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" ....
For the very first time, the anorak community (and everyone else), have been able to see the ceremony that was engaged in during 1967, which extended the Marine Offences Act to include the Isle of Man.
On August 31, 1967, an Order in Council extended the original law which came into effect in the United Kingdom on August 14, 1967, to the Isle of Man. The mechanism by which this was achieved followed the same format that King Charles III has now engaged in to take office as Sovereign on behalf of the British Crown.
Charles only had to utter one word: "Approved". His utterance was in keeping with the methodology engaged in by his now deceased mother Queen Elizabeth II. That was back in 1967 when she made it a criminal offence for any British citizen to assist in broadcasts by 'Radio Caroline North' which was operating from the motor vessel 'Caroline' anchored in Ramsay Bay.
The reason for pointing this out is that at the moment in time, is because anoraks seem to be glib little ostriches with their heads in the sand. They have a total disconnect between the manner in which the British Crown, which is a corporation sole, obtained ultimate control over the lives of everyone currently living in, and resident in, the British Isles, and thus killed off 'Radio Caroline North'.
The means by which that power was acquired, was via King Henry VIII of England. He based his own claim upon a fraudulent document said to have been made as a result of a bequest of the western half of the Roman Empire. That supposed 'gift' was made to a Pope in Rome.
When King Henry VIII severed his connection with Rome, he became spiritual 'Pope' of his own Church of England, and instead of remaining a vassal of the Pope in Rome, he took the 'temporal' powers of the Pope and made himself the Head of government answering only to God.
Then a succession of events that included the execution of King Charles I in 1649, and the gradual transformation of the independent Kingdom of England and the independent Kingdom of Scotland over which Charles I had separately reigned, were transformed over time into a de facto united republic - after the head of Charles I was chopped off..
That series of events was followed by a coup d'état involving the executed king's son, and a military leader from Coldstream in Scotland. The united republic was then overthrown and a new monarchy was begun in 1660 by King Charles II to reign over two separate kingdoms of England and Scotland.
Then, under the king following Charles II, another coup d'état was accomplished by an invading army from Holland. All of this took place long before the two separate kingdoms of England and Scotland were united in 1707 as the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That was the Kingdom of Great Britain from which in 1776, the thirteen original North American colonies declared their independence.
About one hundred years after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom came into existence after it absorbed the Kingdom of Ireland. Then, later still once most of the island of Ireland became an independent republic, yet another entity was created that finally emerged at the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
All of this so-called 'history' is merely a compact legacy of lies based upon a yesterday that never happened. What is happening today with King Charles III is a farce reenacting that legacy of lies, deceit, theft and fraud, all of which deny basic individual human rights and rest upon a foundation of Black slavery.
There is a connection between the death of 'Radio Caroline North' and events that are now gathering pace with preparations for the coronation of King Charles III. That connection is also smothered in a legacy of lies, deceit, theft and fraud denying basic human rights. This awful timeline is the one that connects with King Charles II who "approved" the 'Act of Oblivion' that put into place a governmental censorship agency called the General Post Office.
It is time for anoraks to admit the truth and stop their own lies, deceit, theft and fraud, while fawning over the very system of government that killed the broadcasting system that they claim to be resurrecting! Hypocrisy doesn't begin to explain their actions.
Unfortunately anorak claims continue to be made in the name of a Crown licensed pseudo-station called 'Radio Caroline', which in turn cooperates with a farce calling itself 'Radio Caroline North'. It operates in conjunction with the current owners of a Crown licensed broadcasting station on the Isle of Man. Their two-faced nonsense is promoted by anoraks who worship the Crown on one side of their masked faces, with the anarchistic and deceased Messiah named O'Rahilly on the other side.
It is a disgusting legacy that is currently being celebrated by King Charles III with grovelling support from anoraks.
Over the years there has been talk that Prince Charles might opt to become known as someone other than King Charles III. Charles, we now ask that you stick with this interim title after your coronation, so that we can explain with a lot more clarity what became of King Charles I and how King Charles II gained his bogus hold over the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.
Readers can find many of the details in our linked monograph [below] about the 'Interregnum'.
