So, the Tories have done it again. Yet another plot by the parliamentary party that pays no heed to the voters at large or even to their own party members. The past three elections (2015, 2017 and 2019) have elected a Conservative prime minister but, remarkably, all of them have been usurped by their own party whilst in office. Now, they've gone one better and replaced the replacement after a six week reign, while simultaneously ditching their own rulebook. Of course, much of the initial turmoil of years past can be explained by reference to the Brexit vote and the subsequent reluctance to implement it. A short history lesson may assist.
David Cameron won the general election in 2015, partly because he had promised a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU. The eurosceptic movement had always been substantial and Cameron figured he could leave the argument behind by winning a national plebiscite. The prime minister himself was an arch Remainer and would undoubtedly have preferred to avoid a vote but he was, nonetheless, confident of victory. This confidence was misplaced and Cameron fell on his sword immediately, rather than stay on and sort out the mess he had created.
The sensible solution would have been to elect a Leaver in his stead, but the Tories don't do sensible any more. So, they replaced him with Theresa May, another Remainer as the unwieldy leadership process matched her against two underwhelming candidates who withdrew, leaving her as the last person standing. Boris Johnson, who had spearheaded the Leave campaign, had planned to stand, but was betrayed by a colleague who then stood himself, with predictable consequences.
There then followed three years of utter carnage. The negotiations with the EU on a deal were being conducted by officials who had voted to Remain and still believed that they were correct and the public was wrong. The EU itself was motivated by a desire to punish the British for their temerity and to ensure that the process was as difficult as possible and the end result was as unattractive as possible to discourage any other member states from pursuing an exit.
May had triggered Article 50, the official notification of the intent to leave, without having any real idea about what the desired end result would look like. She decided instead, to call a snap election and managed to lose her overall majority in parliament, thus setting the scene for what followed. Given that 480 (of the 635 in the lower chamber) had voted to Remain and the government itself was riven with dissent, her task was a difficult one. Nonetheless, she ploughed doggedly ahead and, in total, presented three deals to parliament, all of them characterized as Brexit in name only, failing each time and then resigning.
Boris replaced her. This time, the leadership contest had gone to the membership once the race had narrowed to two candidates and he defeated Jeremy Hunt by a margin of two to one. He then had one go at getting yet another deal through parliament before bowing to the inevitable and called a snap election for December 2019, explicitly selling it as (effectively) a second referendum. This time the stratagem was a resounding success and the Tories gained a sizeable majority and the biggest percentage of the vote since 1979.
In truth, the election was a third referendum as, in spring 2019, the European elections had been held and the Brexit Party, which had only been formed three months earlier, won the biggest share of seats. The message, more stridently manifested each time, had been delivered. Johnson finally had the mandate he needed. The British people definitely wanted out.
And, in the final analysis, why wouldn't they? The EU parliament isn't a deliberative chamber in the manner of Westminster – it's a chamber whose duty it is to rubber stamp the legislation that is placed before it. The heavy lifting, the drafting of all the innumerable regulations and laws that characterize the quintessential quango is done by the Commission, an unelected clique of globalists. The MEPs are just there to provide an unearned sheen of democracy that deceives the uninitiated. The EU is deserving of its own essay (coming soon) but, for now, suffice it to say that any population that is wedded to the concept of representative democracy should abhor it.
In the case of the UK, the referendum margin was the smallest of the three votes. Many people, including some politicians, defected to the Leave side as the negotiations for a deal dragged on, repulsed by the European Union's intransigence and viciousness. None of this was surprising to the original Leavers – discontent with the high handedness of the Commission was one of the reasons they had voted as they did to begin with.
In retrospect, Boris's high point was 31st December 2019, when the transition period began – a year later, the UK was out. In the interim, some sort of deal was finally hammered out. Few people have read it and even fewer made a fuss about it, either at the time or since which, given the level of opposition that had been displayed throughout is, in itself, suspicious. The voices that spent four and a half years trying to engineer a reversal of course had nothing much to say when Britain finally left.
Then, as we know, it all went pear shaped as the 'pandemic' was inflicted upon us. Consider the timing; in January 2020, Johnson was a newly minted premier who had just taken the UK out of the EU. Across the pond, Donald Trump was in the final year of his first term and had managed to achieve at least some of his America First aims. Plus, the American economy was going gangbusters. Both of them represented an anti-globalist stance, even if only Trump truly believed in it.
