Tuesday, 5 September 2017

Maybe Brexit Is What the Elite Wanted


The consensus forming within the conspiracy community seems to be that the 2016 Brexit vote was a blow to the elite's desire for global dominance and a triumph for people power. Basing their view on the assumption that the Illuminati want a top-down hierarchical world-government structure as the culmination of their plan, most believe that the decision made by the British people to leave the European Union will significantly hinder this end.

While only those with access to the inner sanctum of the Illuminati know for sure, I can't help wondering if maybe there's another possible structure for a global control system, and that the Brexit vote is just the result the elite wanted in order to bring it about. I realise that this will be a controversial proposal for a movement in which the "world government" hypothesis has become an unquestionable truth but I hope to put some arguments in its favour as we go along.

At the present no one in either the mainstream or conspiracy communities knows how the result of the Brexit vote is going to play out long term. We don't even yet know if we really will end up leaving, but if it should happen that we do then here are a few observations about the vote that suggest it was not the victory for democracy that many in the alternative arena believe it to be.

The Alternative

One lesson the conspiracy movement should learn from studying history is that the Illuminati never think too rigidly and that most predictions made by researchers who see the future as being a simple continuation of present-day trends turn out to be wrong. The so-called "black swan" effect (the effect of unpredictable occurrences) means that forecasters who think too linearly are always blind-sided by events that they simply could not have foreseen. Factoring in the role of disinformation, deliberately designed to funnel our thinking down such narrow thought tunnels, and the effect is increased.

One such assumption, ubiquitous in the conspiracy field is that the end point of the global conspiracy is intended to be a hierarchical global structure in which a world government dictates policy to several large political unions, which in turn dictate to nations and so on down the pyramid. This is certainly possible, as on the face of it only such a rigid state of affairs would appear to give the Illuminati the order they need to keep things under control with any degree of stability. The problem with this is that the Illuminati don't want stability - they thrive on fragmentation and disorder. Is it therefore not possible that the end point of the global conspiracy is not intended to be complete order but its opposite, complete chaos?

Can we not envisage a state of affairs in which nations, regions and political unions are maintained in a state of continual flux, rising and falling, coming together and falling apart according to no apparent plan at all, with the fragmentation being taken all the time to ever higher levels? Could this not be the real meaning of the Freemasonic motto "Ordo Ab Chao" ("Order Out of Chaos"). Could this phrase not mean a state of apparent chaos, with a hidden order known only to the initiates in the shadows? And could not the UK's exit from the EU be an element in the plan to bring this about in Europe? Perhaps there never will be an overt global government, for that would give the people something to unite against - perhaps the world government will only, and in fact already does, exist behind the scenes and will never be seen on the world stage.

This is one alternative scenario and it will be left to the reader to decide for himself how plausible it is. However, in a movement which prides itself on "thinking outside the box" we should be willing to consider such possibilities.

The Evidence

Q: But if "they" wanted us to leave, why did they use Project Fear and wheel out so many big names to urge us to stay?

It could be a use of reverse psychology. In a country that likes to think of itself as distrustful of authority and the ruling class, the more that establishment figures and institutions order people to do one thing, the greater likelihood that large numbers of them will do just the opposite, regardless of what's in their best interests. It's a strategy that salesmen use all the time and that the elite themselves used when getting the Federal Reserve Act passed by congress in the U.S.

And with everyone from David Cameron to Barack Obama predicting disaster if we left, the public mood was ripe to be massaged by "cheeky chappies" Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, coming along with a grin and a wink, telling us not to believe the authority figures and to do something a bit anti-establishment and daring.

The Jo Cox murder may have fed into this manipulation of the public mood. Look at what happened in Sweden after their pro-EU politician was assassinated. The people voted against joining the Euro. If it had that effect then, and if it turns out that the same technique was used again this time, it's reasonable to suspect they wanted a similar result. I realise that this is counter-intuitive, and on the surface it looks simply as though the murder of a pro-EU politician would have boosted the In campaign, but in both cases the facts show otherwise. Public sentiment is a strange thing and can be made to bounce around all over the place after a traumatic event - first a swing occurs in one direction and then a few days later the public sense that they went too far and a reaction occurs in the other. If you know how to surf these waves and carefully control the timing of the initial event you can get the public mood to any place you like on the day you require.

Q: So why were the media urging us to stay?

They weren't.

As an observation, during the whole campaign I never once heard David Icke or Richie Allen, with their "the establishment is desperate to keep us in" stance, acknowledge that The Sun newspaper was supporting the Out Campaign. Yet The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is always on the winning side in UK elections. You can bet that if it had been on the In side, Icke et al would have been denouncing it as an "establishment mouthpiece" and claiming it was another element in the plan to persuade us to remain.

Q: Could this be why "they" made Brussels so disliked?

Yes, quite possibly. In making Brussels so bloated, out-of-touch and decadent, they were making inevitable the day when it would provoke people's sense of injustice to such an extent that they'd vote to leave.

