offguardian--2020-10-31--On Course for a Coup

On Course for a Coup

Even the pundit class admits that the coming presidential election in the United States is shaping up to be an event like no other .
“ We ’ re in such a unique time that you don ’ t know what the next week is going to bring , ” burbled Harry Enten , an “ analyst ” for CNN , on October 15 about the impending face-off between incumbent Donald Trump ( a man who can ’ t even make his hair look plausible ) and Clueless Joe Biden , former Vice President of Vice and/or Senator from Senescence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freakin ’ thing in the entire world.
” Because , you see , there ’ s every reason to worry that the impending election isn ’ t going to be an election at all .
Though no mainstream commentator will say so out loud , the most important single fact about this contest is that it very possibly won ’ t determine the identity of the next president .
Both major political parties – despite their shrill disagreements over a whole host of pseudo-issues – seem united in their determination to prevent a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re edging dangerously close to delegitimizing the electoral system itself .
Which means , in plain language , that we may be heading for a coup .
Now , a problem on that scale should not have to be whispered from the margins .
But popular media steadfastly refuse to discuss the subject – and their silence speaks volumes about the sort of government our pundits actually favor , which ( whatever their pretensions to the contrary ) has little or nothing to do with democracy .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if you ’ re not worried , you should be .
Remember : this is the first American election held under the shadow of King Corona ; and if there ’ s one thing our public intellectuals have made clear over the last seven months , it ’ s that pedestrian details like constitutional “ due process ” or representative government count for nothing against our ruling class ’ s autocratic prescriptions for the public health .
Since March , a relentless series of edicts have turned state governors into virtual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , trashed the Bill of Rights , promoted political censorship of social media and made a bad joke of medical priorities – all for our own good , of course .
Why should democratic elections be immune from the same treatment ?
Oh yes , there are persistent mutterings that Donald Trump may refuse to “ concede ” the election , if ( as polls predict ) Joe Biden somehow manages to navigate to victory through the murky waters of his own incomprehension .
But this is mere chatter .
No law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and no one even casually familiar with Trump ’ s record would expect him to do any such thing , no matter what happens on or after election night .
But while formal concessions are dispensable , two other things are not .
First , each presidential election must cross certain legal thresholds – and must do so by specific deadlines – in order to facilitate the balloting of an Electoral College .
Second , and perhaps even more important , the electoral process must be accepted as legitimate by the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can we count on either requirement being met this time around ?
True , at least since the Hayes-Tilden debacle of 1876 , the necessary conditions have been satisfied so readily that they ’ ve never become public issues .
But today we face a mainstream media that is running at full anti-democracy throttle – smearing defenders of civil rights as a “ death cult , ” while ignoring more than forty state governors as they upend the Constitution with a spree of unilateral diktats .
Under these conditions , what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from claiming legal grounds to derail the election of 2020 altogether – and then shoehorning into office whatever corporate shill can be installed with a minimum of squawking from an already cowed populace ?
Make no mistake : both political parties are shoring up the groundwork for just such a denouement .
That Trump and his fellow gangsters are dishonest enough to reject an adverse election result need hardly be said .
As I write this , the same Republican senators who piously insisted that Barack Obama had no right to appoint a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his term are ramming through the confirmation of a cult-worshiping crackpot to that same court in the final weeks of Donald Trump ’ s .
If Trump loses on November 3 , we can expect Mitch McConnell and his minions to block or delay the convening of the Electoral College past its legal deadline , and then to deadpan to the press that the election doesn ’ t count because it didn ’ t finish in time .
And the Democrats ?
Well , maybe it ’ s too much to expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has trouble remembering the name of the office he ’ s running for would put up any principled opposition to a threatened coup .
But McConnell himself could hardly have asked for a more perfect dance partner in his This-Is-No-Real-Election two-step .
By insisting on an unprecedented and risky regime of massive mail-in voting , the Democrats have virtually guaranteed two things : that Republicans will claim fraud if their candidate appears to be on the losing side ; and that , even under the best of circumstances , the counting of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to stir public doubts about the certainty of the result .
That would be bad enough in any election .
In this one , it could be disastrous .
What with all the pundits and the tame “ experts ” screaming at us that if we don ’ t obey Big Brother we ’ ll all drop dead , it ’ s quite possible that the public will acquiesce in a coup if the Right Thinkers tell us that elections aren ’ t good for us and that our job is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they decide how to govern our country for us .
In fact , if you ask me , they ’ re already halfway there .
The closer we get to Election Day , the more intense and invasive is the bludgeoning of the fear porn .
According to the latest propaganda , inviting family members to his home to watch movies – yes , to watch movies !
– was enough to make a Trump supporter guilty of mass murder .
A magically-timed Hulu documentary , Totally under Control , ushers us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ relentless downplaying ” of the virus “ led us to where we are now , with a devastated economy and more than 200,000 Americans dead.
” ( Boy , “ downplaying ” must be potent stuff . )
Even small children are being dragged into the terror campaign : where I live , Halloween trick-or-treating has just been banned “ due to the safety concerns regarding COVID19.
” The more pretentious among us may have missed those tidbits , but they can still get their propaganda fix from the strait-laced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago , PBS ’ s mouthpiece Judy Woodruff demanded of Francis Collins , director of the National Institutes of Health , how he plans to save Americans from extinction now that one state ( Wisconsin ) is actually considering allowing people to walk around without muzzles .
The good doctor deplored such moral laxity , of course , hinting broadly that “ people are dying ” because of ( you guessed it ) Donald Trump , who committed the unpardonable sin of insulting Anthony Fauci , that “ wonderful communicator.
” And what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and very serious ” ?
Well , it seems that in the week leading up to the interview there had been “ more than 775 deaths [ of people with COVID19 ] a day.
” Never mind that 1,800 people in the U.S. – more than twice that number – die every day from heart disease .
“ Hey , we ’ re Americans .
We ’ re not stupid , ” Dr. Collins concluded cheerfully .
We know the Black Death when we see it .
Or if we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need a new President .
So please , if the upcoming election is replaced by a putsch , let ’ s not say we had no warning .
A canceled presidential election would be a new and ugly reality .
So would street violence over the legitimacy of the balloting .
But the assault on democracy , under cover of coronavirus hysteria , has been building steadily for months .
The whole mail-in voting travesty , which may lead to a coup at the highest levels of U.S. government , is only one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less dramatic coup that sprouted at the state level last March and has been slowly sweeping away democratic principles ever since .
The sidelining of legislatures , “ executive orders ” issued in the absence of any emergency , mass house arrest without a warrant , “ quarantines ” without court orders , the wholesale destruction of small businesses in the absence of any legal recourse , restraints on public demonstrations , the censorship of dissent – all of these were not only evils in themselves , but were ominous harbingers of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of popular government .
And our so-called liberals knew all along what sort of false fire they were playing with .
Even the Atlantic , one of the most consistent organs of coronavirus propaganda , now concedes that all the hysteria about deadly voting booths was groundless – that , in fact , “ voting with a mask on is no more dangerous than going to a grocery store with a mask on – something millions of Americans do every week.
” Actually , masks have no provable effect on viral transmission in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Atlantic ’ s admission is that the whole scare campaign about normal voting – like nearly everything else the “ experts ” have been yelling at us – was a fraud .
And it was a fraud that only strengthened the case for an invalidated election , a fact that was staring the Democrats in the face when they started bleating for mail-in voting .
Either they were unpardonably stupid , or – as I tend to think – they were getting tired of democracy and were just about ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal with other political rainmakers .
I hope my fears about the jettisoning of the electoral process prove to be premature .
But the American public has never had a more tenuous grasp on the traditional institutions of democracy than it does now .
With four-fifths of our governors already acting like dictators , with both major parties working hand in hand to delegitimize the election of a president , and with a mass media that stubbornly refuses to report these facts , we won ’ t preserve democracy by doing nothing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week ’ s time .
But if we don ’ t want to see it collapse sooner or later – and probably sooner – we had better start taking politics into our own hands .
Bleak as our prospects may seem now , the alternatives are bound to be worse .
Michael Lesher is an author , poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse .
His latest nonfiction book is Sexual Abuse , Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; his first collection of poetry , Surfaces , was published by The High Window in 2019 .
A memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back : The Personal Journey of a “ Born-Again ” Jew – will be published in September 2020 by Lincoln Square Books .

