Was UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, a US-Deep-State plant, courtesy of MI6? Johnson's father, Stanley Johnson worked for MI6, Britain's secret intelligence service, and it is doubtful whether an agent of the secret intelligence service is ever released from the obligation to serve.
That Boris Johnson's father owes allegiance to the British security services does not make Boris Johnson a secret agent, but it certainly adds plausibility to that possibility. And whether linked directly or indirectly with MI6, one could expect of Johnson great deference to the American security state.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Boris Johnson has been the most aggressive among European leaders in following the American line in providing support, both financial and political, to Ukraine's Nazi-directed and genocidally Russophobic government in the ongoing war with Russia.
Meantime, Johnson did essentially nothing for the working class voters whose support he won at the general election. The millions of working class voters in poor North Eastern constituencies who most likely for the one and only time in their lives cast a vote for the Conservatives, have gained nothing from the Johnson government other than a 2.5% increase in their National Insurance contributions and the promise of a high speed rail connection to London -- if it isn't cancelled due to cost overruns.
Which raises the question, which other Western leaders displays this Johnsonian pattern of subordination to US policy with near total indifference to the interests of their own people. The name that springs to mind is Justin Trudeau. Like Johnson, a buffoonish character (fourth from right) with minimal interest in the concerns of ordinary Canadians, but fully committed to the cause of the Ukraine's Russian-hating Nazis. Not surprisingly, therefore, that, at 59%, Trudeau's public disapproval rating exactly matches that of senile Joe Biden, the worst US President in living memory.
Related:
I wonder if you have any thoughts on this.
ReplyDeleteI've considered the center of the world to be the City of London, not Washington, D.C. (Or NYC.) The City of London is the place from which power over the world emanates.
I've also had the idea the Queen is much, much more powerful than we dream. She is no figurehead.
The CIA and MI5 and MI6 are intimately linked. I even go so far as to assert they are the same organization and whoever controls the one controls the other.
(For me, the clue was Kim Philby of MI6 and J.J. Angleton of CIA's counter-intelligence... Then the hilarity of Philby being a traitor and Angleton going insane over the implications. I realize this was a long time ago, but as with nearly everything else, reforms seem trivial, if they exist at all. Lessons aren't learned.)
GHWB was an anglophile, and I got the impression Reagan was, too. (I feel GHWB was the real president, with Reagan fronting the operation.)
You mention Stanley Johnson being MI6 and the likelihood this is behind BoJo's rise to Prime Minister. GHWB was not only in the CIA, but director of the CIA. We have: as SJ to GHWB, so BoJo to GWB.
I also was convinced Tony Blair was an intelligence agency plant, and this was the only reason he backed the US's invasion of Iraq. He'd sold his soul and the devil finally came for it. It was the pathetic ruin of a person you otherwise could have respected.
Anyway, in terms of Ukraine and Russia. It is a question of what whoever actually runs the show wants. I think they want-- and in a way must have-- a wider war. I admit they may see the writing on the wall now. This particular war isn't going to do the trick. Better to wait. If so, would they even have gone this far?
Whether the relationship between Britain and America is special in any sense other than due to the ever weakening ties of kinship, a long-standing defensive partnership, and division by a common language is not clear to me.
DeleteI suppose the Foreign office may sometimes provide the State Department useful information about the people and geography of the former empire. There may even be Oxford-trained people in the Foreign Office whose Douglas-Murray-like eloquence impresses even the most cynical State Department imperialists -- people who think, for example, that half a million dead Iraqi children are "worth it", whatever "it" may have been. But I don't see what else the Brits have to offer the world's sole, if declining, super-power.
True the Brits at one time imagined that they could rule the world, and even formed a secret society (Cecil Rhodes, Lord Rothschild and Alfred Milner, and others) with the aim of spreading British control over Africa and South America, Malaya, the Seacoasts of China and Japan, the Pacific Island, and the Holy Land, and to recover the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”
But by the end of World War I, by which time Britain had been overtaken by both Germany and the US in population and GDP, they threw in the towel, and handed the project of creating a world empire to the Americans. The result was the founding of arguably the world's most influential think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.
Re: GHWB, there are those who maintain he was right their in Dallas, outside the Texas School Book Depository Building as JFK was being assassinated. There's even a photograph to prove it!
Re Ukraine, I agree, they want a war to destroy Russia and break it into a bunch of corrupt stans ruled by the likes of Poroshenko and Zel that can be looted by Soros et al. without limit, while NATO advances to the border of China. Trouble is, how can you win when the Russians are shooting five or ten shells to everyone the Ukrainians are able to deliver. So it's turned into yet another US instigated military disaster.
Concerning the Council on Foreign Relations, most American Presidents have been members, but not, John F. Kennedy or Donald J. Trump who were both removed from office by a hidden hand.
DeleteMaybe the gods will smile and the next to go will be Joe who barely knows he's here anyway.
ReplyDeleteHe's kicking the floor out from the country, literally:
https://wearechange.org/millions-of-barrels-from-u-s-emergency-oil-reserve-sent-abroad-including-to-china/
"He's kicking the floor out from the country..."
ReplyDeleteFortunately, as Adam Smith remarked, "there's a lot of ruin in a country," so the US will likely survive Biden, and even Harris, should the Lord, in his wisdom, relieve Biden of his earthly responsibilities before the end of 2024.
