ER Editor: We tip our hats to the staff at The Exposé for putting out a transcript of UK Column contributor Alex Thomson‘s long testimony to Day 2 of the Grand Jury proceedings led by Reiner Fuellmich. We are putting just below the video of the entire proceedings of Day 2, which run to almost 6 hours. Alex Thomson is the first witness, and the video of his testimony alone is presented below that.
Here are other links: Odysee via the site Grand-jury.net
Thomson’s testimony runs for the first 45 minutes of the video.
We’ve known in truth circles how much power and control the City of London and the families behind it have had over time, and the extent of their control over the globe. But their definition of ‘wealth’ is new to us. You will never see the phrase ‘human resources’ in the same way again.
Alex Thomson: World Domination By A Few Families Through Mindspace and Mind Control
RHODA WILSON for THE EXPOSE
Alex Thomson is a former officer of Britain’s Signal Officer Intelligence Agency, GCHQ the partner agency to NSA, and also a member of GCHQ’s cross-disciplinary team for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats (“CBRN”).
Thomson began his testimony:
“My contention is that the dominant power in the world, namely, the City of London, the financial heart of the British Empire, readied itself for that situation from roughly 1870. And that the modern world, the monopolisation of the world, the cartelisation of the world, begins in anger at that time.
“There were several revolutions by the British elite and they all revolved around containing productivity and preventing a growth of intelligence and intellectual property.”
Below is the video of Thomson’s testimony and the transcript.
Watch the full Grand Jury Day 2 – Historical and Geopolitical Background, 12 February 2022 (5 hrs 47 mins), HERE.
Logistic support is provided to the proceedings by the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee: website (German) or website (English).
More information about the proceedings can be found on the Grand Jury’s website: www.grand-jury.net
Transcript Alex Thomson
I am Alex Thomson, and for eight years I was an officer of Britain’s Signal Intelligence Agency, GCHQ, the partner agency to NSA. And there I was a desk officer for the former Soviet Union and a transcriber out of languages including Russian and German, of intercepted material. And in the latter half of that period, I was also a member of GCHQ’s cross disciplinary team for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, CBRN, in which capacity I came to know something about how the Anglo-American intelligence and military establishment regards its state of dominance in knowledge in all matters that can affect health on a mass scale and the potential for weaponisation of such agents.
But you’ve asked me to give something like a 20-minute summary of the geopolitical situation as it was in the world in the crucial period leading up to the post Second World War period, because most of the testimonies this evening, and I understand in subsequent sessions of the grand jury will concentrate much on the post 1945 world, and that really being the time when a lot of plans for unification of world government began in anger, including the health issues that you are concerned with.
And my contention is that the dominant power in the world, namely the City of London, the financial heart of the British Empire, readied itself for that situation from roughly 1870. And that the modern world, the monopolisation, the cartelisation of the world, begins in anger at that time.
Everything that we do, and by “we” I mean UK column news- I am also joined this evening by Brian Gerrish, the joint editor, who will testify later – everything that we do in investigating the corruption emanating from British Crown monopolies and City of London money does seem to point back to this period from around 1870, in which, in a nutshell, there were several revolutions by the British elite. and they all revolved around containing productivity and preventing a growth of intelligence and intellectual property among the native Peoples of the British Empire and in competitor nations.
So, there was a revolution in what you might call mind space, which since 2010 has been an explicit term used by the British government’s central Department, the Cabinet Office.
A revolution in the quality of education offered to British and later other Western schoolchildren.
A revolution in the theft of intellectual property by the elite.
A revolution in the model of health care and free access to it.
And at home, a constitutional revolution from the classic British Liberal democracy model, which I know that the continent of Europe and its law schools have explicitly copied from Britain, to a model in which there is close control of what happens in Parliament and in agencies under the control of governments using the whipped party system.
This all happened, as I say, around 1870, and at home in Britain, it was largely complete by the crucial year 1947/1948 when Britain had a unique other than Canada, a unique situation of a National Health Service and was pushing the way towards the military unification of the European continent and the whole of NATO and in many other ways, including planning, law and citizenship, was leading the world in reinventing how it managed its population.
