The Journal of HistorySpring 2011TABLE OF CONTENTS



By David Icke
October 23, 2010

The most effective and most unchallenged form of human control is that Which the population doesn't see. Who is going to rebel about not being free When they think they are?

Key to that illusion of freedom is the illusion of choice. Once people Realise they have no choice in the force and agenda that governs their society The penny drops that they live in a one-party state, a tyranny.

The task of any Control System, therefore, which has ambitions for long Term pre-eminence, is to maintain the façade of political choice and central To this is 'the people's right to vote'.

This is seen as the ultimate confirmation of a 'free' society - people can Cast their vote every four or five years to 'choose' their government and So, by definition, they must live in a free country.

But, of course, the equation of democracy = freedom is a nonsense from the Start. At best democracy is the dictatorship of the majority and in many 'democratic' countries governments are formed from less than half the votes, Anyway.

The population has been sold the lie that democracy means freedom to Create a manipulated perception of 'freedom' behind which a tyranny can operate Unseen and so unchallenged.

For a vote to be worth anything it must be cast as a choice between Different political and policy options. If those options, with their different Names, colours and rhetoric, are basically the same there is no choice and Thus the vote is worthless.

With this, the concept of a free country must fall, even under the Illusory and tenuous definition of the right to vote meaning that you must be 'free'.

This is most obvious in places like South Africa where rule by the white Minority (apartheid) has been replaced by the rule of black minority (democracy).

This might sound strange at first sight and I'll explain what I mean. If Everyone has a vote then surely South Africa must be governed by the black Majority? But this is not so, except in theory.

When apartheid unraveled, Nelson Mandela became head of the African National Congress (ANC) and then President of South Africa, and those two roles Have been inseparable ever since.

The ANC is really the OPS - One Party State.

The political system is structured to ensure that the ANC is so dominant, And the opposition so weak, that South Africa is little more than a One-party state masquerading as a free society.

It means that whoever is elected head of the ANC will become president of The country at the next national election - witness the examples of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma who followed Mandela as both heads of the ANC and South African presidents.

'It is so easy - the ANC cabal chose me and then they chose him. We love Democracy.'

This is what I mean by the country being run by a black minority. The tiny Clique of manipulators and in-fighters who decide the leader of the ANC Are, in doing so, deciding the leader of South Africa. All the rest is mere Window dressing.

The scam is so blatant it is extraordinary that more people can't see it.

The same theme of undemocratic 'democracies' can be found all over the 'free world', not least in the United States and Britain. I'll come to the US In a moment, but events in the last few months, indeed days, have proved This very point in the UK.

This week the opposition Labour Party of former prime minister and mass Killer, Tony Blair, elected a new leader called Ed Miliband who defeated his Brother, David Miliband, in a tight election.

Brothers at bore: winner Ed with David at the back.

Ed Miliband is being dubbed 'Red Ed' by the media because of his alleged 'left-wing' beliefs, but this is just more baloney to hide the fact that Britain is a one-party state under three names - the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that currently operate a coalition government, and the Labour Party which ruled the country disgracefully for 13 years under the Rothschild puppet, Tony Blair, and his hapless successor, Gordon Brown.

The leader of the Conservative Party and now Prime Minister, David Cameron (Rothschild Zionist), will now be 'opposed' by the Labour Party's Ed Miliband (Rothschild Zionist) while the Liberal Democrat leader and current Deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, is one of those power-groupies who will do a Deal with anyone to secure high office.

If you ask Clegg 'what are your policies and beliefs', his reply would be 'what would you like them to be?' If you are rich he will tell you that Wealth creation must be encouraged and if you are poor he will say that there must be a fairer redistribution of wealth. The policies change with the audience.

What I am saying here is that all three leaders of the main political parties in Britain are standing on basically the same ground with only words to separate them in the public mind, and even then ever less so.

All three come from privileged backgrounds, went to the schools and universities that are conveyor belts for future political leaders, and all entered politics at an early age with minimal experience of the world the rest of us have to live in.