Then Covid happened along. The timing was certainly felicitous for the deep staters, who immediately wrested back control of events as both leaders felt compelled to hand governance over to the 'expert' bureaucracy. We also now know (although it has been a near certainty for well over a year) that Covid came out of a lab. Johnson was effectively knee-capped after three months in the job. Trump was obliged to preside over the collapse of the economy, a summer of riots encouraged by his political opponents and an unremitting attack by the Fourth Estate. It was all rather too convenient.
It's fair to say that the Boris with whom we were previously acquainted ceased to exist in short order. By mid March he was already sounding like a bog standard elite globalist, standing behind his Build Back Better lectern. Over the next two and a half years we were serenaded with all the usual nonsense about climate change, Covid and 'vaccines'. He sounded like somebody who had been hypnotized by Klaus Schwab himself. Yes, the public had voted for him, but not for the him that they got. Boris was neutered and house trained and was left in place to soak up any flak that came the regime's way.
It's worth noting also that the British public knew what they were getting with Boris (or they thought they did). They knew who, or more accurately what, he is. They know he is a bullshit artist plagued by an inconsistent relationship with the truth. That much was in the price when he won the general election. The Tory establishment, subsequently, made much of these less appealing characteristics amid much pearl clutching, but this was a transparent pretext. It wasn't Boris' obvious fallibility that did him in, unless we include his need to be liked as part of it. It was his government's response to the 'pandemic' that cost him much of his popularity with the public, not Partygate or some non-scandal over a Party Whip who had been the subject of allegations (not yet proven) that he had been a little handsy when inebriated.
That and the fact that he wasn't Boris enough. He gave every indication that he had been captured almost immediately. The same person who had engineered our departure from an overweening, unelected, unaccountable political overseers then presided over a government that locked-down the entire country and subjected its citizens to draconian measures that wouldn't have been out of place in an autocracy.
The lost by-elections, of which there were several (not exactly a rarity for a sitting government) were one thing. The fake moral indignation was quite another, nauseating to behold. Forgotten in the rush to crucify Johnson is the fact that Sir Keir Something was also the subject of a scandal (Beergate) – another lock-down transgression – and that Sunak himself was also issued with a penalty notice by the police, just as Boris was. The fact that Partygate was resuscitated numerous times, when the public had long lost interest, was evidence of the “get Boris” campaign. Johnson had committed an unpardonable sin and got one over on the globalists, whether by virtue of true conviction or political opportunism.
That was bad enough, but he then compounded the error (in their eyes) by blinking first at the start of the year and declaring that we would have to live with Covid, thus signalling the beginning of the end of the medical tyranny of the 'experts' under whose governance we had been living for two years. This was not part of the plan, I am sure. It was noteworthy that numerous countries demonstrated a huge reluctance to give up the emergency powers that they had awarded themselves; some still haven't rescinded the state of emergency, the US prominent among them.
The manner of Boris's fall was noteworthy featuring, as it did, Sunak and Javid as the most prominent back-stabbers. It was their co-ordinated resignations, followed by a tsunami of more junior ministers and aides, that prompted Boris to finally throw in the towel. They'd tried everything else; two scandals and a no confidence vote, none of which had had the desired effect. So they went for the nuclear option instead and it is for this reason that the parliamentary party couldn't let the latest leadership election go to the membership for a vote. Boris is still popular with the grass roots and they were likely to be hostile to the man who betrayed him. Especially a man with clay boots claiming the moral high ground.
However, with Boris defenestrated, the stage was set for a milquetoast Tory to take the leading role. And, sure enough, the parliamentary party voted in greater numbers for Sunak than it did for Truss, thus issuing the membership a less than subtle prompt, which they then ignored in selecting Truss with 57% of the vote.
It's a strange feature of the British political scene that a person can hold the second or third highest office in the land and yet their character and convictions can still remain relatively unknown to the wider public. And so it was with Liz Truss – as Foreign Secretary she had not created much of an impression, despite opportunities. But, once she became PM, the scrutiny was relentless and it didn't take long for the knives to be sharpened – about three weeks, to be precise. On 23rd September, she released a mini-budget that detonated the 'markets'.