The center note here is the City of London, that is the square mile at the very heart of what is now called Greater London. Why this is important is because the City of London and the Church of England are the only institutions that have endured every constitutional revolution in the British Isles with their privileges and their vast wealth intact.
The City of London is distinct from other world metropolitan areas, megalopolises, in that it chose to keep itself geographically small as the urban area around it grew. The City of London still has a legal status apart from the 32 other London boroughs, and does not really form part of Greater London as such. Its privileges were entrenched as early as Magna Carta 1215. Its self-government has never been challenged. It has, at many times in its history, had power over the British Crown and hence over a large slice of the Earth during the British Empire – notably during the Civil Wars of the mid-17th century, when the City of London continued as the financial power rivalling the Crown and even in some ways abolished the Crown for a decade, and after the restoration of the Crowns and ultimately the English Revolution just six years after that, with the Dutch King William the Third coming to the Crown of Great Britain, the Bank of England was set up in 1694 with a twelve and a half million pound injection of cash into the Crown by these private shareholders, which, we are reliably told, forms the basis of all the debt which has been leveraged since to this day, and the current descendants of those shareholders and others entitled to shares of the Bank of England are kept secret.
The City of London also has control over the so-called Mother of Parliaments, the Westminster Parliament, notably in the form of an official of the City of London known as the Remembrancer, who sits in the House of Commons where not even the monarch is allowed to enter and records what is being said against financial interests.
It’s too complicated to give a definition of “The Crown” in the British model, but what is important is that the Cabinet Office, a department which was set up in the early 20th century, is the repository effectively of Crown prerogatives. And so, when people outside the United Kingdom think of The Crown, they often think excessively of the old situation, with the monarch standing on the Coronation Oath and being responsible to the people.
In practice, in this period from around 1870, the constitutional revolution has ensured that financiers controlling political parties actually pull believers of Crown prerogatives. Behind the scenes the model of government Britain still, has in which it is exported to the Commonwealth and the whole world, is that of an inner sanctum, the Privy Council, which actually governs in the name of The Crown and it is only for show, as the main constitutional writers have admitted since the 1870s, only for show that Parliament and government departments are consulted as if there were a separation between executive, legislature and judiciary, at Privy Council level this is not the case.
In this crucial period about which we are speaking, the preeminent English constitutional writer Walter Badger admitted this in the second edition of his book, The English Constitution, written in 1873, just when the modern whipped party and behind them the think tank were coming into their own to establish the will of monopolists in the City of London.
Walter Bachelor wrote in one paragraph there about a distinction between the quote “dignified parts of the government,” that is, the parts that are therefore show The Crown in its personal sense, and the quote “efficient parts” in the sense of the working parts of the machine. And he admits that the attractive parts do have a purpose, but that is only to attract the force of national support to the really working parts behind the scenes.
Now, to simplify this as much as possible, what I think is important to point out is that the history academic at Georgetown University, Carroll Quigley – that’s C-A-R-R-O-L-L Quigley, who was the tutor of Bill Clinton, among others – wrote quite frankly in his book, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, that there have been four industrial revolutions. Yes, that familiar language coming from the World Economic Forum was being written about in the 1960s already by Quigley. And we will not understand this unless we see that the perspective which is being assumed here is that of who owns the population, first in Britain and then in the British Empire.
In the first revolution, the ownership of land, of agricultural means provides wealth. Then there is a mechanical industrial revolution, a second revolution, then one in which financial capital dominates the world. And it’s from this period around 1870 onwards that the smart money in the City of London realises that even that bubble is going to burst and that the really important way to own the world in future will be to own the minds and the productivity and the thoughts of those in the model to stop them running away and out producing their bosses.
So, the modern era of cartelisation in both industry and geopolitics began around the year 1870. In the space of just a few years around that date, the world underwent a fundamental shift from a situation in which the City of London and the British Empire lacked any serious competition to a world in which several industrialised economies were able to outcompete Britain. The British Empire and its financial hub in the City of London have massively overextended themselves across Asia in the previous generation, especially with the Afghan Wars and the Opium Wars in the 1840s, and the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny of the 1850s. One of the City of London’s most powerful banks, HSBC, dates, in fact, from the time of the Chinese opium trade. There is quite a lot of criminality involved in the City of London’s banks in the outset.