Michael Lesher
Even the pundit class admits that the coming presidential election in the United States is shaping up to be an event like no other.
“We’re in such a unique time that you don’t know what the next week is going to bring,” burbled Harry Enten, an “analyst” for CNN, on October 15 about the impending face-off between incumbent Donald Trump (a man who can’t even make his hair look plausible) and Clueless Joe Biden, former Vice President of Vice and/or Senator from Senescence. “This is the most insane freakin’ thing in the entire world.”
Close, Mr. Enten. But no cigar.
Because, you see, there’s every reason to worry that the impending election isn’t going to be an election at all. Though no mainstream commentator will say so out loud, the most important single fact about this contest is that it very possibly won’t determine the identity of the next president. Both major political parties – despite their shrill disagreements over a whole host of pseudo-issues – seem united in their determination to prevent a decisive result. And in the process, they’re edging dangerously close to delegitimizing the electoral system itself.
Which means, in plain language, that we may be heading for a coup.
Now, a problem on that scale should not have to be whispered from the margins. But popular media steadfastly refuse to discuss the subject – and their silence speaks volumes about the sort of government our pundits actually favor, which (whatever their pretensions to the contrary) has little or nothing to do with democracy.
That’s the elephant in the room, folks. And if you’re not worried, you should be.
Remember: this is the first American election held under the shadow of King Corona; and if there’s one thing our public intellectuals have made clear over the last seven months, it’s that pedestrian details like constitutional “due process” or representative government count for nothing against our ruling class’s autocratic prescriptions for the public health. Since March, a relentless series of edicts have turned state governors into virtual dictators, destroyed tens of millions of jobs, trashed the Bill of Rights, promoted political censorship of social media and made a bad joke of medical priorities – all for our own good, of course.
Why should democratic elections be immune from the same treatment?
Oh yes, there are persistent mutterings that Donald Trump may refuse to “concede” the election, if (as polls predict) Joe Biden somehow manages to navigate to victory through the murky waters of his own incomprehension. But this is mere chatter. No law requires a candidate to “concede,” and no one even casually familiar with Trump’s record would expect him to do any such thing, no matter what happens on or after election night.
But while formal concessions are dispensable, two other things are not. First, each presidential election must cross certain legal thresholds – and must do so by specific deadlines – in order to facilitate the balloting of an Electoral College. Second, and perhaps even more important, the electoral process must be accepted as legitimate by the people who are to be governed by it.
Can we count on either requirement being met this time around?
True, at least since the Hayes-Tilden debacle of 1876, the necessary conditions have been satisfied so readily that they’ve never become public issues. But today we face a mainstream media that is running at full anti-democracy throttle – smearing defenders of civil rights as a “death cult,” while ignoring more than forty state governors as they upend the Constitution with a spree of unilateral diktats. Under these conditions, what’s to stop the powers that be from claiming legal grounds to derail the election of 2020 altogether – and then shoehorning into office whatever corporate shill can be installed with a minimum of squawking from an already cowed populace?
Make no mistake: both political parties are shoring up the groundwork for just such a denouement.
That Trump and his fellow gangsters are dishonest enough to reject an adverse election result need hardly be said. As I write this, the same Republican senators who piously insisted that Barack Obama had no right to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his term are ramming through the confirmation of a cult-worshiping crackpot to that same court in the final weeks of Donald Trump’s. If Trump loses on November 3, we can expect Mitch McConnell and his minions to block or delay the convening of the Electoral College past its legal deadline, and then to deadpan to the press that the election doesn’t count because it didn’t finish in time.
And the Democrats? Well, maybe it’s too much to expect that the champions of an old plagiarist who has trouble remembering the name of the office he’s running for would put up any principled opposition to a threatened coup. But McConnell himself could hardly have asked for a more perfect dance partner in his This-Is-No-Real-Election two-step. By insisting on an unprecedented and risky regime of massive mail-in voting, the Democrats have virtually guaranteed two things: that Republicans will claim fraud if their candidate appears to be on the losing side; and that, even under the best of circumstances, the counting of the ballots will be slow and complicated enough to stir public doubts about the certainty of the result.
That would be bad enough in any election. In this one, it could be disastrous. What with all the pundits and the tame “experts” screaming at us that if we don’t obey Big Brother we’ll all drop dead, it’s quite possible that the public will acquiesce in a coup if the Right Thinkers tell us that elections aren’t good for us and that our job is to “stay safe” at home while they decide how to govern our country for us.
In fact, if you ask me, they’re already halfway there. The closer we get to Election Day, the more intense and invasive is the bludgeoning of the fear porn. According to the latest propaganda, inviting family members to his home to watch movies – yes, to watch movies! – was enough to make a Trump supporter guilty of mass murder. A magically-timed Hulu documentary, Totally under Control, ushers us to the polls with the claim that Trump’s “relentless downplaying” of the virus “led us to where we are now, with a devastated economy and more than 200,000 Americans dead.” (Boy, “downplaying” must be potent stuff.) Even small children are being dragged into the terror campaign: where I live, Halloween trick-or-treating has just been banned “due to the safety concerns regarding COVID19.”
The more pretentious among us may have missed those tidbits, but they can still get their propaganda fix from the strait-laced Public Broadcasting System. A few days ago, PBS’s mouthpiece Judy Woodruff demanded of Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, how he plans to save Americans from extinction now that one state (Wisconsin) is actually considering allowing people to walk around without muzzles. The good doctor deplored such moral laxity, of course, hinting broadly that “people are dying” because of (you guessed it) Donald Trump, who committed the unpardonable sin of insulting Anthony Fauci, that “wonderful communicator.”
And what makes the coronavirus so uniquely “significant and very serious”? Well, it seems that in the week leading up to the interview there had been “more than 775 deaths [of people with COVID19] a day.” Never mind that 1,800 people in the U.S. – more than twice that number – die every day from heart disease. “Hey, we’re Americans. We’re not stupid,” Dr. Collins concluded cheerfully. We know the Black Death when we see it. Or if we don’t – well, then, we obviously need a new President.
So please, if the upcoming election is replaced by a putsch, let’s not say we had no warning. A canceled presidential election would be a new and ugly reality. So would street violence over the legitimacy of the balloting.
But the assault on democracy, under cover of coronavirus hysteria, has been building steadily for months. The whole mail-in voting travesty, which may lead to a coup at the highest levels of U.S. government, is only one element of a larger and only slightly less dramatic coup that sprouted at the state level last March and has been slowly sweeping away democratic principles ever since.
The sidelining of legislatures, “executive orders” issued in the absence of any emergency, mass house arrest without a warrant, “quarantines” without court orders, the wholesale destruction of small businesses in the absence of any legal recourse, restraints on public demonstrations, the censorship of dissent – all of these were not only evils in themselves, but were ominous harbingers of an even more drastic attack on the principle of popular government.
And our so-called liberals knew all along what sort of false fire they were playing with. Even the Atlantic, one of the most consistent organs of coronavirus propaganda, now concedes that all the hysteria about deadly voting booths was groundless – that, in fact, “voting with a mask on is no more dangerous than going to a grocery store with a mask on – something millions of Americans do every week.” Actually, masks have no provable effect on viral transmission in the first place, so the upshot of the Atlantic’s admission is that the whole scare campaign about normal voting – like nearly everything else the “experts” have been yelling at us – was a fraud. And it was a fraud that only strengthened the case for an invalidated election, a fact that was staring the Democrats in the face when they started bleating for mail-in voting. Either they were unpardonably stupid, or – as I tend to think – they were getting tired of democracy and were just about ready to pick the next President in a back-room deal with other political rainmakers.
I hope my fears about the jettisoning of the electoral process prove to be premature. But the American public has never had a more tenuous grasp on the traditional institutions of democracy than it does now. With four-fifths of our governors already acting like dictators, with both major parties working hand in hand to delegitimize the election of a president, and with a mass media that stubbornly refuses to report these facts, we won’t preserve democracy by doing nothing.
The constitutional system may not collapse in a week’s time. But if we don’t want to see it collapse sooner or later – and probably sooner – we had better start taking politics into our own hands.
Bleak as our prospects may seem now, the alternatives are bound to be worse.
Michael Lesher is an author, poet and lawyer whose legal work is mostly dedicated to issues connected with domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. His latest nonfiction book is Sexual Abuse, Shonda and Concealment in Orthodox Jewish Communities (McFarland & Co., 2014); his first collection of poetry, Surfaces, was published by The High Window in 2019. A memoir of his discovery of Orthodox Judaism as an adult – Turning Back: The Personal Journey of a “Born-Again” Jew – will be published in September 2020 by Lincoln Square Books.


offguardian--2020-11-01--New Lockdowns Announced in UK

New Lockdowns Announced in UK

So , during ‘ Prime Minister ’ s statement on coronavirus , 31 October 2020 ’ , the usual trio of Johnson , Whitty and Vallance ‘ did their thing ’ once again , and sold us a lie .
We were shown some graph projections , made by the same people who were wrong in all their previous graph projections and which lacked any context whatsoever ( like , for instance , what did last autumn ’ s hospital admissions look like by comparison ? )
.
Yet these graphs were nevertheless unanimously and alarmingly clear , apparently : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk from the RONA , don ’ t you know , and we need a further 4 weeks of lockdown .
Although initially sold as ‘ time-limited ’ , Michael Gove has already announced this will be extended if their computer models happen to show the mythical ‘ R ’ rating hasn ’ t gone down far enough .
So , consider yourselves primed .
Johnson described this latest lockdown as “ less prohibitive and less restrictive ” than April/March , although even the most lay of laymen will be acutely aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this lockdown will be .
This lockdown will further widen the rich/poor divide , further depress the UK economy by shutting down ‘ non-essential ’ businesses etc.
, further isolate the young , needy and vulnerable and further cheapen the lives of the very elderly people whose wellbeing has endlessly and hypocritically been used to justify this evil charade .
And even if I could now double [ hospital ] capacity overnight – and obviously I am proud that we have massively increased capacity , we do have the Nightingales , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than last year , we have many more doctors – but it still would not be enough , because the virus is doubling faster than we could conceivably add capacity .
So you see , anything that could possibly have been done would never have been enough .
They know this .
That ’ s probably the only reason they didn ’ t massively boost the NHS during the quiet summer months , despite the fact they ’ ve been warning of a possible resurgence for ages .
You aren ’ t being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very clear on that point .
Move along now .
Oh… .
and the army will be on our streets this time , testing lots and lots of people .
Won ’ t that be nice .
Johnson stated ( our emphasis ) : “ …over the next few days and weeks , we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests .
Applying them in an ever-growing number of situations From helping women to have their partners with them in labour wards when they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even whole cities The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days .
Working with local communities , local government , public health directors and organisations of all kinds to help people discover whether or not they are infectious , and then immediately to get them to self-isolate and to stop the spread ” You may remember we warned this was looming back in early October , when MP and 77th Brigade reserve officer Tobias Ellwood stood up in Parliament to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was listened to .
Or , at least , he popped up to ask a convenient question and plug a narrative hole at an opportune time .
Throughout this Number Ten briefing , Johnson/Vallance/Whitty seemed a bit nonchalant this time around , as they condescended to inform the unwashed masses of their fate .
Or perhaps they were overcompensating , for there was a certain tenseness about their eyes , as of someone placing a powerful mousetrap behind a wardrobe… Please , feel free to discuss below !

