The Kingdom versus The People ....

Long before Martin Luther King began his famous speech that incorporated the words: "free at last", generations of individuals dating back to the beginning of time have chanted something similar. But it is a conundrum, because it is impossible to achieve, except for perhaps a very short time in the life of any individual human being.

Some years ago (2012), members of our trio wrote about this problem and you can read it here: foundthreads.com/ . It is titled: ‘Me and my Shadow’ Reinterpreted: Collectivism Applied to Individualism as a Stereoscopic Overlay Producing an Illusion of Reality.

Here is the Online opening paragraph that introduces the published article:

"​Our premise begins with the obvious fact that every human being exists, not as a result of an individualistic, self-generating process, but as a result of a collectivist activity involving two human beings who were born at a prior time to their offspring. Therefore as much as we like to think in terms of individualism, nature has dictated that we all exist within a biologically collectivist society. However, once the biological birth has taken place, each individual begins an intellectual journey where thoughts and ideas occur within individual minds. There exists a jarring interconnectivity between biological collectivism and individual intellectualism."

This is why Dr. King's 'I Have a Dream' speech was more in keeping with the recital of a dream, than a statement of achievable reality. But it has nothing to do with race, nor with the color of human skin. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time and it still exists today. Only the circumstances and those enslaved have changed.

In the Kingdom of Great Britain, which controlled colonies in North America, the concept of laissez faire slavery per se, was unknown - because no one was or is a citizen of that nation, because everyone was and still is a 'Subject of the Crown'. Since every subject is tied to the Crown, is being a subject a form of slavery? Put another way, are some slaves better off than other slaves?

During that period just ended when United Kingdom membership in the European Union offered a pretense that by substituting the word 'subject' for 'citizen', individuals miraculously became citizens. But words alone do not change the fact of life.

There are both variations and versions of slavery, and some are more abusive than others, but if a person is not truly free, then they are captive to one degree or other. There is a hierarchy within slavery. The Nazis practiced this concept in their extermination camps by appointing some Jews to help them to incinerate other Jews. ​

In the 1920s, Winston Churchill was the Member of Parliament in London representing Dundee in Scotland. He wrote a full page newspaper article which pitted "Good Jews" (subservient national British Jews like Benjamin Disraeli), against "Bad Jews" (rebellious international Jews like Lev Bronstein who is better known as Leon Trotsky).

Churchill, was a champion of the right of the British Crown to rule a huge chunk of the world which was identified as the British Empire. Churchill's full page article shown above, blamed the rebellious streak in "Bad Jews" as having been derived from a conspiracy cooked up by a Bavarian named Johann Adam Weishaupt.

Churchill was certainly among the leading conspiratorial nutcases who set in motion an idea that has now gained wide publicity, and at which the mainstream British press jeer and sneer. They carefully and craftily excuse the weird ramblings of Sir Winston Churchill, who, like Hitler, blamed Jews for all of the problems in this world.

Churchill offered a simple message that had been built upon decades of hatred for Jews, because when King Edward I of England decided to end the "Jewish Problem in England" by expelling Jews, or killing them if they remained behind. The document that was signed into law in England during 1297 by King Edward I, and the instrument that he used, was a revised and reinstated Magna Carta. The original which he replaced, had been annulled by the Pope in 1215, one month after Edward's predecessor King John had signed it. Churchill was following in the paths of these Jew-haters when he penned his own 1920 diatribe.

Churchill's own source of inspiration predated publication of Adolph Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', which itself was applauded and promoted by American car manufacturer Henry Ford. So Winston Churchill delved back to May 1, 1776, just ahead of the original USA Declaration of Independence by thirteen British colonies in North America. It was on May 1 of that same year that Weishaupt, who was a Bavarian philosopher and professor of both civil and canon law, created a tiny secret society called 'Illuminati'.

If you now turn to YouTube you will discover that mindless sheep across the world have now embraced this simplistic explanation for all that is wrong with the world today. But what is really wrong with the world today, is the credence still given to people like Winston Churchill and the British Commonwealth that morphed out of the British Empire with its current hand-waving token named Elizabeth. She is doing her best to keep the idea of a predestined class structure in place. It is a structure defined by race, and it festers away in London, England, and from there it radiates to the rest of the world.

It all comes back to the lives led by individual human beings.

While some champion the idea that human beings are not free to be individuals, others champion the idea that human beings are born free and then enslaved. But childbirth proves that both versions are in error. It is then confirmed by old age leading to extinction of life.

However, some human beings manage to grasp independence when it becomes biologically possible (until it becomes biologically impossible once again), and they emerge as people like John Rockefeller and Ida Tarbell.

Human existence on this Planet is very brief for each and every person who begins a biological life here. Problems really begin with simplistic answers to complex questions about this brief life. Many try to tell us what happens when we die, but none of these people could enter a courtroom and swear to tell the truth, because they don't know. All they know is hearsay, not a personal experience.

Then there are some who claim that human beings are in some ethereal sense immortal, but if that is true, then those who cannot tell us from first hand knowledge what happens when we individually die off as human beings, should be able to tell us in a court of law where they were before they became a human being, since they would have already experienced that phase of immortal life.

But they can't.

So some human beings then make the astounding statement that this existence is all that there is, and that you were born to die, and become forever extinct. But these individuals also lack any evidence to prove their claim.

The British system of subjects verses citizens, is married to a strange and tangled theological concept entwinned with the laws governing all life in the British Isles. It is merely presided over by an old lady called Elizabeth. But Liz does not run the show which is known in legal terminology as a corporation sole. For this she has a number of people who hold enormous powers to 'advise' British political leaders (MPs), on what they can and cannot do.

In the United States, this issue was supposed to have been resolved on July 4, 1776 when thirteen British United Colonies ​told the British King George III that "We the People" have had enough of you and your ideas that we are subject to your whims.

But it did not work out that way.

In the Nineteenth Century John D. Rockefeller began his climb to becoming the wealthiest American of all time, and he had the power to buy anything and anyone within North America to do his bidding. It appears at first glance that because Ida Tarbell struck back with her pen and pulled the rug from underneath Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company of Ohio, that Rockefeller was finished off when his gigantic Trust was smashed up.

Only it did not work out that way.

Personally Rockefeller was getting older and would eventually die as a human being, but the system that he created and would live on, was merely splattered by judicial action so that the wealth of his former Trust was divided into several smaller units. Rockefeller's financial interests were preserved within their shareholdings.

Then there is the subject of oil itself.

Oil has not 'gone away' and the entities which control oil discovery and production have spread their tentacles around all governmental systems where they would need protection from 'pirates' seeking to steal 'their' wealth and assets. Those governmental systems are run by human beings who can be bought and sold if the price is right. Those who stand in the way are removed by any one of a number of methods, including violent death.

America has run on oil since the dawn of the Twentieth Century, and it has learned how to manage wealth, not from the English, but from the Italians, be they Mussolini's fascists, or the Cosa Nostra. These people are experts in buying political power, and in the Nineteen Fifties their Italian-American know-how was extended to Italy itself.

It was that same methodology which was then bungled in the Nineteen Sixties when a huge CIA base in South Miami came under the control of Robert F. Kennedy. One of those CIA non-human 'assets' was a ship called 'Olga Patricia'. You may have heard of that ship when it was briefly diverted to the North Sea from where it emanated a jingle identifying one of its onboard station transmitters as "Boss Radio":