In Europe, the post Napoleonic order imposed by Britain at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 had begun to crumble with both the successful and the failed socialist revolutions of 1848. Russia and Austria Hungary were the Eastern European countries with the most powerful land armies at that time, and it was they who safeguarded Europe by restoring the crowned heads.
Therefore, the obsession of British foreign policy from the midpoint of the 19th century – and this is something I saw when I attended Chatham House meetings, the world supreme geopolitical think tank, in many ways, which tells the Foreign Office what to do – the obsession of British foreign policy from the midpoint of the 19th century was a new strategy, namely to ally with the arch rivals of the past, France and even the Ottoman Empire against Britain’s historic allies in Northern and central Europe in order to prevent any future Russo-German Alliance from becoming the world’s dominant block.
And a secondary strategy there was to prevent the meteoric rise of American intellectual productivity and democratisation of invention, and to try to capture that. As early as 1812, British troops invading Washington DC, notably spared the Patent Office because they knew that if they burnt that, they would be shooting themselves in the foot and stopping themselves from being able to continue to dominate American invention after the American Revolution.
Now, in the years around 1860 – under Bismarck, Garibaldi and Tsar Nikolai the first – three major European Nations, which previously had been great only in cultural terms, had suddenly become politically unified and economically modern States. And with the Gross Deutschland / Klein Deutschland debates there were serious indications that Germany might ally with Austria into a single German speaking state. And it was obvious to the British elite that within a generation or two, all three of these countries – Germany, Italy and Russia – would become great powers at roughly the same level as Britain and France. The United States emerged from its civil war in 1865 and began a staggeringly rapid rise to industrial supremacy. Britain’s elite correctly first thought that by around 1900 all four of these new powers would begin to have navies as strong as Frances or even as strong as Britain’s, and foresaw that the land armies of these European powers would be far stronger than Britain’s, so that only a previously unthinkable Franco-British Alliance in the name of human rights and the spread of Liberal democracy would be able to hold these powers in check.
By 1880 the so-called scramble for Africa was in full swing, which allowed even territorially minor nations in Europe, such as Belgium and Portugal, to acquire substantial resources from colonisation of the African interior and to become serious rivals to British industry and commerce. This was a severe embarrassment to the City of London because, for example, Portugal was Britain’s oldest ally and Belgium was a state that owed its very existence to British negotiation in 1815. Serious arguments have been made by historians that the wave of assassinations in the Edwardian era, including that of the Portuguese Royal family in 1908 and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, were engineered with secret City of London connivance.
There was also an Asian country that became a great power in both industrial and military terms at the end of the 19th century, namely Japan, which to the world’s frank astonishment, beat Russia in 1905, thereby giving many colonial populations in Africa and Asia the inspiration that there was no reason why they too could not assert themselves against European rule in the way that the Latin American republics already had against Spain.
The following year, 1906, was the year of the naval race, the Dreadnought Crisis, which perhaps inevitably, started the countdown to the Great War, the First World War. Because both the British and the German elite were now determined to achieve weltherrschaft, world domination, both were rightly suspicious of each other’s motives, both were technically capable of achieving world domination, both industrially and in the mind space, and both had powerful blocks of allies for the first time.
In a nutshell, the change brought about by the existential crisis of the mid to late 19th century was that the City of London’s trading model – as described by Quigley, the successive waves of monopolies – this model came to emphasize the importance of controlling, not just military force or physical assets anymore, but the minds of people now known as human resources in the British Empire and further afield – and this is why science fiction starts speaking about ownership of man’s genetic makeup from this time – in order that the City of London could sell goods and increasingly services to the rest of the world, which would never catch up in the mind space.
