The Arrogance of Ignorance Amongst Jeremy Corbyn’s Faithful

**This article was last updated on October 4th, 2016**

Jeremy Corbyn recently secured an increased mandate following his re-election as Labour party leader

Back in September last year I was a member of the UK union USDAW, and through my membership I was granted a vote in the four way contest for the next leader of the Labour party. There was the ‘centre left’ candidates of Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. But standing on his own outside of this trio was the rogue element to the leadership campaign. Jeremy Corbyn. A man who scraped onto the ballot paper by a single vote amongst Labour MP’s.

I needed no persuasion to cast my vote for Corbyn. I chose him at a time when I’d just begun researching information pertaining to child abuse within the British political establishment, amidst a host of other ‘conspiracies’ that had gained my attention.

Like thousands of others who voted for Corbyn, I took what he had to say at face value. When he spoke of controlling the banks and creating a fairer society for all within a socialist framework, I became convinced that this could be a turning point in British politics.

The right leader had at last come along. Corbyn was going to challenge the right wing orthodoxy of the Conservatives. At last we would have a leftist Labour party with a leader who for over 30 years on the back benches had espoused the virtues of socialism.

Even though I deemed this man the ‘right leader’, it did not stop me continuing my research on what exactly the political system is and how it is designed to function.

Many researchers gave me an alternative path to follow – including David Icke, G. Edward Griffin, Brandon Smith, Jeff Berwick, Max Igan, John Rappoport, James Perloff – the list of names that were previously unknown to me grew larger by the week.

Many of these individuals were saying the same thing, albeit using their own unique argument. They said the political system is a lie. It cannot and never will be the solution to the problems we as humanity face, simply because it is government that is the vehicle for orchestrating those problems in the first place.

Now was where I had a choice. Keep going with the research, knowing it will unravel the system further and force me to question my beliefs, or stop and throw my full support behind Jeremy and believe he is different and will be able to change things. It was a choice between a herd mentality or trying to figure all this new information out on my own and with next to no support.

I chose to keep going. And I very quickly began to realise that it was a mix of naivety and lack of knowledge that brought me to the conclusion that Jeremy Corbyn represented hope in an age of despair. I fell for the hope. But falling for it was a necessary step in being able to understand what all this information coming my way meant and what it was conveying to me.

This is my interpretation now after over twelve months of research:

On Saturday 24th September, Jeremy Corbyn was re-elected leader of the Labour party on an increased majority. I was wrongfully emailed a vote for this election by the Electoral Reform Services a few weeks beforehand, who had not understood or chose to ignore the fact that I was no longer a member of USDAW having been made redundant from my job.

The Electoral Reform Services did not respond to my query about the legality of allowing someone a vote who was not entitled. Nor did leading mainstream news outlets who I had asked to investigate the matter further.

Nevertheless, Corbyn’s only rival for the position, Owen Smith, was a false candidate. Smith’s campaign was designed solely to give strength to Corbyn and ensure his followers rallied behind him and returned him as their leader. The more he embodied the ‘Blairite’ wing of the party, the greater the support for Jeremy would become. Which is what happened.

Consider this. After the leave vote in the UK referendum on the EU, nearly all of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet resigned. It appeared on the surface a clear and calculated attempt to oust Corbyn and return the party to a centralist doctrine – one that would be ‘left of center’.

But Corbyn survived, at a moment when virtually all in the media expected this to be his final hour. Instead, he appointed new MP’s to his cabinet. And when members of the Labour party then came forward to offer a vote of no confidence in their leader, he simply ran again in a new contest, unwilling to step down.

I believe this was by design. The truth here is that Jeremy Corbyn is meant to lead the Labour party at this time. Not simply because Labour party members want it, but because those who manipulate the system are using it to their advantage.

When you gauge the current political landscape objectively, it is clear how the illusion of a left / right divide in Western politics is being mercilessly utilised for the gain of globalist elites. After almost two decades of politics being firmly rooted in the centre ground – a purposeful move to entrap as many voters as possible into the illusion of choice – we are now seeing that model begin to unravel to one of unrest, conflict and division. It still operates from a point of centralised control, but circumstances such as war, immigration and terrorism – as well as the resultant leave vote in the UK referendum and the rise of Donald Trump in America – have all conspired to set opposing ideologies off against one another. At a critical time in the Geo-Political arena.

In the UK, what better scenario is there right now than to have a self confessed socialist leading the Labour party at the same time that you have what Corbyn described at the Labour party conference in Liverpool as ‘a Conservative party with a ‘harsher, right wing edge‘? It guarantees the conditions for division, within a false left / right paradigm.

It is branded as Socialism vs Conservatism. In reality, they represent both sides of the same coin.

But when the goal is to keep people within the bounds of the political system, at a time when more and more individuals are discovering the scale of deception they have been exposed to over the decades – creating this seemingly clear divide maintains what is a newly repackaged illusion of choice. All within the confines of a centralised network of control.