The facts on the ground show that a conjuring trick was played on the Peoples of the British Isles long before Rabbie Burns made his declaration about the people of Scotland: "We're bought and sold for English gold - Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"
Now the cry for independence for Scotland has risen past the ranting of a few to the parliamentary cries of many at Holyrood. But the question is: "Independence from what?"
King Charles II of England, was never crowned as King Charles II of Scotland, and the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was still a long way off in the future. But Charles II was proclaimed to be King of Scotland, because several years earlier he had been falsely crowned at Scone Palace as "King of Great Britain" - a nation that did not exist and would not exist for many years in the future.
But to stop the whispering and the questioning, King Charles II of England, who presumed to be King Charles II of Scotland, had signed-off on a law after 1660 when he gained power in London. That law was the 'Act of Oblivion'. Everyone under his thumb was forbidden to speak about the events that followed the death of his dad King Charles I in 1949 - when an axe chopped off his head.
Because through a series of civil wars and related events, England and Scotland briefly became a united nation, but not as a kingdom, but as a republic!
So what has this to do with 'Radio Caroline'?
To enforce the 'Act of Oblivion' a General Post Office was created by the Crown under King Charles II, and the purpose of this GPO was to have exclusive control of private correspondence and thus, take on the ability to censor radical words that might undermine the illegitimate rule of King Charles II. The Crown in this context is not a hat, but a very secretive organization that is structured as a corporation sole, just like the Papacy in Rome from whence the idea originated under King Henry VIII of England.
King Charles II believed in "might make right".
"Might make right" became the law of communication control in the British Isles. First the mails, then the telegraph, then the wireless telegraph, then the telephone and then the wireless telephone which became known as 'telephony'. They were initially all point-to-point communications.
But wireless telephony meant that anyone other than the intended first party could 'listen-in'. This is the practice that became dubbed as 'broadcasting'.
Maybe it was possible to consider that all of the above forms of communications required connecting points, and therefore those connecting points were merely electronic post offices.
So we ask: how did 'broadcasting' that skipped the 'post office' intermediary step between 'sender' (transmitter) and receiver (listener) get around that issue?
Enter the Royal Navy and the Official Secrets Act. Now the military had the upper-hand and the upper-hand over that upper-hand was the hand of the Crown.
It is a short skip forward in time to 1964 and the advent of a ship anchored just outside British territorial waters upon which a broadcasting 'plant' (the name by which the location of a radio station was originally known), had been built. After several failed attempts, a station called 'Radio Caroline' made it on to the air, and then the shouting began.
Shouting, because except for a few 'quality' publications in the very early days that tried to deal with the legality of this issue, the mainstream press broke into sensational reporting that focused upon the Postmaster General of the day - as if he alone was the 'spoil-sport'. But he was not.
Moving on past 1967, we then enter the phase of criminal activity replacing what had been a true legal issue regarding freedom of speech and expression, to one of lies, deceit and theft by those engaging in offshore broadcasting.
Today, many years have past since August 14, 1967, and considerably more since 1660 and the days of King Charles II. But now, as of yesterday we have a King Charles III already holding the de facto reigns of control over the British Crown.
We use the word 'de facto' because not only has a coronation yet to take place, but by going back in time to King Charles II and his 'Act of Oblivion' which forbade everyone from discussing the fate of King Charles I and how England and Scotland briefly became a united republic, we can see that King Charles III is going to be sitting on a "Throne of Lies and Deceit". The alternative is for Charles to now tell the truth.
What a revolution that would set in motion!
All of sudden John Lilburne's name would be resurrected as the champion of individual liberty and a written constitution for England. If Lilburne had won and not been imprisoned by both Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, he might have set in motion a true revolution in the British Isles. Scotland would be free and so would the entire land mass of the island of Ireland.
It's your call Charlie.
What are you going to do?
While readers are waiting to find out, please avail yourself of our video that we made some time ago. This video does explain the 'Act of Oblivion' in context, as well as the lies and deceit of Ronan O'Rahilly. Then, read more about John Lilburne in our previously published monograph:
Back in 2015 we submitted a monograph which was accepted for publication in: Hypercultura (ISSN 2285-2115) with this title:
The British Interregnum:
a yesterday that never happened
In view of current developments, it is time for Prince Charles to read it, if he has not already done so. You should read it too by clicking this button:
Copyright 2021 with all rights reserved.