It is the consistent finding of UK column and of allied researchers and commentators that the City of London and Britain’s very wealthy soft power institutions – the ones that Tony Blair even this month has once again told us we must keep and become world beating using such as the British Council, the BBC, British academia and the Church of England – that these institutions continue to regard that battle for the mind as their top priority for world domination, and that they regard health as a subsector of that battle.
We are also fully convinced from repeated findings, that the British elite regard themselves, with some justification, as still the world’s leading power in mind space. In other words, the City of London gets other nations to do its donkey work and its dirty work for it, and it does this above all, by pulling off the trick of making its own population – Britain and the Commonwealth – and the elites of other nations assume its perspective and its narrative rather than their own perspectives and narratives.
This is the concentration that I had in my British education, and this is the concentration that the British intelligence agencies have had through both world wars and the Cold War. It is not a formal strategy that is taught in boarding schools or universities or officer training or intelligence agencies. But it is very much the credo of the leading so-called bloodlines of elite families that run the City of London. And it is the modus operandi of the Anglo-American tax exempt foundations and of the think tanks such as Chatham House, above all, which push the agendas of those bloodlines upon the Western governments.
A key figure from the year 1870 is that of John Ruskin, seemingly an innocuous figure because he was the first professor of art at Oxford, but he brought the doctrine that the British elite really had a duty to export its own world view to the rest of the world in very broad-brush terms. And his key student whom he inspired was Cecil Rhodes, who of course became fabulously wealthy in Southern Africa.
Cecil Rhodes, and this is all documented by very many historians, wrote secret diaries and formed secret societies. In 1891, after 16 years planning, his main secret society was formed – the Rhodes Scholarships are part of that society. Oxford members of the Rhodes network were the likes of Lord Toynbee and Lord Milner, well known geo-strategists. In Cambridge there was the future Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey and Lord Esher. In London there was the leading journalist at the time, W.T. Stead, and initiates and members of the Executive committee of Cecil Rhodes were the above-named men, plus Lord [Rothschild].
After Rhodes’ death in 1902, other leading English bloodlines that repeatedly plagued the City of London history, such as the Astors, came into the same circle. The outer circle, to achieve the will of Cecil Rhodes – this seemingly benign vision of Britain forcing the world to accept its Liberal democracy and accept its way of viewing the world – the outer circle became known as the Round Table groups, still functioning in the United States and seven other countries, set up from 1909 onwards.
This group regarded the success of the Canadian Federation, 1867, as its leading case study – you’ll be hearing more about that from Matt Ehret later. Canada was effectively politically unified and later the other white colonists, the white dominions, in order to prevent there being a spread of different views, different English-speaking democracies in the world, they must instead all be traced back to the City of London’s control.
This is very contemporary too, because among the many Rhodes scholars that dominate world politics and push the world towards globalism are the aforementioned Bill Clinton and, from the World Economic Forum, the New Zealand Lady Professor Ngaire Woods, who this year became very well known for her saying at the WEF that the elite can do beautiful things if they come together and if the people of the world simply accept that they are in the lead.
Rhodes wrote in one of his secret diaries, quote, “Why should we not form a secret society with but one object,” meaning with only one object, “the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery,” that means recovery for Britain, “of the United States and for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race, but one Empire.”
He also wrote, “Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British Empire,” this is mind space (my comment), Rhodes continues, “a society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea. We should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands. Just one, perhaps in every thousand, would have the mind and feelings for such an object,” this is what Road Scholarships are for, “he should be tried in every way. He should be tested, whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such,” in other words, a psychological test, “then he should be elected and bound by oath that is sworn to secrecy, to serve for the rest of his life in his country. He should then be supported, if without means, by the society and sent to that part of the Empire where it just felt he was needed.” And in this view, vision, of course, the United States is part of the Empire.