Let’s turn to Jeremy Corbyn’s party conference speech from last week, which he delivered immediately after being re-elected leader.

There was no victory speech as it were. Owen Smith had conceded defeat before the election result was even declared. Corbyn knew already his position as party leader was assured. That was the plan.

No longer taken in by the faux ideologies of socialism or conservatism, I listened to what Corbyn had to say. And in the space of sixty minutes, he confirmed to me quite graphically the depth to which the concept of socialism has been subverted by the very same bodies that socialists are meant to oppose.

He talked about investment to rebuild Britain’s infrastructure. He pledged to revitalise ‘working class’ communities. He said, and this is a direct quote:

The old model is broken. We’re in a new era that demands a politics and economics that meets the needs of our own time

The old model he was referring to was socialism’s favourite foe – capitalism. Corbyn said people were ‘fed up of the free market system that had produced grotesque inequality.’ He said the greed of a few bankers had made the rich richer and the poor struggling to survive.

He is quite correct to say that since the deliberately orchestrated financial collapse of 2008, the rich have become richer, and those with relatively little have struggled to make it through week to week. And all of it, according to him, is the fault of crony capitalism. What Corbyn did not say, however, was that this is how it has been designed. It has not come about this way by accident.

So the old model is broken. Time for a new way of doing things. Time to bring equality to the heart of politics. How did Corbyn plan on doing that? Simple. By using the same model which he had previously declared as beyond repair.

A Labour government will borrow to invest‘ was the remedy that Corbyn espoused.

Corbyn’s followers will tell you that borrowing to invest is a necessary step. As long as the money is channeled to causes like rebuilding Britain’s manufacturing base, then this will allow communities to thrive, the economy to grow and the country to pay down its debts. Which in turn will bring people together on an equal footing. Equality for all. A socialist utopia.

Corbyn, however, does not specify the type of socialism that he is endeavoring to implement. The choice is between promoting libertarian socialism – devolving power from the state – or promoting state socialism, thus centralising power and in turn dis-empowering the individual. For all that Corbyn advocates it meets the criteria for the system we currently have now, which is state socialism. ‘The left’ would classify this assertion as nonsense. It is a capitalist society we live in they would say, and the greed that spawns from that is where the problem of inequality lies.

There is no way to describe such a standpoint other than ignorance. When people talk about growth in the economy since 2008, what they are actually seeing in the minimal percentage increases is the result of money pumped into the system by central banks. Growth independent of central bank intervention has been non existent. The world has been in a depressed state for the past ten years. There has been no real growth. Only further debt on top of the debt that already existed, passed off as economies on the up.

What Corbyn’s followers are seemingly unaware of is how money is created. It is created by central banks by way of a printing press. Governments themselves do not create money. Every government in existence today is insolvent. Government has never and never will be a source of production. It is a source of legislation. Legislation that is designed primarily to support the role of the banking industry, to impose laws on you and I which serve to protect the banks and their criminal undertakings.

A government loans money from a central bank instead of creating it themselves. As they have no control over the money supply – which in America dates back to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 – government has no power. It is dictated to by the central banking cartel who control the money.

It costs nothing for a central bank to create money. When the initial TARP funds were approved by congress in 2008 – totaling over $500 billion – this was money that would never see the light of day. The creation of it was as simple as keying in numbers on a screen. There was no endeavour. No end product. No bartering. No trade. It was just created. Out of thin air.

This is exactly how consumer debt is created too. When you loan £10,000 from a bank or max out a credit card, no one actually loses if you cannot repay the debt. That is because it was not real money to begin with. It was created out of the same thin air that ‘bank bailouts’ came about.

The criminal part to this system is when banks charge interest on a loan. They are charging interest on money that cannot and never will exist. This is a bank’s only business model.

Within the financial system now is more fictional currency than that which is actually tangible. The proof of this lies in how much physical money is available to hand. If every individual went to their bank tomorrow and asked to withdraw their savings, banks would not be able to comply. Simply because there is not enough physical money in circulation to honour the amounts in people’s accounts.

Since the likes of America decoupled from the gold standard in the 1970s, the rate of money creation has exploded. The gold standard existed as a tool to keep the dollar in check somewhat. It was there to prevent money supply outstripping gold supply. Currency was backed by gold. Because this model no longer exists, it means central banks can create as much money as they like – through their printing presses – and use it to gain further leverage over governments already drowning under the weight of debt. And that debt becomes your debt.

Under eight years of President Obama, America’s national debt has increased by almost $9 trillion to $19.5 trillion. That equates to $60,000 for every citizen of the United States. Every time central banks pump more computer generated money into the system, the level of debt against each individual increases. And, like with any personal loan or credit card, interest is charged on that debt.

In the UK, national debt grows at over £5,000 a second, and currently stands at £1.7 trillion. Government debt is now running at 90% of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product.

So when Jeremy Corbyn tells you that he will borrow to invest, that is firmly in keeping with the present system. The old model. The debt economy. He did what all self proclaimed socialists seem to do. Blame conservatism and the rise of capitalism.