David Cameron ('Conservative') comes from a banking family steeped in royal and aristocratic bloodlines with close connections to the House of Rothschild. He attended the elite Eton College, where the royal children go, and went on to the Illuminati-owned Oxford University.

Eton has produced 20 British prime ministers while Oxford University has produced 26 - plus 28 overseas presidents and prime ministers. Eight of the last 12 British prime ministers have been Oxford graduates.

Nick Clegg ('Liberal Democrat') is the son of the chairman of United Trust Bank and Clegg's paternal grandmother, Kira von Engelhardt, of German-Russian and Ukrainian origin, was a Baroness in Imperial Russia. His great-great grandfather was the Ukrainian nobleman, Ignaty Zakrevsky, an attorney general of the Imperial Russian senate.

Another kid off the street, then. Clegg attended the elite private Westminster School and then Cambridge University, an Illuminati bedfellow of Oxford and known together as 'Oxbridge'. He also studied in America at the University of Minnesota.

Ed Miliband (Labour) is the son of the Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband and attended both Oxford University and that production line for Labour and Illuminati politicians, the London School of Economics, which was created, and is still controlled by, the Illuminati Fabian Society. He was also a visiting scholar at Harvard.

These are three political leaders who claim to stand for different things, but, in truth, occupy the same ground. They are all agreed on the basic structure of the system and society, that 9/11 and other false flag events happened as the official stories claim, that humans are causing 'climate change', and so on, and on.

Britain is a one-party state with no real choice of political options and this has been achieved through systematic manipulation over decades. The same in America and elsewhere.

Click here for details ...

I told the story in my 1995 book, ... And The Truth Shall Set You Free, of my meeting with a so-called Oxford 'don' (the name for a tutor/research fellow at Oxford University). Her name was Dr. Kitty Little.

Her scientific career has included research for the Ministry of Aircraft Production during the Second World War, followed by nine years at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell. She was also a long time researcher into the corruption and infiltration within British Intelligence.

In her conversation with me, and in her submission to the 1995 Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life, she revealed an attempt to recruit her to the Communist Party at Oxford University in 1940.

She said that the communists had gone 'underground' by joining the university Labour Party and she attended a meeting of a Labour Party 'study group' in a room at University College. The organisers had falsely believed that Dr. Little was 'one of them'.

The main speaker at the meeting, who clearly believed he was among friends, began to reveal the plot to 'destabilise the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, ready for a Marxist takeover'. She later realised that this was part of the plan to introduce a centralised global dictatorship.

Oxford University - a production line for Illuminati assets.

The plot was outlined by the speaker at this Oxford meeting to destroy United Kingdom defences, engineer a Marxist takeover of Rhodesia and South Africa, and to use what became known as the European Union as a smokescreen to hide the changeover to a centralised, Marxist, rule of Europe.

Remember, this was all said in 1940 before there was any talk of even the European Common Market, or European Economic Community (EEC), from which the European superstate was developed via the technique I call the Totalitarian Tiptoe. The plan was also to destroy British manufacturing industry, the Oxford speaker said, something else that has demonstrably happened.

He said there was a 'subversive organisation' with a political section and a 'biological section', the latter of which appears to have been headed by the late Lord Victor Rothschild, the infamous manipulator of British Intelligence.

Lord Victor Rothschild.

The speaker at the Oxford University meeting said that members of the political section were going to infiltrate the British parliament and civil service, some entering each of the political parties. Many would go into the right wing of the Labour Party (with its 'left-wing' image), others to the left wing of the Conservative Party (with its 'right wing' image). Eventually there would be a fusion into a new 'centre' party.

He said that the British distrusted extremists and so posing as 'moderates' occupying the centre ground would allow them to dismiss their opponents as 'right wing extremists'. This subversive organisation did not have a name, he said, because that would make it harder for people to prove it existed.