In another of his wills, Rhodes described his intent in more detail. Quote, “to and for the establishment, promotion and development of a secret society. The true aim and object, whereof, shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world. The colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Lands, the Valley of the Euphrates,” modern Iraq, “the Islands of Cyprus and Candy,” that is Crete, “the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific, not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, those aboard of China and Japan,” meaning offshore of China and Japan, “and the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”
This vision did not remain the ravings of a particularly wealthy Englishman, but they nativised themselves in the United States in the so-called Eastern Establishment, the Eastern Seaboard, as the United States became the world’s dominant power. The key testimony on this is that of Norman Dodd, D-o-d-d, given shortly before his death in 1982 to G. Edward Griffin, easily found online as Norman Dodd on the tax-exempt foundations. Dodd was the key staffer for Reece, the congressman from East Tennessee, R-e-e-c-e, who in the 1950s carried out on behalf of Congress an investigation into the effect of these tax-exempt foundations in the United States, which implemented the City of London’s and Cecil Rhodes’ vision for world domination.
Now I’m going to read what Dodd said in this interview. He speaks about having hired a sceptical, level headed practicing attorney in Washington. This is in the 1950s and sent her up to the library of the Carnegie Foundation, one of the key tax-exempt foundations where she was given access with a Dictaphone belt, technology of the time to record efficiently what she was reading, to scan the library and see what was being said in the years 1906, that I was mentioning earlier, and 1908. And this initially sceptical woman, quote “unsympathetic to the aims of the Reese committee, found this to her lifelong horror.” She dictated into her belt, according to Dodd, “we are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations, and in that year,” she reads, as she is in the Carnegie Foundation’s library, “the trustees meeting for the first time raised a specific question which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. And the question is: is there any means known more effective than war, assuming that you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that no, no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then” continues the lawyer with her Dictaphone belt on, “in 1909, the Carnegie Foundation raised the second question and discussed it, namely: how do we involve the United States in a war?”
I could go on, but I don’t have the time on that strand, but I think that is enough in itself to establish the key insight in people’s minds that it is not enough to be by far the world’s greatest military and economic powers, the United States has been arguably since before the First World War, certainly after it. If your mind space is still controlled by this argument that the Anglo-Saxon Liberal Democratic model is the only game in town, if it’s still controlled by the unexamined assumption that everyone at the top of that model is paid up to liberty, then you are still going to find that a club with self-interest is going to run the world. And even in areas such as healthcare, which Britain first, the first country in the world, socialised in 1948, you’re going to find that people wrongly and blithely assume that their best interests are kept at heart.
In perhaps two minutes, I will make the other point that I wish to make, which is regarding the City of London and its offshoot in Manhattan in Wall Street, founding both sides of both world wars. Now this is not again an original claim to me. Serious academics such as Anthony Sutton who was at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University in California, have written whole books about this entitled ‘Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution’ and ‘Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler’. This is well known to those who bother to find out about these things. There was a whole trail of documents which was recovered by Anthony Sutton, it cost him his tenure at Stanford. He put this all in his books. And what he found was that in a nutshell, both the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were brought into being for the interests of the City of London and more particularly, its Wall Street end.
So, if you could bring up briefly the first slide, which I asked you to put on screen, you will see just one outworking of that, which is that IBM had a monopoly subsidiary in Germany called the Hollerith Company, Hollerith was the name of the German owner. Can you confirm whether that is on screen at the moment? Wait a minute. Thank you. Yes.
So, you can see here that Hollerith, the nominal German owner of this IBM subsidiary, is offering the Third Reich [ubersicht], or oversight, using punch cards, an American technology licensed to the Third Reich. At the bottom, you can read “[ubersicht] mit Hollerith Lockkarton,” total information awareness using Hollerith punch cards, and the company name at the bottom is “Deutsche Hollerith Maschnen Gesellschaft, or [Dehumark], which was in Berlin Lichterfelder.
The second slide, which I have, is just one example of the total reach of British intelligence in areas which is not constitutionally able or permitted to have, which is that you can see a Christmas tree symbol here indicating that MI5, even before the Second World War, was vetting who got onto the airwaves of the BBC, who got promoted and who got transferred. This was all done checking with MI5 – in very brief terms, British intelligence, okay, it nominally is there for the nation, but it was set up by the bloodlines of which I speak to further their private aims. That’s certainly how they regard the running of British intelligence.