Samuel May
So, during ‘Prime Minister’s statement on coronavirus, 31 October 2020’, the usual trio of Johnson, Whitty and Vallance ‘did their thing’ once again, and sold us a lie.
We were shown some graph projections, made by the same people who were wrong in all their previous graph projections and which lacked any context whatsoever (like, for instance, what did last autumn’s hospital admissions look like by comparison?).
Yet these graphs were nevertheless unanimously and alarmingly clear, apparently: We’re all terribly, terribly at risk from the RONA, don’t you know, and we need a further 4 weeks of lockdown.
Johnson said:
From Thursday until the start of December, you must stay at home.
Although initially sold as ‘time-limited’, Michael Gove has already announced this will be extended if their computer models happen to show the mythical ‘R’ rating hasn’t gone down far enough.
So, consider yourselves primed.
Johnson described this latest lockdown as “less prohibitive and less restrictive” than April/March, although even the most lay of laymen will be acutely aware by now of what the true repercussions of this lockdown will be.
This lockdown will further widen the rich/poor divide, further depress the UK economy by shutting down ‘non-essential’ businesses etc., further isolate the young, needy and vulnerable and further cheapen the lives of the very elderly people whose wellbeing has endlessly and hypocritically been used to justify this evil charade.
Johnson said:
And even if I could now double [hospital] capacity overnight – and obviously I am proud that we have massively increased capacity, we do have the Nightingales, we’ve got 13,000 more nurses now than last year, we have many more doctors – but it still would not be enough, because the virus is doubling faster than we could conceivably add capacity.
So you see, anything that could possibly have been done would never have been enough. They know this. That’s probably the only reason they didn’t massively boost the NHS during the quiet summer months, despite the fact they’ve been warning of a possible resurgence for ages. You aren’t being conned here. We need to be very clear on that point. Move along now.
Oh…. and the army will be on our streets this time, testing lots and lots of people. Won’t that be nice. Johnson stated (our emphasis):
“…over the next few days and weeks, we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests. Applying them in an ever-growing number of situations From helping women to have their partners with them in labour wards when they’re giving birth to testing whole towns and even whole cities The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days. Working with local communities, local government, public health directors and organisations of all kinds to help people discover whether or not they are infectious, and then immediately to get them to self-isolate and to stop the spread”
You may remember we warned this was looming back in early October, when MP and 77th Brigade reserve officer Tobias Ellwood stood up in Parliament to request greater military involvement. It seems he was listened to. Or, at least, he popped up to ask a convenient question and plug a narrative hole at an opportune time.
Throughout this Number Ten briefing, Johnson/Vallance/Whitty seemed a bit nonchalant this time around, as they condescended to inform the unwashed masses of their fate. Or perhaps they were overcompensating, for there was a certain tenseness about their eyes, as of someone placing a powerful mousetrap behind a wardrobe…
Please, feel free to discuss below!


offguardian--2020-11-02--This Week in the Guardian #16 – Presidential Election Special

Biden well definitely win , he certainly didn ’ t cheat , postal ballots are great , and don ’ t worry the US will be back to “ world leadership ” and “ democracy promotion ” in no time .
The Big Day is almost upon us .
Soon Orange Man Bad will be banished back the nether-realm , and good old ( not at all creepy ) Uncle Joe will be in charge .
Briefly .
Until he loses the few faculties remaining to him , and we get landed with President Kamala Harris .
A politician so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couldn ’ t even ride the triple identity coups of being black AND Indian AND a woman to success .
Our friends at The Guardian have been busier than Christmas elves on this one .
They all likely have opinion pieces ready for morning after election night .
Stuff about healing and growing .
( Maybe they ’ ll just use the same column they were going to use last time , but change all the “ Hillarys ” to “ Bidens ” using find and replace ) .
Joe Biden : from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump for the presidency This long piece tells an interesting story , just not the one it thinks it ’ s telling .
They try to spin the tale of Biden ’ s Lazarus-like presidential campaign , without coming to logical conclusion that presents itself .
I ’ m going to bullet point out the narrative here , and see if you can spot the glaringly obvious idea , which the the Guardian seems to miss : • He was seen as old fashioned and non-progressive , but had powerful financial backers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ embarrassingly badly .
• There was a generalised panic in the DNC that Sanders might win the nomination .
• Biden wins the 4th primary by a landslide in a “ miraculous turnaround ” .
• All the other candidates start dropping out one-by-one and endorsing Biden .
It ’ s fairly clear what ’ s going on here , no ?
Is Biden going to win ?
The short answer to this appears to be “ yes !
” .
They have not 1 , not 2 , but 3 separate articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoted entirely to citing polls and then saying “ yes , the polls said Hillary would win , but this is different ” .
Thank god for those leaps forward in polling technology , amirite ?
Of course this nailed-down certainty of victory is , in an of itself , a tactic .
It doesn ’ t necessarily mean the result is a foregone conclusion .
But it really feels like the result is fixed for Biden , and everyone knows it .
Bu…that is what we said last time , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ?
Since it ’ s almost certain Good Joe is going to beat Bad Donald ( yes , that ’ s really the level of political analysis we ’ re dealing with here ) , maybe we should focus on Joe is going to do when he ’ s in office .
There ’ s lots of talk about that ( and none of what will happen if Trump wins , further suggesting a fixed result ) .
Robert Reich thinks Biden should “ fix democracy ” .
“ Fix ” being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should “ reform ” the electoral college and the Supreme Court , as well as adding more Senators for certain states and even splitting california into two states ( thus doubling it ’ s senator count ) .
This would apparently make democracy “ fairer ” , and not in anyway simply give voting power to traditionally democratic states .
Simon Tisdall is in ecstasy as he expects Biden to resume the US ’ s “ global leadership ” .
Jeffrey Frankel says Biden is “ safe hands for the eocnomy ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Biden ’ s first 100 days , to “ fight the coronavirus ” .
There will likely be a “ national mask mandate ” and moves to “ counter disinformation.
” But by far the worst offender – and a solid contender for the worst , most dishonest article of the year – is this piece from Richard Wolffe .
In it he laments that Trump has “ damaged US democracy ” , by suggesting it could be corrupt ( without ever mentioning all the evidence that it is so ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ focusing on democracy promotion ” ( yes , seriously ) : He goes in to raptures about how Biden will resume US efforts to “ spread democracy ” .
It is quasi-masturbatory Imperialist garbage .
And it ’ s likely just a taste of what ’ s in store should Biden win .
No coverage at all of the Hunter Biden laptop story , or even a discussion about his obviously corrupt employment by Ukrainian energy giant Burisma .
( Imagine the news if Trump ’ s government had backed a change of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. had been given a job in the largest Venezuelan oil company ) .
One step further , the only talk about the Biden e-mails we get is one column claiming Facebook and Twitter were right to censor the information “ because it might be false ” , and they should do it more often .
And another which , with a straight face , says : …this from a paper which published a proven falsehood on its front page , and never apologised or retracted it ( in fact , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Guardian ( along with most of the media ) is really keen on mail-in ballots , and wants you all to know that they are NOT easier to cheat with .
As we have written before , this is historically completely incorrect – postal ballots are far more susceptibale to voter fraud .
This article is actually just reprint of something they ran in August – both times it was paid-for content by non-governmental organizations .
BONUS 2 : Don ’ t worry , the military will only get involved “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire column dedicated to the US military ’ s involvment in the election seems bizarre…but there is one .
Don ’ t worry they would “ prefer not to get involved ” and will likely only be forced to act “ if the result is very close ” and/or someone contests the elections .
It ’ s a strange article , it doesn ’ t have an author attached to it , and seems to be answering a question no one asked .
Or apologising for some slight no one has committed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ justification for crime yet to come to light .
“ We HAD to rig the election , because if it had been close then Trump would have contested the vote and the military would have got involved.
” Maybe I ’ m reading too much into it .
But it is very odd .
So , here is the Guardian ’ s story of election laid out in nice neat terms : • When he ’ s won he ’ ll change the laws and courts .
• Really , he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad for democracy .
• The US will resume “ democracy promotion ” and “ world leadership ” once he ’ s in charge .
• The US military don ’ t want to be involved but they might have to if it ’ s close .
All told , a busy week for The Guardian .
And we didn ’ t even mention how “ women will decide this election ” , or how Trump “ supercharged Russian disinformation ” has gone into overdrive .
Did we miss anything ?
Tell us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and keep an eye out for articles that should go in the next issue ( hopefully not about the coronavirus ) .