The speaker said that he had been chosen to be the head of the political section of this organisation and he expected himself one day to become the prime minister of the United Kingdom. All this was said in 1940 and that man did indeed become prime minister.

His name was Harold Wilson.

Wilson was the British prime minister throughout the period between 1964 and 1976, except for the four years between 1970 and 1974 when the Conservative Party leader, the Satanist and child-killer, Edward Heath, was in office. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath knew each other when they attended Oxford University (yet again), both were members of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group and close associates of Lord Victor Rothschild.

Wilson took over the Labour Party leadership with the death of Hugh Gaitskell in 1963. Significantly, Gaitskell was not in favour of a federal Europe and his death was very convenient because Wilson became leader at an opportune time that allowed him to quickly become the prime minister.

Not by co-incidence, I would suggest, a similar situation happened in 1994 when the Labour leader, John Smith, died at just the right time for Tony Blair to take over and later become prime minister for a decade.

So now here we are in the very situation that Harold Wilson predicted in 1940. Britain has three major political parties and two are now in a coalition government with the opposition Labour Party not a stone's throw away from them in terms of policy and direction, despite the propaganda.

As I have been saying for so long, the conspiracy is not put together on the hoof; it is planned in much detail decades and more in advance with its personnel and stooges carefully developed from an early age to play their part.

Four of a kind.

This is most certainly the case with Barack Obama, Boy George Bush, Bill Clinton, Father George Bush and so on, and it is no surprise, therefore, that America is also a one-party state where the name of the president changes, but little else.

The apparent differences have to be 'spun' and manufactured by way of the president's rhetoric, for, in substance, there are none. No-one could have appeared more different from Boy George Bush than Barack Obama during his election campaigns and yet nothing has changed.

Bush served the interests of the bankers and oil companies; Obama does the same; Bush sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq; Obama has massively increased troop numbers in Afghanistan and still has 50,000 in Iraq while selling the lie that the US has pulled the troops out; Bush used Guantanamo Bay to incarcerate and torture often innocent people; Obama said he would close it within a year, but it's still open.

The buzz-word to sell and promote the illusion of choice is ... change ... and they are all at it now. Obama's campaigns were founded on the constant repetition of the word 'change' to hide the fact that he was business-as-usual.

David Cameron's campaign to be prime minister was based on him 'standing for change' and this week the new Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said that his party, which spent 13 years devastating Britain's economy, fighting engineered wars and rolling out the Orwellian State, now stood for 'change'. Then we have Sarah Palin (a female Boy Bush with an intellect to match) talking about 'standing for change' as she targets a run for president in 2012.

Pull the bloody other one. 'Change' is just a holding position to entrap the public mind in the 'hope' that the next political glove-puppet will make some positive difference. This is like sitting on a carousel horse hoping that you will eventually catch the one in front. Don't hold your breath.

The Illuminati-instigated 'Tea Party' movement was devised to capture those who wanted a means to rebel against particularly the Republican Party and the way it offers no policy alternative to the Democrats.

But how can anything be 'change' or indeed be taken seriously as a political 'revolution', when its 'darling' is Sarah 'Change' Palin, the ludicrous vice-presidential candidate who was brought in specifically to undermine any chance that the elderly John McCain had of beating Obama in 2008.

The Tea Party movement is a blind alley, a cul-de-sac, because the system is not going to be changed through politics when politics as we know it was created from the start by the bloodline families to serve their interests after the population began to rebel against the overt dictatorship of royalty and aristocracy.

The crown and coronet became the dark suit and the 'ballot box' with the same force in control.

True rebellion and real change can only come when we begin to stop co-operating en masse with the system that enslaves us and seeks to make that slavery even more fierce and extreme.

It will not change if we think that the only way forward is to enter the system to change the system. It's been tried and it doesn't work because the system swallows up the rebel until he or she becomes the system.

Only when we stop co-operating with our own enslavement can that enslavement end. The rest is diversion.

It's a choice.




The Journal of History - Spring 2011 Copyright © 2011 by News Source, Inc.