The third of my four slides shows how this breaks surface in 2010, where the British Cabinet Office, together with a think tank the Institute of Government, is openly speaking about its control of the world’s thinking and the thinking of the British people. They’re labelling parts of the brain under the label of MINDSPACE. And on the right-hand side, I can see that you’ve put the key text from pages 66 and 67 of this 2010 document.
It says, “even if people agree with the behaviour goal” – this is about nudging to get people to behave as was wished by bloodlines, rather than to mandate the governments to act on their behalf – “Even if people agree with the behaviour goal, they may object to the means of accomplishing it. The different MINDSPACE effects will attract different levels of controversy. There are several factors that determine controversy,” in other words they are foreseeing that they will be told this is a reversal of the age of government, including in health care, of course. They go on, “as noted, MINDSPACE effects depend at least partly on the automatic system. This means that citizens may not fully realise that their behaviour is being changed, or at least how it is being changed. Clearly, this opens government up to charges of manipulation. People tend to think that attempts to change their behaviour will be effective if they are simply providing information in an above-board way. People have a strong dislike of being tricked. This dislike has a psychological grounding, but fundamentally it is an issue of trust in government. A lack of conscious control also has implications for consent and freedom of choice. First, it creates a greater need for citizens to approve the use of the behaviour change, perhaps using new forms of Democratic engagement.”
You see that in this model, democracy is the highest good that’s sold, but the levers of manipulating democracy are in the hands of the cartel.
“Second, if the effect operates automatically, it may offer little opportunity for citizens to opt out or choose otherwise. The concept of choice architecture is less used here. Any action that may reduce the right to be wrong, the right to refuse treatment, for example, will be very controversial. Of course, some traditional attempts to change behaviour are not explicit, and these have attracted controversy. But they rarely attract the charge of manipulation because they are based on conscious actions to supply and register information rather than relying on unconscious reactions.”
I think that establishes the point well enough in principle that we are trained in the modern world, dominated by the City of London and its soft power institutions, to think that we are in control of our destiny because Liberal democracy is held up as the paragon on the correct argument often that all other systems are more tyrannical and less desirable. But the whole strength of the City of London’s model is that it can even operate at arms-length through other countries, such as the United States and Germany as demonstrated here, to persuade people that what they wanted before is not really what they want now. And it’s the filling of the mind space which is, I think, the most powerful weapon that’s available there.
Now I can see that I’ve gone over the time allotted, so I will leave the rest of these details. I could never have hoped to be comprehensive here, but I trust that I have given people a small taster of the long track record of solid historical research that there has been by people well familiar with the British establishment in establishing this, that the British establishment hasn’t been fighting fair since about 1870, and that most of the revolutions it wished to bring about – control of democracy through party whipping, control of health care through the compulsory States provided to healthcare in the British and Canadian model – were all in place by the post war period, which is the time at which I understand Matt Ehret is going to pick up the testimony and take us into the post 1945 era.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Alex. This is a perfect overview of how we got into this. If I may, I would like to ask just a few questions. Of course, my learned colleagues will do the same. But is it correct that the City of London is the real powerhouse in the UK?
Thomson: It is unquestionably the powerhouse. This is something that if you’ve had my background, you learn at boarding school, let alone at university. So, Rugby and Cambridge in my case. And by the time you get into the civil service, there is a lot of eye rolling if you ever suggest that the people of Britain, or any other country in the Commonwealth, have self-determination. No, the City of London is understood to own the population, body, mind and soul.
Reiner Fuellmich: Ultimately, and this seems to have started fairly early, I don’t know if it started, I forget if it was in 1870 or in the early 1900s, but ultimately, it’s the control of the people’s mind that the City of London to further their goal of world domination that they really wanted. Is that correct?