Biden well definitely win, he certainly didn’t cheat, postal ballots are great, and don’t worry the US will be back to “world leadership” and “democracy promotion” in no time.
The Big Day is almost upon us. Soon Orange Man Bad will be banished back the nether-realm, and good old (not at all creepy) Uncle Joe will be in charge. Briefly. Until he loses the few faculties remaining to him, and we get landed with President Kamala Harris. A politician so incredibly unpopular within her own party she couldn’t even ride the triple identity coups of being black AND Indian AND a woman to success.
Our friends at The Guardian have been busier than Christmas elves on this one. They all likely have opinion pieces ready for morning after election night. Stuff about healing and growing. (Maybe they’ll just use the same column they were going to use last time, but change all the “Hillarys” to “Bidens” using find and replace).
This long piece tells an interesting story, just not the one it thinks it’s telling. They try to spin the tale of Biden’s Lazarus-like presidential campaign, without coming to the logical conclusion that presents itself.
I’m going to bullet point out the narrative here, and see if you can spot the glaringly obvious idea, which the Guardian seems to miss:
Joe Biden was a late entrant to a crowded Democratic field.
He was seen as old fashioned and non-progressive, but had powerful financial backers.
He lost the first three primaries embarrassingly badly.
There was a generalised panic in the DNC that Sanders might win the nomination.
Biden wins the 4th primary by a landslide in a “miraculous turnaround”.
All the other candidates start dropping out one-by-one and endorsing Biden.
It’s fairly clear what’s going on here, no?
Is Biden going to win?
The short answer to this appears to be “yes!”. They have not 1, not 2, but 3 separate articles saying as much. Many of them devoted entirely to citing polls and then saying “yes, the polls said Hillary would win, but this is different”.
For example:
Polling is better now, and Biden’s lead is larger than Hillary Clinton’s was.”
Thank god for those leaps forward in polling technology, amirite?
Of course this nailed-down certainty of victory is, in and of itself, a tactic. It doesn’t necessarily mean the result is a foregone conclusion. But it really feels like the result is fixed for Biden, and everyone knows it.
Bu…that is what we said last time, too.
OK, so Biden won, now what?
Since it’s almost certain Good Joe is going to beat Bad Donald (yes, that’s really the level of political analysis we’re dealing with here), maybe we should focus on what Joe is going to do when he’s in office.
There’s lots of talk about that (and none of what will happen if Trump wins, further suggesting a fixed result).
Robert Reich thinks Biden should “fix democracy”. “Fix” being the perfect word. He thinks they should “reform” the electoral college and the Supreme Court, as well as adding more Senators for certain states and even splitting california into two states (thus doubling it’s senator count). This would apparently make democracy “fairer”, and not in anyway simply give voting power to traditionally democratic states.
Simon Tisdall is in ecstasy as he expects Biden to resume the US’s “global leadership”. Jeffrey Frankel says Biden is “safe hands for the eocnomy”.
This article promises “something big” in Biden’s first 100 days, to “fight the coronavirus”. There will likely be a “national mask mandate” and moves to “counter disinformation.”
But by far the worst offender – and a solid contender for the worst, most dishonest article of the year – is this piece from Richard Wolffe.
In it he laments that Trump has “damaged US democracy”, by suggesting it could be corrupt (without ever mentioning all the evidence that it is so). He praises US foreign policy for “focusing on democracy promotion” (yes, seriously):
For most of the last 30 years, since the fall of the Soviet Union, democracy promotion has been a mainstay of American foreign policy […] the US plays a central role in spreading democratic government around the world.
He goes in to raptures about how Biden will resume US efforts to “spread democracy”. It is quasi-masturbatory Imperialist garbage. And it’s likely just a taste of what’s in store should Biden win.
Hunter who?
No coverage at all of the Hunter Biden laptop story, or even a discussion about his obviously corrupt employment by Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. (Imagine the news if Trump’s government had backed a change of government in Venezuela, and then Donald Jr. had been given a job in the largest Venezuelan oil company).
One step further, the only talk about the Biden e-mails we get is one column claiming Facebook and Twitter were right to censor the information “because it might be false”, and they should do it more often. And another which, with a straight face, says:
Media organisations shouldn’t publish allegations unless they believe them to be true, after making appropriate checks.
…this from a paper which published a proven falsehood on its front page, and never apologised or retracted it (in fact, it’s still there to this day).
Bonus 1: Vote by mail!
The Guardian (along with most of the media) is really keen on mail-in ballots, and wants you all to know that they are NOT easier to cheat with. As we have written before, this is historically completely incorrect – postal ballots are far more susceptibale to voter fraud. This article is actually just a reprint of something they ran in August – both times it was paid-for content by non-governmental organizations.
BONUS 2: Don’t worry, the military will only get involved “if it’s close”
An entire column dedicated to the US military’s involvment in the election seems bizarre…but there is one. Don’t worry they would “prefer not to get involved” and will likely only be forced to act “if the result is very close” and/or someone contests the elections.
It’s a strange article, it doesn’t have an author attached to it, and seems to be answering a question no one asked. Or apologising for some slight no one has committed. What it feels like, is a justification for crime yet to come to light. “We HAD to rig the election, because if it had been close then Trump would have contested the vote and the military would have got involved.”
Maybe I’m reading too much into it. But it is very odd.
*
So, here is the Guardian’s story of election laid out in nice neat terms:
Biden will win. He didn’t cheat. When he’s won he’ll change the laws and courts. Really, he didn’t cheat. Even suggesting it is bad for democracy. The US will resume “democracy promotion” and “world leadership” once he’s in charge. The US military don’t want to be involved but they might have to if it’s close. Seriously, he didn’t cheat.
*
All told, a busy week for The Guardian. And we didn’t even mention how “women will decide this election”, or how Trump “supercharged Russian disinformation” has gone into overdrive.
Did we miss anything? Tell us about it in the comments below, and keep an eye out for articles that should go in the next issue (hopefully not about the coronavirus).


offguardian--2020-11-04--‘Remember Remember the 5th of November…’