And he's not stupid. The oil sold to China went to a firm tied to Hunter Biden.
DeleteI have often felt JFK and GHWB were doppelgangers.
ReplyDeleteThey were two men with a great deal in common, including their family backgrounds and social stations. Both families count as nouveau riche; they are monied by most standards, except the standards of the real monied dominant class. To the real monied classes, they were servants.
They are roughly the same age (K: 5/17 to B: 6/24); they look alike. They were both navy veterans of WWII.
Both were extremely ambitious. The ambition, however, was pursued with different strategies.
JFK, as the cat's paw of Joseph P. Kennedy, planned to upset the apple cart and go for the whole enchilada. He was going to take on the Federal Reserve, the CIA, and the other pillars by which the plutocrats maintain power and position in the USA. The Kennedys wanted to supplant the real monied class. They posed a challenge within the ruling class to the ruling class.
(Going after the Federal Reserve and the CIA, etc., didn't mean the Kennedys were the good guys. They weren't doing this to further the general good. They simply understood the dynamics of power in the USA.)
The Bush family rose by faithfully serving the masters and biding their time. GHWB was in the CIA! (Kennedy wanted to scatter it to the winds.) They were bankers and oil men-- banker-oil men, at some point there's no difference. GHWB was not particularly successful electorally, (at least Kennedy could win elections) yet up he came, appointed VP running mate to the hugely popular Reagan, and thus POTUS, (for one term). Then, leaving the Presidency, accumulating enormous wealth as a player in the military industrial complex.
There was no lasting Kennedy dynasty after all, but a successful Bush dynasty is part of the American political landscape. (Jeb was the anointed one in 2016. That much is certain, based on the way the Republican party bet the farm on his candidacy...)
(I don't think I can confirm GHWB as a billionaire based on information I can Google, but nevertheless, I'm willing to assert he was.)
GHWB is one of the only presidents to be knighted. GHWB was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in December of 1993.
You say "They ... [George H. W. Bush and J.F. Kennedy had a] great deal in common, including their family backgrounds and social stations."
DeleteI suppose they were similar in having family wealth acquired in more or less questionable ways: Joseph Patrick Kennedy through insider trading on the New York Exchange and Prescott Bush by trading with the Nazis. But I don't think that means they had much in common politically.
The Kennedy's were Irish whereas the Bush's were of Anglo extraction. Instinctive enemies, in fact.
The Kennedy's got ahead on the strength of their financial manipulation and charisma. The Bush approach to power seems more in the Venetian tradition. Odd, isn't it, GHWB was dining with the family of John Hinckley, Jr. just days before Hinckley potted Ronald Reagan. Then again GHWB was a friend of George de Morenschildt, the well-to-do petroleum geologist who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald, or maybe served as the CIA's minder for the Kennedy assassination patsy.
Joseph Patrick Kennedy did serve as US Ambassador to Britain just prior to WWII. JFK spent some of his youth living in England. Maybe J.P. was a disastrous choice for the position and maybe it was designed to ruin him. I don't know. One thing I do know is that the involvement with the Nazis by both the Kennedy and Bush families is not as it is portrayed most of the time in the popular press. Nor is the depth of involvement with the Nazis by such key players as the Dulles brothers as well known or criticized as it should be.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't surprise me at all if GHWB was a key component in the Kennedy assassination. There's often a young and ambitious "lieutenant" taking the biggest risks. If the thing goes bad, the "lieutenant" takes the fall. If it goes well, the sky is the limit. It went well.
Did you know Dan Rather of NBC was from Texas, was in Dallas that day, and later was the "independent" journalist who verified for Life magazine the Zapruder footage was presented accurately in that magazine? (And of course it wasn't. It was shown in reverse sequence.) Rather, virtually unknown, to Rather one of the most prominent and visible journalists in America for many decades...Until his fall from grace after a tussle with the Bush family.
"Maybe J.P. was a disastrous choice for the position"
Delete... As he was about to sail for England, JP Kennedy was asked by a reporter whether he was qualified for the job as US Ambassador, to which he replied:
"If Marlene Dietrich asked you to go to bed with her, would you say you weren't very good at it."
re: Kennedy and Bush family position on the Nazis
The Union Bank Corporation, run by GHWB's father Prescott Bush, was shut down during WW2 under the "Trading with the Enemy Act." Among other services to the Nazi's Union Bank Corp. was involved with Fritz Thyssen in financing construction of the Auschwitz labor camp.
Prior to the war, Prescott Bush organised the supply of small arms for Hitler's brown-shirts.
Joe Kennedy opposed war with Hitler chiefly because he didn't want to lose his sons in a European war.
Re: NBC, the Zapruder film, etc.
One thing that is certain is that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill Kennedy (although he may have have been shooting at him with his crappy, Italian World War One army surplus Manlicher rifle). The proof is the testimony of the three Parklands Hospital surgeons who examined Kennedy's fatal head wounds on his arrival at the hospital, still with a pulse and gasping reflexively. All three said that there was a small entry wound in the forehead, and a large exist wound "the size of the palm of your hand" at the back of the head. These statements are, or were until recently, on U-tube. In other words, JFK was shot from the front, not from behind which is where Oswald was located.