrived at a point in time of being able to define the foundation of our research project."
Our research has now revealed a story that has remained untold elsewhere, and while it spins-off into the chronology of broadcasting events in both the United States and the United Kingdom, at its core is the story of individual freeborn rights. Those are the equal cerebral rights that every human being is born with, but which few people seem to exercise.
A human being may lose mobility any number of ways, but the 'spark' that separates human beings from the animal world has yet to be defined by anyone in a scientific and provable manner. Yet the fact that we can't define it does not mean that it does not exist. Over the centuries many have tried and many have turned those attempts into religious fervor. But that is not our purpose.
Our questioning focuses upon one of the people who claim hereditary rights in order to enslave and dominate millions of other human beings. That was the 'spirit' behind the creation of the British Empire. It was not a 'spirit' of freeborn individuality. But it was this issue that led to our question about rock and roll and a man named John Lilburne. We were introduced to John Lilburne by the writings of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, and his written Opinions that are recorded in the published U.S. Constitutional decisions that have been issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But John Reith came from the stock who worshipped a king over the temporal world that governed land and people, while distancing themselves from any king or queen who placed himself or herself over the spiritual world as the head of a State church. That is where King Henry VIII came in. He broke with the Papacy in Rome which claimed to govern by State and Church, and so he claimed to be the King of England and the Head of the Church of England.
John Reith was a contradiction. While his father celebrated a King who broke with the dual idea of temporal and spiritual governance promoted by King Henry VIII, by claiming only to be king of the earthly kingdom of Scotland, and not the Church of Scotland, that same king had invaded and conquered both England and Scotland and retained control as head of the Church of England. When John Reith took up his second position as Director General of the Crown licensed British Broadcasting Corporation, he did so in London, England.
The King that John Reith served at the BBC in London, was Head of the Church of England. Reith was first named Managing Director of the British Broadcasting Company Limited, a cartel modeled along lines of the General Electric Company of the USA. The British version, like its American parent, was designed to be a Trust where patents could be pooled in order to overcome the problems of competition.
Reith used his 'bully pulpit' at the BBC to tell everyone how they should live, and he did this in writing within his 1924 book called 'Broadcast Over Britain'. That book was published one year after the formation of the current manifestation of the United Kingdom, which makes the UK considerably younger as a nation than the United States of America.
The BBC is not an institution based upon telling the truth, but it promotes the idea that it is a conveyor of truth and understanding. However, in 2022, the BBC is going out of its way to tell the world that it is 100 years old, when in fact it was created in 1927, and the years in between do not add up to one hundred. If the BBC plays mind tricks, so did John Reith.
According to his daughter Reith's lifestyle was nothing like his propaganda regarding the teachings of the Church in Scotland. Reith's father was an esteemed Church minister, and in 1914, before John Reith was born, his father Rev. Dr. Reith went to the Scottish islands of the Outer Hebrides on missionary business.
It was in those 'Outer Isles' of Scotland that these photographs were taken during the three week visit by Dr. Reith, and during which time he engaged in singing a song ....
This song celebrates the legacy of the Covenanters, who the English enjoyed murdering by the hundreds because they would not accept the King of England as head of the Church in Scotland. The 'problem' with these people was that their religious views did not conform to the views of the English. The Covenanters were like the Jews who had settled in England centuries before. They had previously fallen victim to England's King Edward I, and that was centuries before Heinrich Himmler entertained similar ideas about exterminating people he did not like.
The song that Reith's father sang about the Covenanters has lyrics that tell a story about being outlaws fighting the King of England, and then making peace with the Crown when King William of the land we now know as Holland, invaded and conquered the British Isles. The reigning King James II was forced to flee and the invading Dutch army chased him through the island of Great Britain to the island of Ireland.
Today, King William is known in the northern counties of Ireland as 'King Billy', and due to Brexit and the semi-liberation of Ireland, the remaining counties in the north are still a hotbed of controversy that could flare-up into a civil war once again, as they did during in the Nineteen Seventies.
This entire fiasco relates back to King Henry VIII who broke away from the domination of the Pope who was both Head of a Church and the Head of a State. Henry VIII and his counterpart in Scotland, were both subservient to that authority. But that authority claimed by the Papacy was itself a fraud resting upon a document called the 'Donation of Constantine'. However, that did not stop King Henry VIII from basing his authority to rule his breakaway Church of England and his earthly kingdom upon a power which had been faked by a bygone Pope's cronies.
The mythology behind this story begins with Constantine at York in England. Constantine eventually became Emperor of the Roman Empire, and it is a convoluted story stretching over centuries that resulted in the myth that he had given a Pope, the western half of the Roman Empire. With the weird world of Henry VIII of England and the women who he married and murdered, the tabloid 'historians' have focused upon the sensational account of his sex life, rather than the means by which he established his own theocracy in England. That is the story we are untangling, because it is a complicated story behind Reith, the BBC, and the reason why the Post Office was formed in 1660 as a means of censoring all communications.
The war against individual freedom in the British Isles is a war founded upon a lie that the Establishment has admitted is a lie, and yet, that lie is passed on from generation to generation and it will soon become a part of the coronation of King Charles III.
It is also the central lie that we intend to strip down to its basic rhetoric in order show how it also forms the backbone of the war that was fought and lost, by the original 'Radio Caroline', and may yet rear its ugly head in violence within the unresolved saga involving the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the wake of Brexit. It is a lie that goes back to London, England, and the reign of its King Henry VIII.
To understand the geopolitical world of today as seen and heard via the British Broadcasting Corporation, it is necessary to put all of these events in context, without trying to sound like 'historians', which we are not and do not claim to be. However, it is only by understanding how this corrupted story of political life in the British Isles has evolved, that you and everyone else, will be able to make sense of the Crown dominated Acts of Parliament, such as the one that follows. Note its wording. We have intentionally redacted the text to focus upon the words: "consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal" ....
Copyright 2021 with all rights reserved.