At midnight tonight , November 4-5 a second lockdown begins in the UK , with scant justification and amid a storm of propaganda .
On the same day at the same time 415 years earlier another momentous event was announced , amid a similar storm of propaganda .
While not obviously connected in any way the juxtaposition reminds us that official narratives always require interrogation and always will .
According to historians of the gunpowder plot , the official story of this event concealed the extent to which the British establishment of the day may have enhanced their popularity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events that drew Britain into decades of profitable war against Catholic Spain and Portugal .
Most recently , this view has been expressed by John Hamer ( in his Falsification of History ) and by Webster Tarpley ( in his videos about the Gunpowder Plot ) .
The earliest and fullest account however occurs in John Gerard ’ s 1897 book , What was the Gunpowder Plot ?
Gerard ’ s detailed investigation concludes that “ the government consistently falsified the story ” .
Since this is the earliest account to openly declare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA ’ s label of ‘ conspiracy theory ’ by some seventy years , it is worth reviewing the evidence underpinning this statement .
For , understanding the context will highlight the problems that undermine the faithful reporting of events .
So , within the constraints of this article , we will look at a sample of the evidence presented by Gerard and follow-up by considering the lessons for the current government ’ s handling of the second lockdown decision .
Before looking at the anomalies highlighted by Gerard , let us remind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official narrative .
According to the story released by Sir Robert Cecil in November 1605 , there was a Catholic conspiracy in 1605 to blow up the House of Lords on 5 November , one that involved thirteen men and extended up to the Papacy itself .
The conspirators had allegedly constructed a tunnel to a cellar in Westminster Palace , in which 36 barrels of gunpowder were left with a view to blowing up Parliament .
Part of the official story also recounted how the plot was revealed ten days before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a letter delivered to a Lord Monteagle .
This allowed the plot to be ‘ foiled ’ at midnight on 4 November .
Guy Fawkes had allegedly planned his getaway to Flanders , but he and his co-conspirators were instead executed , and the English peace treaty with Spain , signed in 1604 , was sidelined allowed to give way to a century of war between the two countries .
In fact , so great was the perceived threat to national security that it was officially compulsory in Britain until 1859 to celebrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November .
Does the official story stand up to scrutiny ?
In 1897 John Gerard opined that Gerard highlighted a number of anomalies .
Below are some of the most notable .
Anomalies in the official narrative In terms of the official motives for the attack – the destruction of Parliament – Gerard quite reasonably asks why Catholic plotters would wish to blow up Parliament when it housed not only Protestants but also all of the country ’ s leading Catholics ?
He asks moreover why , if the plot was foiled at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barrels of gunpowder had been left in the ‘ cellar ’ under the House of Lords , the opening of Parliament was allowed to proceed on 5 November .
For , he reports that there is no evidence that the barrels had been removed .
These are important points concerning the motives but the anomalies do not stop there .
For Gerard goes on to highlight an extraordinary number of these , with just a small sample summarised in the following nine points : • Breaking the news : the anonymous letter by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plot was delivered in the first instance to Lord Monteagle ten days before the opening of Parliament .
It was brought to Monteagle ’ s house at Hoxton where he had ordered dinner for himself , despite his not having resided at this London property for at least 12 months .
After this , Monteagle received a bequest from the king equivalent to c.£20,000 a year with around £6,000 of this offered in perpetuity to his heirs .
• Operations HQ : the base of operations was said to be in a house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was only available to one of the alleged conspirators , Thomas Percy , when Parliament was not in session • The cellar : the so-called ‘ cellar ’ used by Guy Fawkes was located at ground level under the old House of Lords , a chamber on the first floor .
It was capacious ( measuring 77 feet in length ) and not a secure location since the Lord Chamberlain is documented as entering the room with no difficulty on 4 November .
• The tunnel through to Parliament : it is alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tunnel through to the ‘ cellar ’ since January 1605 .
However , Gerard quite reasonably asks how this activity could have gone unnoticed not only by the government but also by the entire neighbourhood ?
For example he asks , how would the mass of soil and large foundation stones from the cellar have been concealed ?
The official story stated that the debris was concealed beneath the turf in the adjoining garden but the great foundation stones could not have been so easily hidden .
What of the noise from breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not noticed ?
How , moreover , would timber beams have been secretly passed through to the ‘ cellar ’ to shore up the roof ?
No evidence has subsequently been revealed of any tunnel .
• Gunpowder : in 1605 , the manufacture of gunpowder was a government monopoly .
So , given that the 36 barrels allegedly deposited in the cellar by the conspirators would have amounted to a massive 4 tons ( more than a quarter what , in 1607 , was delivered from the royal store for all purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been obtained ?
He also asks how : • the first 20 barrels , allegedly stored at Lambeth could have been ferried across the river , down Parliament Place ( ‘ as busy a quarter as any in the city of Westminster ’ ) without attracting attention .
• He also points out that after the plot was uncovered , ‘ minute and searching ’ inquiries were made concerning the conspirators ( their haunts , lodgings , where they purchased the iron bars laid on top of the barrels ) but no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gunpowder and who had provided it .
• Arrest of Guy Fawkes : the accounts of this are inconsistent .
According to the King ’ s book , Fawkes was arrested in the street ; according to a letter from Sir Robert Cecil to the Ambassadors overseas , he was arrested in the ‘ cellar ’ ; in his confession of 5 November , Fawkes speaks of being caught in his own room .
• Opening of Parliament : the gunpowder was discovered at midnight on 4 November but the peers met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that day .
As Gerard writes : ‘ It can not be supposed that 4 tons of powder could have been so soon removed or that the most valuable persons in the State would have been suffered to expose themselves to the risk of assembling in so perilous a situation ’ .
• Getaway by boat : it was said that Guy Fawkes was preparing his getaway by boat from London Bridge to Flanders , with a boat from Parliament stairs to convey him to the ship .
However , on 5 November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , as Gerard colourfully points out , ‘ to attempt to pass Old London Bridge against the tide would have been like trying to row up a waterfall ’ .
• Official accounts : Sir Robert Cecil was at pains to transmit the official story to the King of France on 6 November , including reference to 36 barrels of gunpowder , but his account was contradicted by that of the French embassy in London which only mentioned a single barrel of gunpowder .
Gerard ’ s doubts were voiced nearly three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Bishop of Armagh and primate of All Ireland , a prolific scholar and church leader , was heard to say that if the papists knew what he knew , the blame of the Gunpowder Treason would not lie with them .
Then , ten years later in 1615 , a spy , Floyde , testified to having frequently heard various Jesuits say that the government were aware of the plot several months before they thought fit to ‘ discover ’ it .
Moreover , there was a death-bed confession by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Robert Catesby , that he and Sir Robert Cecil met on three separate occasions in the period leading up to the night of 5 November .
Now to the second event happening at midnight on 4/5 November , the second lockdown .
The decision to lockdown Britain for a second time is one that is supported , like the official gunpowder plot narrative , by a story of fear and terror but in fact , perusal of official statistics and the legalities of the lockdown point to a lack of logic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law .
Taking the statistics first , weekly deaths during the previous lockdown were 4,000 -10,000 times higher than in the previous 3 months when coronavirus deaths were in fact 5 % below average rates .
Then , in the period of July to September following lockdown , weekly deaths fell to 1-2 % below average , showing that the experience of lockdown precipitates , not diminishes deaths ( see the official figures below ) .
It is only fair to ask then why any government should recommend a second lockdown when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in deaths .
In terms of the legal argument , Lord Sumption has soundly rebuked the government for failing to use the Civil Contingencies Act , imagining that they did this in order to escape scrutiny .
He went on to say that the government has misused the Public Health Act 2008 and the new Coronavirus Act since these both allow the isolation of sick persons but not of healthy people .
So , what lessons can be drawn from a comparison of the Gunpowder plot and the events leading up to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have seen , the official story of the gunpowder plot is one that collapses on even cursory scrutiny .
The anti-Catholic sentiment that this gave rise to spearheaded a hundred years of war against Spain and Portugal , with profitable gains to Britain .
Moreover , Sir Robert Cecil , a key actor in the drama , was a member of an influential London group informally known as ‘ the war party ’ .
This group wanted to push James into a confrontation with the Spanish Empire , from which the group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things , to extract great personal profit .
So there was a clear conflict of interests here .
In terms of the decision to pursue a second lockdown , the four men involved were : the PM , the Chief Medical Office ( Professor Chris Whitty ) , The Chief Scientific Officer ( Sir Patrick Vallance ) and the Chancellor ( Rishi Sunak ) .
At least three of these could be said to have conflicted interests in a decision to extend lockdown .
Firstly , the PM because of the profits that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ novel , ‘ The Virus ’ that was republished in spring 2020 following its earlier publication in 1982 .
Then , Sir Patrick Vallance because of his substantial shareholding in GSK , the pharmaceutical company that with Sanofi will supply 200 million doses of their Covid vaccine to a global inoculation scheme .
Finally , Chris Whitty since he received a £31K grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation , a group heavily invested in the creation of a PCR test and vaccine .
Interestingly the only person without immediate and obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostile to the idea of a lockdown .
This is not to automatically impugn the other three men but merely to state that 415 years have perhaps not done much to add the kind of checks and balances to decision-making that would guarantee transparency within government and ensure that self-interest plays no part in decision-making .
In 1605 , the misrepresentation of events led to the persecution of Catholics in England and beyond its shores .
In 2020 , the decision to impose lockdown at just after midnight on 4 November is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extend the economic war waged against the people .
It is time that people learn from the lessons of the Gunpowder plot and fight for the replacement of a system that lacks transparency with one that will offer the checks and balances appropriate to a modern democracy .
Gloria Moss PhD FCIPD writes about historical and management topics and will be speaking at the ‘ Questioning History ’ conference on December 18th-20th , not far from London .
This conference will delve into official history and the extent to which it delivers us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events ( details here ) .