It should be noted that most of the budget had been proposed by Truss during the leadership campaign and had been endorsed by the membership. But the markets cared little for that small detail. For the first time in recorded history, there were no takers for government bonds and, what's more, there was no concrete reason for it. The banks and the media say that there was, but they're lying. Again. Interest rates were attractive, the unfunded commitments were paltry when compared to Sunak's prior largesse and the UK deficit would still not have been above 100% of GDP. However, a budget that benefited ordinary people and which attempted to staunch their financial bleeding doesn't advance the globalist agenda and so we were treated to the sight of a second successive ouster of a Prime Minister by their own party.
It's difficult to escape the conclusion that there was collusion between those in government who had set their face against Truss and the markets – or, more particularly, the investment banks and the Bank of England. The latter stepped in listlessly and bought enough gilts to 'steady the market', but not enough to enable the budget to be implemented.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth was a sight to behold and a reminder that, if the IMF, the Bank of England and the financial press are complaining, then you're probably doing something right. The sudden crisis, fomented over one long weekend, was yet another creation of the cabal. It didn't have to happen but it suited their purposes. The reputational damage that the Conservatives have suffered is as nothing compared to their overwhelming need to keep the Great Reset on track. Truss could not be guaranteed to do that and Boris had outlived his usefulness and needed to be made an example of. Once Hunt had been installed as Chancellor, almost all the tax cuts were reversed and the energy price cap, originally scheduled to last six years, was now gutted and runs for a mere six months.
So much of what we have been told about this episode is simply untrue, including what they tell us we're thinking. The media would have us believe that Truss' budget was hugely unpopular with the voting public. I think that's implausible, given that it cut national insurance rates, reduced the basic rate of income tax, reversed a rise in corporation tax (which cost is inevitably passed onto the public in the form of higher prices for goods and services) and capped energy costs for two years. This, in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
I can't therefore see why easing financial burdens would be unpopular. I can, however, see that the market's reaction to these measures would be unpopular, especially the almost instant hiking of mortgage rates. The corrupted blame game is becoming increasingly familiar – the regime has deployed it twice in recent memory in citing the 'pandemic' and Putin as the source of all our woes, rather than acknowledging that it is the policy decisions taken by the government itself in response that are the real culprits.
The budget had a total of perhaps £45 billion in unfunded tax cuts. The UK budget deficit stands at £2.3 trillion, around 50 times as large. The markets falsely claimed that they were concerned about the inflationary impact of the budget. However, the Bank of England had raised interest rates the day before, allegedly to combat inflation.
His job was to navigate a course through the choppy economic waters that the government landed themselves in by virtue of their decision to lock-down. Instead, he implemented policies that have lead inexorably to the disastrous position that the UK finds itself in today. No matter. What does matter is that he is the standard bearer for what the regime instead desires. He is a walking talking point. You name a Great Reset tenet and Rishi is all over it in strictly orthodox fashion. Net zero – check. Social credit scores – check. Digital ID – check. Central Bank Digital Currencies – check. And, finally; 'vaccines' – check.
The hypocrisy of Sunak, Hunt and the rest of the shower that has been responsible for this latest debacle is staggering. As is the mendacity. We can include the Bank of England and the markets in that assessment also. In case anyone has forgotten (and they're certainly hoping that you have), it was only two years ago that Sunak implemented an unfunded spending pledge of over £300 billion to prop up Big Business. That was followed by another £200 billion last year.(1) The markets were in free-fall then as well, but it didn't stop them buying government debt, even though the interest rates that they were paying were far less attractive than they are now. Half a trillion pounds sterling is the largest unfunded commitment since records began.
None of the banks complained then. The Bank of England didn't scold the Chancellor. Neither did the corporate press. In fact, a number of them felt that the bailouts didn't go far enough. And there were ways to mitigate the expenditure; Sunak could have exchanged funding for equity, but he didn't. Instead, billions were given to companies that already had high debt and low reserves, rewarding risky business strategies. In the process, foreign based companies also received billions.(2)
And, once again, let's be cognisant of the fact that it wasn't the 'pandemic' that necessitated this massive, tax-payer funded transfer of wealth to business – it was the government's reaction to it; which happened when the alleged death toll was only 71. Sweden, alone of all the European nations, took the road less traveled and remained open for business. This was characterized as a bizarre and dangerous choice, even though it was what had always been done by every country since time immemorial.