Surely if the EU was such a key plank in the elite's plans for global dominance, and they could see that it was in danger of falling apart, would they not have sent their people in to shake the place up, bang some heads together, streamline the whole affair and reform some of its excesses and failings? Or at the very least make it look as though this was happening? The fact that this did not occur is indicative that maybe we have reached a point in the game where they want the EU to fail.

This would also explain why Cameron was offered such a bad deal during his "re-negotiation". Those behind the scenes in Brussels actually wanted us to vote out. If they'd wanted us to stay, wouldn't they have offered us a better deal?

And some left-field speculation...

It has to be noted that in London, which voted 60-40 to Remain, the turnout was reduced by "torrential downpours" (a month's-worth in one day according to the Evening Standard) in the morning and evening. The unusual weather patterns on polling day therefore provably favoured the Leave vote. I'm not saying that this on its own was enough to sway the result (looking at the numbers clearly it wasn't), but as part of an overall strategy, or maybe as a bit of insurance against a closer vote, weather manipulation can't be entirely ruled out. I know that rainfall has been known to occur naturally from time to time (!), mainly in the days before HAARP, but a month's-worth in 24 hours is still pretty rare and the odds of it happening on any particular day can't be huge.

Q: Why would they want the European Project to fall apart after investing so much effort in it?

Because they've got it to the stage where every European nation's economic and social infrastructure is dependent upon it. That part of the job is done. If they now begin to withdraw that structure and apply pressure in the correct places, the whole system could crumble, leading to chaos so complete that no one can get a handle on it.

Maybe the whole EU project was just to weaken Europe to the point where it could be made to collapse when the scaffolding was dismantled. Maybe it was always intended to have a limited shelf life. These are possibilities we should consider.

Q: But their own documents say they wanted Europe to be a federated superstate.

Yes, but if that is what they really wanted, would those documents have ever been made public?

Maybe they don't actually want this structure but simply wanted us to believe that they did as an act of sleight-of-hand. Keeping nations fragmented gives great scope for ongoing low-level conflict, for a constant changing-up of alliances, and for divide-and-rule situations all around the globe.

And Icke has always pointed out that there are levels of knowledge in these things. Maybe the actors at lower echelons thought they were building a permanent superstate whereas those higher up always considered it to be a temporary affair.

Some of what has come out of Brussels claiming to reveal their plans could just be propaganda. Take the infamous "regions map" for example. Looking back now, did we really believe that they planned to split the small island nation of Britain down the middle, join half of it with a country over the sea and somehow manage to administer the resulting mess? How could that sort of set-up ever be practical? Is it not possible that in putting this out and watching us believe it that they were perhaps laughing at us?

And there is a side-perk in this for the elite. Back at the start of the campaign then prime-minister David Cameron specifically drew attention to Icke's assertion that the UK would never be allowed to leave the EU, stating that there was no "David Icke-style conspiracy" to make us stay. There was no reason for him to do this and most in the alternative arena thought it was a sign that "they" were running scared and felt the need to stop this particular line of speculation from gaining traction. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe they knew a Brexit was coming and were using it as an opportunity to discredit Icke, his work and the wider movement by drawing attention to it. Otherwise, why would they do something that would undoubtedly cause thousands of people to look at Icke's work and website, when this is something they are trying desperately to avoid?


In my opinion, it looked likely as soon as David Cameron made reference to Icke's assertions of a conspiracy to keep us in that they in fact wanted us out and were setting David up for a fall at the same time. I attempted to alert David and radio host Richie Allen to this possibility in the days before the vote, as both were saying that there was no way the UK would be allowed to leave and that the vote would be fixed if necessary, but to no avail. Both stuck rigidly to the "they are desperate for us to stay" line. Yet not only were both wrong at the time and since, but they seem impervious to questioning why they were wrong.

The fact is that the alternative community is caught in severe tunnel vision and group think about the end-point of the global conspiracy and that it needs to be more open to other possibilities. Yes, a few quotes exist suggesting that a world government is the agenda, but these could easily be disinformation. We need to consider the "ongoing chaos" scenario too.

And we must not overlook the fact that the Illuminati have "form" in this area with the Arab Spring. The people caught up in that thought they were winning liberation from some great tyranny, when in fact all it led to was the collapse of the structure that was holding their nations together, and to complete chaos, with all sorts of dubious groups rushing in to fill the vacuum. Do we really think we are so sophisticated that we are above being similarly duped? When a structure is dismantled too quickly after the people have been made dependent upon it, the result is not usually a harmonious liberation but instead some form of breakdown. Can we really be sure that this will not the case here, albeit heralding chaos of a more European variety? Could not ex-city boy and probable Freemason Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson have been acting as agent provocateurs?

While the European Project can no doubt survive the departure of one country, it will be in serious jeopardy if others decide to follow suit. If this happens the potential for Europe to descend into relative chaos is significant. To insure against such an outcome we therefore need to build dialogue between countries now in order to put in place structures to replace those currently provided by the EU. Such communication and cross-border cooperation is the only bulwark against the disharmony and fragmentation that the Illuminati could be seeking to create. The EU cannot simply be allowed to collapse in the naive belief that a liberated European paradise will result, at least not without serious thought being given to putting in place measures to replace EU structures with something more decentralised and integrative.