Gloria Moss
At midnight tonight, November 4-5 a second lockdown begins in the UK, with scant justification and amid a storm of propaganda. On the same day at the same time 415 years earlier another momentous event was announced, amid a similar storm of propaganda. While not obviously connected in any way the juxtaposition reminds us that official narratives always require interrogation and always will.
The gunpowder plot: 5 November 1605
According to historians of the gunpowder plot, the official story of this event concealed the extent to which the British establishment of the day may have enhanced their popularity and personal profits by pushing a version of events that drew Britain into decades of profitable war against Catholic Spain and Portugal. Most recently,this view has been expressed by John Hamer (in his Falsification of History) and by Webster Tarpley (in his videos about the Gunpowder Plot). The earliest and fullest account however occurs in John Gerard’s 1897 book, What was the Gunpowder Plot?
Gerard’s detailed investigation concludes that “the government consistently falsified the story”. Since this is the earliest account to openly declare this, and since it predates the CIA’s label of ‘conspiracy theory’ by some seventy years, it is worth reviewing the evidence underpinning this statement. For, understanding the context will highlight the problems that undermine the faithful reporting of events.
So, within the constraints of this article, we will look at a sample of the evidence presented by Gerard and follow-up by considering the lessons for the current government’s handling of the second lockdown decision. Before looking at the anomalies highlighted by Gerard, let us remind ourselves of the main elements in the official narrative.
The official story
According to the story released by Sir Robert Cecil in November 1605, there was a Catholic conspiracy in 1605 to blow up the House of Lords on 5 November, one that involved thirteen men and extended up to the Papacy itself. The conspirators had allegedly constructed a tunnel to a cellar in Westminster Palace, in which 36 barrels of gunpowder were left with a view to blowing up Parliament.
Part of the official story also recounted how the plot was revealed ten days before the opening of Parliament on 5 November in a letter delivered to a Lord Monteagle. This allowed the plot to be ‘foiled’ at midnight on 4 November. Guy Fawkes had allegedly planned his getaway to Flanders, but he and his co-conspirators were instead executed, and the English peace treaty with Spain, signed in 1604, was sidelined allowed to give way to a century of war between the two countries.
In fact, so great was the perceived threat to national security that it was officially compulsory in Britain until 1859 to celebrate ‘Guy Fawkes Day’ on 5 November.
Does the official story stand up to scrutiny? In 1897 John Gerard opined that
the official narrative bristles with contradictions…and with falsehoods.
Gerard highlighted a number of anomalies. Below are some of the most notable.
Anomalies in the official narrative
In terms of the official motives for the attack – the destruction of Parliament – Gerard quite reasonably asks why Catholic plotters would wish to blow up Parliament when it housed not only Protestants but also all of the country’s leading Catholics? He asks moreover why, if the plot was foiled at midnight on 4 November, when 36 barrels of gunpowder had been left in the ‘cellar’ under the House of Lords, the opening of Parliament was allowed to proceed on 5 November. For, he reports that there is no evidence that the barrels had been removed.
These are important points concerning the motives but the anomalies do not stop there. For Gerard goes on to highlight an extraordinary number of these, with just a small sample summarised in the following nine points:
Breaking the news: the anonymous letter by which King James 1 learned of the plot was delivered in the first instance to Lord Monteagle ten days before the opening of Parliament. It was brought to Monteagle’s house at Hoxton where he had ordered dinner for himself, despite his not having resided at this London property for at least 12 months. After this, Monteagle received a bequest from the king equivalent to c.£20,000 a year with around £6,000 of this offered in perpetuity to his heirs.
the anonymous letter by which King James 1 learned of the plot was delivered in the first instance to Lord Monteagle ten days before the opening of Parliament. It was brought to Monteagle’s house at Hoxton where he had ordered dinner for himself, despite his not having resided at this London property for at least 12 months. After this, Monteagle received a bequest from the king equivalent to c.£20,000 a year with around £6,000 of this offered in perpetuity to his heirs. Operations HQ: the base of operations was said to be in a house near to Parliament but access to this was only available to one of the alleged conspirators, Thomas Percy, when Parliament was not in session
the base of operations was said to be in a house near to Parliament but access to this was only available to one of the alleged conspirators, Thomas Percy, when Parliament was not in session The cellar: the so-called ‘cellar’ used by Guy Fawkes was located at ground level under the old House of Lords, a chamber on the first floor. It was capacious (measuring 77 feet in length) and not a secure location since the Lord Chamberlain is documented as entering the room with no difficulty on 4 November.
the so-called ‘cellar’ used by Guy Fawkes was located at ground level under the old House of Lords, a chamber on the first floor. It was capacious (measuring 77 feet in length) and not a secure location since the Lord Chamberlain is documented as entering the room with no difficulty on 4 November. The tunnel through to Parliament: it is alleged that the conspirators had been digging a tunnel through to the ‘cellar’ since January 1605. However, Gerard quite reasonably asks how this activity could have gone unnoticed not only by the government but also by the entire neighbourhood? For example he asks, how would the mass of soil and large foundation stones from the cellar have been concealed? The official story stated that the debris was concealed beneath the turf in the adjoining garden but the great foundation stones could not have been so easily hidden. What of the noise from breaking down the wall – why was this not noticed? How, moreover, would timber beams have been secretly passed through to the ‘cellar’ to shore up the roof? No evidence has subsequently been revealed of any tunnel.
it is alleged that the conspirators had been digging a tunnel through to the ‘cellar’ since January 1605. However, Gerard quite reasonably asks how this activity could have gone unnoticed not only by the government but also by the entire neighbourhood? For example he asks, how would the mass of soil and large foundation stones from the cellar have been concealed? The official story stated that the debris was concealed beneath the turf in the adjoining garden but the great foundation stones could not have been so easily hidden. What of the noise from breaking down the wall – why was this not noticed? How, moreover, would timber beams have been secretly passed through to the ‘cellar’ to shore up the roof? No evidence has subsequently been revealed of any tunnel. Gunpowder: in 1605, the manufacture of gunpowder was a government monopoly. So, given that the 36 barrels allegedly deposited in the cellar by the conspirators would have amounted to a massive 4 tons (more than a quarter what, in 1607, was delivered from the royal store for all purposes), Gerard asks how could this have been obtained? He also asks how: the first 20 barrels, allegedly stored at Lambeth could have been ferried across the river, down Parliament Place (‘as busy a quarter as any in the city of Westminster’) without attracting attention. He also points out that after the plot was uncovered, ‘minute and searching’ inquiries were made concerning the conspirators (their haunts, lodgings, where they purchased the iron bars laid on top of the barrels) but no questions were asked concerning the source of the gunpowder and who had provided it.
in 1605, the manufacture of gunpowder was a government monopoly. So, given that the 36 barrels allegedly deposited in the cellar by the conspirators would have amounted to a massive 4 tons (more than a quarter what, in 1607, was delivered from the royal store for all purposes), Gerard asks how could this have been obtained? He also asks how: Arrest of Guy Fawkes: the accounts of this are inconsistent. According to the King’s book, Fawkes was arrested in the street; according to a letter from Sir Robert Cecil to the Ambassadors overseas, he was arrested in the ‘cellar’; in his confession of 5 November, Fawkes speaks of being caught in his own room.
the accounts of this are inconsistent. According to the King’s book, Fawkes was arrested in the street; according to a letter from Sir Robert Cecil to the Ambassadors overseas, he was arrested in the ‘cellar’; in his confession of 5 November, Fawkes speaks of being caught in his own room. Opening of Parliament: the gunpowder was discovered at midnight on 4 November but the peers met as usual in the House of Lords that day. As Gerard writes:
‘It cannot be supposed that 4 tons of powder could have been so soon removed or that the most valuable persons in the State would have been suffered to expose themselves to the risk of assembling in so perilous a situation’.
the gunpowder was discovered at midnight on 4 November but the peers met as usual in the House of Lords that day. As Gerard writes: Getaway by boat: it was said that Guy Fawkes was preparing his getaway by boat from London Bridge to Flanders, with a boat from Parliament stairs to convey him to the ship. However, on 5 November it was high water at London Bridge and, as Gerard colourfully points out, ‘to attempt to pass Old London Bridge against the tide would have been like trying to row up a waterfall’.
it was said that Guy Fawkes was preparing his getaway by boat from London Bridge to Flanders, with a boat from Parliament stairs to convey him to the ship. However, on 5 November it was high water at London Bridge and, as Gerard colourfully points out, ‘to attempt to pass Old London Bridge against the tide would have been like trying to row up a waterfall’. Official accounts: Sir Robert Cecil was at pains to transmit the official story to the King of France on 6 November, including reference to 36 barrels of gunpowder, but his account was contradicted by that of the French embassy in London which only mentioned a single barrel of gunpowder.
The gunpowder plot: contemporary doubts
Gerard’s doubts were voiced nearly three hundred years earlier in 1605. So, the Bishop of Armagh and primate of All Ireland, a prolific scholar and church leader, was heard to say that if the papists knew what he knew, the blame of the Gunpowder Treason would not lie with them. Then, ten years later in 1615, a spy, Floyde, testified to having frequently heard various Jesuits say that the government were aware of the plot several months before they thought fit to ‘discover’ it. Moreover, there was a death-bed confession by the servant of one of the alleged conspirators, Robert Catesby, that he and Sir Robert Cecil met on three separate occasions in the period leading up to the night of 5 November.
Lessons for today
Now to the second event happening at midnight on 4/5 November, the second lockdown. The decision to lockdown Britain for a second time is one that is supported, like the official gunpowder plot narrative, by a story of fear and terror but in fact, perusal of official statistics and the legalities of the lockdown point to a lack of logic and evidence and an inappropriate use of the law. Taking the statistics first, weekly deaths during the previous lockdown were 4,000 -10,000 times higher than in the previous 3 months when coronavirus deaths were in fact 5% below average rates. Then, in the period of July to September following lockdown, weekly deaths fell to 1-2% below average, showing that the experience of lockdown precipitates, not diminishes deaths (see the official figures below).
It is only fair to ask then why any government should recommend a second lockdown when the first one only triggered a sharp rise in deaths. In terms of the legal argument, Lord Sumption has soundly rebuked the government for failing to use the Civil Contingencies Act, imagining that they did this in order to escape scrutiny. He went on to say that the government has misused the Public Health Act 2008 and the new Coronavirus Act since these both allow the isolation of sick persons but not of healthy people.
So, what lessons can be drawn from a comparison of the Gunpowder plot and the events leading up to a second lockdown on 4/5 November? As we have seen, the official story of the gunpowder plot is one that collapses on even cursory scrutiny. The anti-Catholic sentiment that this gave rise to spearheaded a hundred years of war against Spain and Portugal, with profitable gains to Britain. Moreover, Sir Robert Cecil, a key actor in the drama, was a member of an influential London group informally known as ‘the war party’. This group wanted to push James into a confrontation with the Spanish Empire, from which the group’s members hoped, among other things, to extract great personal profit. So there was a clear conflict of interests here.
In terms of the decision to pursue a second lockdown, the four men involved were: the PM, the Chief Medical Office (Professor Chris Whitty), The Chief Scientific Officer (Sir Patrick Vallance) and the Chancellor (Rishi Sunak). At least three of these could be said to have conflicted interests in a decision to extend lockdown.
Firstly, the PM because of the profits that his father stands to make from his novel, ‘The Virus’ that was republished in spring 2020 following its earlier publication in 1982.
Then, Sir Patrick Vallance because of his substantial shareholding in GSK, the pharmaceutical company that with Sanofi will supply 200 million doses of their Covid vaccine to a global inoculation scheme.
Finally, Chris Whitty since he received a £31K grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a group heavily invested in the creation of a PCR test and vaccine.
Interestingly the only person without immediate and obvious vested interests, Sunak, was reportedly hostile to the idea of a lockdown.
This is not to automatically impugn the other three men but merely to state that 415 years have perhaps not done much to add the kind of checks and balances to decision-making that would guarantee transparency within government and ensure that self-interest plays no part in decision-making.
In 1605, the misrepresentation of events led to the persecution of Catholics in England and beyond its shores. In 2020, the decision to impose lockdown at just after midnight on 4 November is one that will affect everyone in Britain and extend the economic war waged against the people. It is time that people learn from the lessons of the Gunpowder plot and fight for the replacement of a system that lacks transparency with one that will offer the checks and balances appropriate to a modern democracy.
Gloria Moss PhD FCIPD writes about historical and management topics and will be speaking at the ‘Questioning History’ conference on December 18th-20th, not far from London. This conference will delve into official history and the extent to which it delivers us a false rather than true version of events (details here).