Because of their independence of spirit, the West was gifted its own control group, a state of affairs that has allowed us to conclude the bleeding obvious. Lock-downs aren't necessary and they ruin economies. Naturally, the press and Western regimes have simply ignored the evidence, because it doesn't fit their narrative.
The emphasis on the word 'unfunded' is part of the deception. Given that the UK doesn't run a budget surplus (that would not find favor with the Bank of England – they want the government in debt), numerous spending proposals are unfunded until they are financed by the issuance of further debt. The mechanism by which this is accomplished is via the sale of freshly minted government bonds with various dates of redemption. The government pays back the capital at the end of the term and also pays whatever interest rate is attached. The applicable interest rate tends to reflect the trust that the market has in the government. In happier times, or when markets are volatile, a lower interest rate can be proposed and then accepted by the purchaser.
Truss' approach, while also unfunded, was far less 'out there' than Sunak's. Cutting taxes in the face of a looming recession is not the economics of the kindergarten. It's mainstream Keynesian theory, the idea being that leaving more money in people's pocket will stimulate economic growth, as they will spend at least some of that money. It is unfunded, but the expectation is that the increased tax take from a growing economy will cover the cost. The other measures, including the energy cost relief, are desperate measures due to the desperate times that she found herself in through no fault of her own.
But it wasn't just the budget that was unpalatable to the power-brokers in the Tory Party, although less money in the way of taxes (initially, at least) equals less ability to meddle in people's lives, which is clearly not a regime aim. The regime is pursuing a different type of capitalism which isn't actually capitalism at all;
“This form of capitalism, known as “state capitalism”, involves governments assuming the role of an “active economic agent”. It drastically expands the state’s role as promoter, supervisor and owner of capital, with far greater control over the economy.
As a result, the UK, the fifth largest economy in the world, has a budget deficit rising to its highest ever peacetime level: £323 billion, or 15% of GDP. The pandemic has made the UK’s version of state capitalism far more visible and extensive – bringing far greater economic power (and responsibility) to the people who run the government.”(3)
But Truss' greatest sin wasn't the budget. It was what else she did that simply couldn't be countenanced. Last winter the average household energy bill was around £1,200 per annum. It's now almost quadrupled and is forecast to go as high as £6,500 by the spring. And it's here that I believe we will find the true reasons for yet another coup; her energy policies and the known climate skepticism of her newly appointed Secretary of State, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
It seems that she used to be a believer some years ago, but clearly isn't now. The appointment of JRM was a statement of intent that could not have been missed by the WEF crowd in the Tory Party. She followed this up by issuing another round of offshore drilling licenses (the first since 2019/20), supported the construction of small and large nuclear facilities, was in the process of banning solar panels on 58% of agricultural land and gave the green light to a hydrogen production facility.
The truth is that there is no way back from the precipice without repudiating the climate alarmist's fallacies. Nonetheless, Truss is the only politician this century who has actively pushed back. I strongly suspect that this was why she had to go. For both her insurrectionary impulse and because her budget might actually have worked by improving matters and that isn't the plan at all. The plan is to continually break stuff and Build Back Better.
Now that Hunt has restored the abhorrent status quo, expect Sunak to reprise Theresa May's “strong and (particularly) stable” mantra. Except it's all a lie. The only stability that will be provided will be in the rate of descent into the abyss and even that won't last. But they'll lie to our faces, as they have been doing all along about pretty much everything. It'll be another case of believing them or the evidence of your lying eyes.
Sunak is a WEF net zero enthusiast who is so signed up to the fake climate emergency narrative that he was proposing an additional green levy in the midst of the current cost of living crisis. That's how much he cares about the British people. There are other clues as to his direction of travel. In June 2021, the government partnered with the WEF in setting guidelines and rules in the effort to procure Artificial Intelligence to aid in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.(4) In July of the same year, Sunak announced plans for a digital currency.(5)
His private affairs are also of interest. His wife is the daughter of an Indian billionaire who founded a software company called Infosys, which is also listed as a partner of the WEF.(6) In 2018, Infosys released a white paper describing how they intend to use a de facto social credit score to evaluate credit risk.(7) The company has also been accused of seeking to develop the technological infrastructure necessary to bring it about, which doesn't seem like much of a stretch.(8) Sunak himself is a founding investor is a company called Thélème Partners, which was one of the earliest investors in Moderna; its holding currently totals over $900 million.(9) Of all the companies, in all the world, why Moderna?