Except capitalism, much like the money created by central banks, does not exist. Real capitalism – a desire to make money through a trade – does not require the intervention of central banks to maintain its illusion. Capitalism should operate independent of central banks, not be funded by it. Which is why when people take to the streets and protest that ‘Capitalism’ is out of control, they are pointing at the wrong animal.

Something that Jeremy Corbyn will not tell you is when the state comes to intervene as they continue to do – which trashes the idea that capitalism is a ‘free market’ – that is state socialism. Emanating from a central jurisdiction. Keep in mind that it was Karl Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto’ that promoted a central banking system as a key tenet of communist control. This is what we have now. Central banks creating money from thin air is not capitalism. A concept that ‘the left’ of the political false paradigm refuse to engage with. Out of both ignorance and arrogance.

During his speech Corbyn made it sound like a Labour government, with newly borrowed money, would be the controlling force over how it is spent. This was an unscrupulous lie. Corbyn and every other leader of a political party wants you to believe that decisions made by government originate from their respective parliaments. They do not.

The network through which governments are a vehicle used by globalist’s elites to achieve what they desire is where the power lies.

Not convinced? Take the time to research a body called, ‘The Council on Foreign Relations.’ An American ‘think tank’ that is funded by the Rockefeller family.

Here is a short video of researcher G. Edward Grifffin discussing what the council is and who it’s members are:

When you investigate who the members of this ‘think tank’ include, it presents a clear picture of how power has been devolved from government and into the hands of a select few that act as agents for central bankers and the families who own them. They being the ones who have carte blanche of the money supply.

Take Zbigniew Brzezinski as an example. A current member of the council who served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968 and as national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. In 2007, Brzezinski endorsed Barack Obama for President and remains a prominent figure within the Geo-Political theatre.

Then there is Henry Kissinger. Like Brzezinski, he is known as a ‘political scientist’, and served as national security advisor and secretary of state to President Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Here is Hilliary Clinton a few years ago speaking frankly about the extent of the CFR’s influence:

The British equivalent to the CFR is the, ‘Royal Institute of International Affairs‘, otherwise known as Chatham House. This was created in 1920 and funded by the banking industry, including Rothschild and Sons. Oil companies also contributed funds, as did the likes of Reuters. Chatham House is presented to you and I as a, ‘non-profit, non-governmental organisation‘.

It does not stop there. The influence of these two institutions has spread to Australia, Canada, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria and India – to form what is known as the, ‘Council of World Affairs.’

That is just a flavour of how much government is controlled by forces to which the general public have next to no knowledge of. A year ago when I voted for Corbyn, I had no idea what the CFR or Chatham House were. Neither does anyone until they take the time to research.

What we are dealing with here is a simple reality:

Mainstream media and generational indoctrination advertise ‘the right’ and ‘the left’ of politics as being diametrically opposed, when both are funded by the same singular source. The central banking industry. Which is under the control of elite banking dynasties fronted by, but not exclusive to, the Rothschild’s, the Rockefeller’s and the Warburg families. Once people grasp this concept, it leads to further realisations such as Wall Street having funded Hitler during the second world war and also the Bolshevik Revolution. One of which was seen as being far right of the spectrum, the other being far left. And yet Wall Street funded both.

This is what happens when you own the money supply. You can control both sides.

Jeremy Corbyn is as much controlled as the UK’s current Prime Minister, Theresa May. He will oppose her in parliament. He will espouse his faux socialist rhetoric for his loyal band of comrades who know no better.

Should the day come around when Corbyn stands in front of number ten Downing Street as Prime Minister, remember who it is that controls the money. It is not him.

The leader of a country usually fits the moment. Obama in 2008. Donald Trump in 2016, who is mistakenly seen by many as an anti establishment candidate. Precisely the reason why so many support him. Who better to serve up to the people who express exasperation for the status quo. A controlled figure who is marketed as being against the old model. Much like Jeremy Corbyn markets himself.

A promise in opposition becomes a broken promise when in power, if Corbyn makes it that far. That is a decision not for the British electorate but for the central banking cartels. If Corbyn suits the moment, he will become Prime Minister. Much depends on the political climate at the time.

But you get the impression that if Jeremy Corbyn was not a fundamental part of this political theatre, he would have been cast aside after the referendum result.

He remains. To what end is not yet clear. From whichever perspective you view it from, his purest stance on socialism ensures the great swindle of the false left / right paradigm has been re-invigorated. At a time when people were becoming less engaged with the political system, out pops a hero. A comrade for the ages. Much in the same vain as Alexis Tsipras in Greece.

Corbyn’s supporters would do well to research how the initial promise of Tsipras’s regime was exposed as a lie. He became yet another tool manipulated and controlled by the central banks.

Corbyn will promise much the same as Tsipras did. But it is the central banks that deliver the funds and who are the true sources of power in any government.

Failure to research this gives license to Corbyn and others to maintain the facade of choice.

Thank you for reading.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.