UPDATED: Election Day!

Polls are open on the “ battle for the soul of the nation ” , but who will win ?
And does it matter ?
Trump and Biden face off for the last time as America goes to the polls , and this is the open thread to discuss the results as they come in .
The polls ( if you trust or believe them ) all put Creepy Uncle Joe in a substantial lead .
That , coupled with the support of the vast majority of the media and establishment suggest As with all Presidential elections since “ Dubya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even before ) , there ’ s very real reasons to doubt the legitimacy or fairness of the result .
The huge emphasis on postal voting – an easily corruptible practice – is a further red flag .
There ’ s a certain school of thought that it “ doesn ’ t matter who wins ” .
That has been broadly true for most of the last half-century , however it might not hold true here .
Trump is a bombastic idiot , and he hasn ’ t come through on the vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he is at least the first POTUS in over 40 years to not start a war .
He even attempted to end a couple .
We certainly can ’ t trust Biden ( or Harris ) to carry on that pattern .
That , coupled with talks of a “ national mask mandate ” and more moves to “ counter disinformation ” make the prospect of Biden ( or Harris ) presidency deeply unpleasant .
There ’ s talk of Donald Trump being prosecuted should he lose , or refusing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very surprising .
But what do you think ?
• Who will win the Presidency ?
• Will the election be fair ?
• Will the loser contest the vote ?
• Will the military get involved ?
• In the end , will it matter ?
UPDATE : Both The Guardian and Washington Post are reporting the possibility of a “ red mirage ” in some battleground states .
Meaning that , after in-person ballots are counted it might seem like Trump has won , but the postal ballots counted later will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media are also reporting that Trump will declare victory “ prematurely ” , and that in this event the media will perhaps refuse to broadcast his speech .
The New York Times sent this incredibly revealing tweet on the subject…and then deleted it : “ The role of declaring the winner of the presidential election falls to the news media… ” hmmmm .
At least they ’ re honest about it .
UPDATE 4/11/20 : Trump held leads in five undeclared states – Michigan , Wisconsin , Georgia , Pennsylvania and North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically slowed ) counting votes .
Since then , a surge of postal votes wiped out Trump ’ s lead in Wisconsin , giving the Biden the state by as few as 6000 votes .
Pennsylvania ’ s governor has stated there are “ over a million ” postal votes yet to be counted .
Trump has declared that he should have won the election by now , and has hinted at a Supreme Court challenge .
It certainly looks like we will see a “ red mirage ” – an appearance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovery , entirely due to postal ballots .
Needless to say , rather suspicious .
In this context it ’ s a good time to revisit the “ Transition Integrity Project ” , a series of exercises carried out over the summer of 2020 backed by the Protect Democracy foundation .
Their alleged aim was to “ ensure a peaceful transfer of power ” , but it doesn ’ t take a genius to read between the lines here .
Especially when you see the list of names involved – all current/former DNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brazille , John Podesta , Max Boot and Bill Kristol to name a few .
In this document , released August this year , they lay out their conclusions .
Including ( bold in the original ) : UPDATE 4/11/20 15:00 : Are these signs of potential electoral fraud ?
Early in the morning CNN ’ s rolling coverage map suddenly attributed 138,339 votes to Biden in Michigan , without recording a single vote Trump or any of three independent candidates : Nate Silver ’ s statistics and analysis website fivethirtyeight.com has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin and Michigan have sudden , vertical jumps for Biden at around 4am : It has been suggested that these are counties returning their results en masse , , which is technically possible , but if that were the case you ’ d expect a corresponding jump for Trump , even the most Democrat friendly areas of the country don ’ t give Biden 100 % of their votes .
The best illustration of just how bizarre these events are , is the reaction of the CNN anchors .
Watch how they handle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and totally wiping out Trump ’ s 4 point lead in Wisconsin in an instant : “ Where did it come from ?
” Indeed .
Are social media going to clampdown on dissent or accusations of fraud ?
Last night , in a long-expected move , Twitter finally banned David Icke from posting .
Whilst this was never explicitly said to be about the election , the timing was certainly suspect .
( Whether you have any time for Icke or not , censorship is never OK ) .
However , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moves on social media .
When Sean Davis , editor of The Federalist , pointed out the odd jumps in Biden ’ s votes , Twitter slapped a warning on his tweet .
Calling it “ disputed ” and “ potentially misleading ” : If you see any similar examples of discussion of the election being controlled/censored , do please post them in the comments below or email them to us .

Polls are open on the “battle for the soul of the nation”, but who will win? And does it matter?
UPDATES:
*
Trump and Biden face off for the last time as America goes to the polls, and this is the open thread to discuss the results as they come in.
The polls (if you trust or believe them) all put Creepy Uncle Joe in a substantial lead. That, coupled with the support of the vast majority of the media and establishment suggest
As with all Presidential elections since “Dubya’s” first term (or even before), there’s very real reasons to doubt the legitimacy or fairness of the result. The huge emphasis on postal voting – an easily corruptible practice – is a further red flag.
There’s a certain school of thought that it “doesn’t matter who wins”. That has been broadly true for most of the last half-century, however it might not hold true here. Trump is a bombastic idiot, and he hasn’t come through on the vast majority of his anti-establishment promises at all, but he is at least the first POTUS in over 40 years to not start a war. He even attempted to end a couple. We certainly can’t trust Biden (or Harris) to carry on that pattern.
That, coupled with talks of a “national mask mandate” and more moves to “counter disinformation” make the prospect of Biden (or Harris) presidency deeply unpleasant.
There’s talk of Donald Trump being prosecuted should he lose, or refusing to accept the result. Both would be very surprising. But what do you think?
Who will win the Presidency?
Will the election be fair?
Will the loser contest the vote?
Will the military get involved?
In the end, will it matter?
*
UPDATE: Both The Guardian and Washington Post are reporting the possibility of a “red mirage” in some battleground states. Meaning that, after in-person ballots are counted it might seem like Trump has won, but the postal ballots counted later will swing it back to Biden.
Various media are also reporting that Trump will declare victory “prematurely”, and that in this event the media will perhaps refuse to broadcast his speech. The New York Times sent this incredibly revealing tweet on the subject…and then deleted it:
“The role of declaring the winner of the presidential election falls to the news media…” hmmmm. At least they’re honest about it.
*
UPDATE 4/11/20: Trump held leads in five undeclared states – Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and North Carolina – when all five stopped (or dramatically slowed) counting votes. Since then, a surge of postal votes wiped out Trump’s lead in Wisconsin, giving the Biden the state by as few as 6000 votes.
Pennsylvania’s governor has stated there are “over a million” postal votes yet to be counted.
Trump has declared that he should have won the election by now, and has hinted at a Supreme Court challenge. It certainly looks like we will see a “red mirage” – an appearance of a Trump win and then sudden Biden recovery, entirely due to postal ballots. Needless to say, rather suspicious.
In this context it’s a good time to revisit the “Transition Integrity Project”, a series of exercises carried out over the summer of 2020 backed by the Protect Democracy foundation. Their alleged aim was to “ensure a peaceful transfer of power”, but it doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines here.
Especially when you see the list of names involved – all current/former DNC employees and/or vociferous Trump opponents: Donna Brazille, John Podesta, Max Boot and Bill Kristol to name a few.
In this document, released August this year, they lay out their conclusions. Including (bold in the original):
The concept of “election night,” is no longer accurate and indeed is dangerous. We face a period of contestation [sic] stretching from the first day a ballot is cast in mid-September until January 20. The winner may not, and we assess likely will not, be known on “election night” as officials count mail-in ballots.
Remarkably prescient of them.
*
UPDATE 4/11/20 15:00: Are these signs of potential electoral fraud?
Early in the morning CNN’s rolling coverage map suddenly attributed 138,339 votes to Biden in Michigan, without recording a single vote Trump or any of three independent candidates:
This jump almost completely destroyed Trumps 5% lead.
Nate Silver’s statistics and analysis website fivethirtyeight.com has been plotting the votes on graphs. Both Wisconsin and Michigan have sudden, vertical jumps for Biden at around 4am:
It has been suggested that these are counties returning their results en masse,, which is technically possible, but if that were the case you’d expect a corresponding jump for Trump, even the most Democrat friendly areas of the country don’t give Biden 100% of their votes.
The best illustration of just how bizarre these events are, is the reaction of the CNN anchors. Watch how they handle Biden suddenly getting 109,000 new votes, and totally wiping out Trump’s 4 point lead in Wisconsin in an instant:
“Where did it come from?” Indeed.
*
Are social media going to clampdown on dissent or accusations of fraud? Last night, in a long-expected move, Twitter finally banned David Icke from posting. Whilst this was never explicitly said to be about the election, the timing was certainly suspect. (Whether you have any time for Icke or not, censorship is never OK).
However, we are now beginning to see some election-related moves on social media.
When Sean Davis, editor of The Federalist, pointed out the odd jumps in Biden’s votes, Twitter slapped a warning on his tweet. Calling it “disputed” and “potentially misleading”:
If you see any similar examples of discussion of the election being controlled/censored, do please post them in the comments below or email them to us.
*