As for Hunt, no-one really knows what he believes – he gives every appearance of being an unprincipled political opportunist. He was, however, a fervent Remainer and advocated for a second referendum. His appointment as Chancellor in the wake of his predecessor's sacking preceded Truss' resignation by a week or so. In that time, he reversed virtually every single element of the mini Budget.
In any event, the Great Reset that is so beloved of these puppets cannot proceed without an energy policy that continues to punish the British public. A quick refresher; pretty much the first thing that Sunak said was that the current cost of living crisis has been caused by the two p's – the 'pandemic' and Putin. This is, of course, another lie. The current energy crisis is the product of three decade's worth of green policies that are hugely costly and unnecessary; they are the stick that has been chosen to beat the population into submission. The economic meltdown which has been engineered by Boris and Sunak is merely the cherry on top. Lock-downs and sanctions are themselves just another cover story.
And let's remind ourselves of what net zero looks like;
“The two big challenges we face with an all electric future are flying and shipping. Although there are lots of new ideas about electric planes, they won’t be operating at commercial scales within 30 years, so zero emissions means that for some period, we’ll all stop using aeroplanes.”
“In addition, obeying the law of our Climate Change Act requires that we stop doing anything that causes emissions regardless of its energy source. This requires that we stop eating beef and lamb - ruminants who release methane as they digest grass - and already many people have started to switch to more vegetarian diets.”
“All existing forms of cement production are incompatible with zero emissions.”
“All coal, gas, and oil-fuel supply from extraction through the supply chain to retail must close within 30 years.”(10)
There is no way of reconciling these stated aims with Truss' initiatives. And it's the law, not some wafty manifesto commitment that can be safely ignored once in office. Her outlook seemed to be the classic political fudge – she professed fealty to the narrative, but made it conditional. The people were not to be subjected to years of toil and suffering in order to accomplish net zero. The hidden message isn't hard to decipher, because it is impossible to achieve the climate change scam without crucifying the people and decimating the economy. So, Truss was (is) probably a 'denier' in disguise.
When we get beyond the fake news, which simply requires a modicum of detective work and a fleeting commitment to critical thinking, the true nature of what has occurred is abundantly clear. We can debate the motivations of the parties involved – although it's difficult to argue with the fact that Sunak's agenda aligns closely with his stated intentions and is also to his private advantage – but the events themselves are irrefutable.
The effect of the ousters of both Boris and Truss is to entrench the globalist, WEF poster boy at the head of the British government. He will chant about “stability” and there'll be more arrant nonsense about “difficult choices”, but his true priorities are clear enough. The Great Reset is back on track, true believers are now in position at the most important ministries (Rees-Mogg and his skepticism were put out to pasture immediately upon Sunak's ascension) – there will be no political salvation in this parliament and, even if the Tories are despatched at the end of 2024 and Labour are ensconced in their stead, the prospects are still grim. Sir Keir Something and his rabble are about as much use as a collection of chocolate teapots. They've all been at the KoolAid too. Change will need to bubble up from below if we are to fend off those that seek to enslave us.
In addition, we can now see how easy it is to mount a bloodless coup. While our political system doesn't operate in a presidential manner, the identity of the Prime Minister is still of crucial importance, as political parties are not monolithic entities. There are factions within them and the Prime Minister is a member of one of them. So, changing horses in mid-stream should be the exception - as it can easily signal a different policy emphasis or even a substantial change of direction that has not been blessed by the voting public – but it has become the rule; for the Tories, at least. The UK is now in the hands of a man who comes across as a Trudeau lite, hopefully minus the insufferable smugness of the original. All things WEF are now on the fast track.
Citations
(1) https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/quantitative-easing
(2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52663523
(4) https://expose-news.com/2022/10/29/rishi-sunak-wef-cbdcs-and-global-totalitarianism/
(5) Ditto
(6) https://www.weforum.org/organizations/infosys-ltd
(7) https://www.infosys.com/consulting/insights/documents/rethinking-credit-lending.pdf
(8) https://expose-news.com/2022/10/29/rishi-sunak-wef-cbdcs-and-global-totalitarianism/
(9)
(10) http://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf