Sunday, May 1, 2011

Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley: Propagating Looney Lies About the British Monarch

If you thought Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley was a historian, think again.

In this video, Tarpley and Alex Jones compete to spout the most rubbish about the British Parliamentary system of government.

That was two years ago. Since then, they have learned nothing as this discussion arising out of the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton demonstrates.

According to these geniuses, Britain and 15 other countries nominally headed by Britain's constitutional monarch are, in reality as well as in name, largely ruled by the octogenarian great grandmother, Elizabeth Windsor, who Tarpley decribes as a degenerate, psychopathic, genocidal Nazi maniac.

Astounding. They cannot really be that stupid can they? But if not, what propaganda interest do they serve?

For the record (from Wikipedia):
In Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 led to a constitutional monarchy restricted by laws such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, although limits on the power of the monarch ('A Limited Monarchy') are much older than that (see Magna Carta). Today the monarchy in Britain is politically neutral and by convention the role is largely ceremonial.[1] No person may accept significant public office without swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The claim agreed upon by these wackos that the Queen dissolves Parliament at will, chooses the Prime Minister, sets the Government's agenda by the "Queen's speech," declares war or made the decision to evict the residents of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia to make way for an American air base is a farrago of nonsense or simply a collection of preposterous lies.

It is part of the tradition of the British form of Parliamentary democracy for all government actions to be taken in the name of the Crown and all public property to be held in the name of the Crown. But this does not mean that the monarch has real power or that she personally benefits from property owned by the Crown.

Thus, for example, all acts of Parliament receive the Royal assent before becoming law. But the Queen or her representative in Canada, Australia, etc, has no option but to give assent to any bill properly enacted by Parliament.

Likewise, all public lands and other property, something like 90% of the territory of Canada, for example, or nearly a billion hectares, are held in the name of the "Crown." But that does not mean that the Queen collects rent on that property or is free to exploit it in any way.

Tarpley's idea that England's King Edward the VII, nicknamed Edward the Caressor because of his strong interest in Ugandan affairs, personally orchestrated the US Civil War and, after his own death in 1910, World War I, the Russian Revolution, World War II, Nazism, Fascism, and current American efforts at the encirclement of China is simply stark raving nuts.

According these intellectual giants, neither Bismark, nor Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, the Tsar of Russia, and their respective parliaments, the British and French governments, the Serbian nationalist conspirators responsible for the murder of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand, and all the other people who contributed to the holocaust of World War I, not excluding Count Alfred von Schlieffen whose plan of mobilization dictated that Germany invade France merely on the threat of war, had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the tragic sequence of twentieth century World events.

Even more astounding, no other historian of the twentieth century, Hugh Trevor Roper, Regius Professor of History at the University of Oxford, the renowned British academic, A.J.P. Taylor, or Carrol Quigley, Bill Clinton's admired history mentor at Georgetown University, had the slightest inkling of Edward's horrendous role.

Oh, well. I have always found Alex Jones tiresome to listen to. Now I have no further need. Tarpley, apparently, is equally deranged or equally fraudulent.


  1. "Today the monarchy in Britain is politically neutral". I don't think Margaret Thatcher believed that when she was Prime Minister.

    1. Wikipedia's statement about the political neutrality of the monarchy reflects the constitutional principle. It cannot be expected that the monarch will always be neutral in their personal view, and on some occasion that view may intentionally or otherwise be made public.

      I believe that in Thatcher's time the Queen let slip some remark about the poverty of some citizens of Glasgow, she being reported to have said "they have nothing" or words to that effect. This apparently so enraged Margaret Thatcher, who no doubt believed that it was she not Elizabeth Windsor who should live at the Palace, that she set in motion some gossip about the mental instability of certain members of the Queen's family.

      But the incident provides no support for the Jones-Tarpley looney lies.