offguardian--2020-11-05--OffG Recommends….V for Vendetta

OffG Recommends….V for Vendetta

“ OffG Recommends ” is a new series we ’ ll be putting out intermittently commenting on books , film , television or other arts and entertainment .
This November 5th OffG heartily recommends V for Vendetta .
Its themes are newly relevant , and its message could not be more timely .
Unfortunately – or maybe deliberately – all most people remember of V for Vendetta is the now infamous Guy Fawkes mask .
It became the symbol of Anonymous , and then it became a joke .
But the film deserves more than that .
Released in 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now look back on as much more politically aware – it is an adaptation of an Alan Moore graphic novel set in a dystopian alternative Britain .
The story centres around a masked vigilante , V , who plans to bring down the fascist government of Britain by blowing up the Houses of Parliament and inciting mass demonstrations and anarchy .
I won ’ t go into the details of the plot , because that would defeat the purpose of recommending you watch it .
Suffice to say , there is intrigue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( in the classic sense ) .
It is a comic book movie , and thus bound by the conventions of the genre .
There is a linear narrative .
There is a love story .
There is a conclusion .
There is cartharsis .
These are the hallmarks of popular fiction that so rarely apply to the real world .
And though they are well done and interesting , they are not what makes V for Vendetta so memorable .
The casting is brilliant , and the performances good without exception .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly great , is the writing .
It was written by someone who truly sees the way power works , and the world it builds is the most realistic dystopian vision ever put to screen .
It is our world…but ever so slightly different .
People look the same , dress the same , talk the same…but they are scared .
All the time .
And controlled .
All the time .
There are curfews and censors and quarantine zones .
Secret police , with limitless authority , stalk the streets and harass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing but fanciful stories that barely resemble reality , in order to keep people calm and under control .
Nobody really believes them , but nobody does anything about it either .
Every evening a former military intelligence officer appears on his nationally televised talk show to spin jingoistic propaganda about the state of the nation .
Other television , music and art is all subject to government screening before appearing in public .
…and this world was built as the result of a virus .
In the original graphic novel – written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1990s – the dystopia was created by nuclear war .
But in the 2005 movie , set in the year 2020 , it ’ s a virus .
Poetic , no ?
In the movie – unlike our less dramatic reality – the virus was “ weaponised ” , allegedly released as part of a terrorist attack .
The public , hysterical with fear , empowered the state to destroy all their freedoms .
Elections , protests , free speech .
All gone .
The dynamics of this fascist power are well observed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military personnel sitting on the boards of big pharmaceutical companies ; to the faux-camaraderie with the every man , expressed by an elite which lives a secret life of opulence and indulgence ; to the barely-concealed fragility of the entire system .
For , though the power is concentrated and the system appears monolithic , all it takes is a small push to topple it .
This insecurity is felt by all those in power .
Late in the film , as the government is beginning to lose control of the narrative , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives this speech to his Head of Media : …what follows is montage of created media narratives and news footage – exaggerated , contrived or invented whole-cloth – designed to terrify the public into submission .
This cynical understanding of the media is lacking in almost all films , especially those which claim to satirise the news or television industry .
That the news could be , and regularly is , an entirely fictional narrative to serve a government agenda , is a fact even most alternate media personalities are slow to understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building , the script is eminently quotable .
From “ artists use lies to tell the truth , while politicians use them to cover the truth up.
” to “ Beneath this mask there is more than flesh , beneath this mask there is an idea…and ideas are bulletproof !
” and “ Our integrity sells for so little , but it is all we really have.
” And , of course , a quote that could be made for our modern world : So go find a copy of this film , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5th .
Witness the dystopian vision of England which – in 2005 – seemed like “ something that could happen one day ” , but has become something that is actually happening right now , in front of our eyes .
Early in the film V hijacks a television broadcast and gives this speech : There are of course those who do not want us to speak .
I suspect even now , orders are being shouted into telephones , and men with guns will soon be on their way .
Why ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in lieu of conversation , words will always retain their power .
Words offer the means to meaning , and for those who will listen , the enunciation of truth .
And the truth is , there is something terribly wrong with this country , isn ’ t there ?
Cruelty and injustice , intolerance and oppression .
And where once you had the freedom to object , to think and speak as you saw fit , you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s to blame ?
[ T ] ruth be told , if you ’ re looking for the guilty , you need only look into a mirror .
I know why you did it .
I know you were afraid .
Who wouldn ’ t be ?
War , terror , disease .
There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense .
Fear got the best of you .
It could hardly be more apposite .

“OffG Recommends” is a new series we’ll be putting out intermittently commenting on books, film, television or other arts and entertainment. This November 5th OffG heartily recommends V for Vendetta. Its themes are newly relevant, and its message could not be more timely.
Unfortunately – or maybe deliberately – all most people remember of V for Vendetta is the now infamous Guy Fawkes mask. It became the symbol of Anonymous, and then it became a joke. But the film deserves more than that.
Released in 2005 – bizarrely, a time we can now look back on as much more politically aware – it is an adaptation of an Alan Moore graphic novel set in a dystopian alternative Britain.
The story centres around a masked vigilante, V, who plans to bring down the fascist government of Britain by blowing up the Houses of Parliament and inciting mass demonstrations and anarchy. I won’t go into the details of the plot, because that would defeat the purpose of recommending you watch it. Suffice to say, there is intrigue, action, philosophy, conflict and romance (in the classic sense).
It is a comic book movie, and thus bound by the conventions of the genre. There is a linear narrative. There is a love story. There is a conclusion. There is cartharsis.
These are the hallmarks of popular fiction that so rarely apply to the real world. And though they are well done and interesting, they are not what makes V for Vendetta so memorable.
The casting is brilliant, and the performances good without exception. But what makes the film great, truly great, is the writing.
It was written by someone who truly sees the way power works, and the world it builds is the most realistic dystopian vision ever put to screen. It is our world…but ever so slightly different. People look the same, dress the same, talk the same…but they are scared. All the time. And controlled. All the time.
There are curfews and censors and quarantine zones. Secret police, with limitless authority, stalk the streets and harass the public. The state broadcaster tells nothing but fanciful stories that barely resemble reality, in order to keep people calm and under control. Nobody really believes them, but nobody does anything about it either.
Every evening a former military intelligence officer appears on his nationally televised talk show to spin jingoistic propaganda about the state of the nation. Other television, music and art is all subject to government screening before appearing in public.
…and this world was built as the result of a virus.
In the original graphic novel – written in the 1980s and set in the 1990s – the dystopia was created by nuclear war. But in the 2005 movie, set in the year 2020, it’s a virus. Poetic, no?
In the movie – unlike our less dramatic reality – the virus was “weaponised”, allegedly released as part of a terrorist attack. The public, hysterical with fear, empowered the state to destroy all their freedoms. Elections, protests, free speech. All gone.
The dynamics of this fascist power are well observed. From the corruption of government and military personnel sitting on the boards of big pharmaceutical companies; to the faux-camaraderie with the every man, expressed by an elite which lives a secret life of opulence and indulgence; to the barely-concealed fragility of the entire system.
For, though the power is concentrated and the system appears monolithic, all it takes is a small push to topple it. This insecurity is felt by all those in power.
Late in the film, as the government is beginning to lose control of the narrative, the High Chancellor (John Hurt) gives this speech to his Head of Media:
What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want every man, woman and child to understand how close we are to chaos. I want everyone to remember why they need us!
…what follows is montage of created media narratives and news footage – exaggerated, contrived or invented whole-cloth – designed to terrify the public into submission. This cynical understanding of the media is lacking in almost all films, especially those which claim to satirise the news or television industry. That the news could be, and regularly is, an entirely fictional narrative to serve a government agenda, is a fact even most alternate media personalities are slow to understand.
Aside from the themes and world building, the script is eminently quotable. From “artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.” to “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh, beneath this mask there is an idea…and ideas are bulletproof!” and “Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have.”
And, of course, a quote that could be made for our modern world:
You wear a mask for too long, and you forget who you are underneath it.”
So go find a copy of this film, and watch it to mark this November 5th. Witness the dystopian vision of England which – in 2005 – seemed like “something that could happen one day”, but has become something that is actually happening right now, in front of our eyes.
Early in the film V hijacks a television broadcast and gives this speech:
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? [T]ruth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you.
It could hardly be more apposite.