Thomson: Yes. And this is not a specifically Anglo-Saxon problem anymore. Because there are countries on the European continent, which certainly since 1949 – Germany is one of them the Federal Republic, of course, Belgium is another, which, as I said in my testimony, was set up by British insistence in 1815 – I translate, at quite a high level, government communications from, supposedly, the national health agencies of these countries to their citizens – I translate them into English for expatriates in those countries – and the Belgian and German, to name these two examples, governments are explicitly following a City of London view here. They write to the population in terms of health management, telling them that the way that they exist is not good enough. Their bodies, their minds, their genetics, their intelligence have not been optimised, and therefore this livestock, this population, is not competing as it should in the world. So that is an extension of the City of London model to the European continent, where it’s turned out, in many ways, to fit in just as well to codified civil law jurisdictions with high respect for the rule of law as it does in a common law jurisdiction.
Reiner Fuellmich: So ultimately what we’re seeing is a very powerful, financially powerful and therefore powerful, institution – City of London – which bridges the Atlantic because as its fifth column, as some people claim, they have Wall Street. Those two powers united used to be, or still are, the center of power in this world.
Thomson: Yes, you can take many twists and turns, especially in the mid-20th century period, but what you have said is a useful diagnostic summary of the whole of the 20th century. There are struggles, for a long time there was a completely nontrivial Cold War, with branches of the aristocracy in the City of London being both pro- and anti-Soviet Union. I could talk for hours just about that. But that is secondary to the determination that there must be only a German block and a Russian block in Eurasia, and that both of these ultimately must be controlled and hemmed in by British or Anglo-American sea power and Anglo-American soft power setting the paradigms for them.
Reiner Fuellmich: Another thing that I wanted to clarify is, you mentioned that it is just a few families who really run the City of London. You mentioned the names of Rothschild and Rhodes and Astor. Is it true that it’s just a few families who are trying to dominate the world through the City of London?
Thomson: Yes. I have never found better material than that of a writing duo which is Dutch / German-American. The Dutchman is Robin de Ruiter, R-u-I-t-e-r. His American German co-author is Fritz Springmeier from South Carolina. They have the rather shocking book titled ‘Bloodlines of the Illuminati’. But their work is solid and they consistently show that the City of London, Manhattan, the European continent, are very much dominated by a small number of families. Often 13 is given as the top level of these families. Obviously, there are levels below that. The French, for example, often spoke about “le deux cents familles,” the 200 bloodlines, that run the deep state, but the senior ones terrorise the junior ones in this model, and the highest you can get up before you disappear into nebulist claims of Satan running the world, which ultimately, I believe he does. But the highest level you can get up to is a level at which Central European Germanic bloodlines have an uneasy truce with British Isles bloodlines, most of whom are now based in the United States. That is the largest model. And all the geopolitical frustrations of the 20th century ultimately are to do with one or other willing trying to gain ascendancy – should we go with the city or overturn the city? And it had to do with the frustration of emerging superpowers, notably the Russians trying to play on level terms with that bloodline cartel and failing.
Reiner Fuellmich: And one of the major means through which these very few families are trying to dominate the rest of the world seems to be through mind space, which sounds a little bit like mind control. Does that mean through psychological operations?
Thomson: Very much so. No nation got into the game of psychological operations earlier than Britain. As soon as there were formal intelligence agencies in Britain in the Edwardian era, just before the First World War, it was a major concentration. But they borrowed a lot of their insights from Vienna and from Germany, which were leading in the psychological space at the time. So, this is a transnational interest in both the Anglo and the Germanic areas of world domination at the time, to use the tricks of Mindspace. And these were largely perfected when America had unchallenged Germany after 1945, using as in so many other areas, such as Operation Paperclip for technical areas, using a lot of the Third Reich and Soviet minds actually brought over to the United States surreptitiously. It’s been regarded as since the days of Edward Bernays and Freud, as the most powerful way of controlling action in the real world. Because if you cannot perceive of there being a valid way of doing things other than what you’re told is the right way, then that’s obviously the supreme power that you can have. If you have that power, you control people who are more numerous, more intelligent and stronger than yourself.
Reiner Fuellmich: Did I hear correctly that you used the term livestock? Is that really the view that these people have of the rest of the world?
Thomson: It is explicitly the view that, certainly in the 1990s when I was at a senior British boarding school, this term was used explicitly, by the grandsons of City of London seniors, to describe the British population who walked under their own windows on the way to, as we went to lessons, they were going about their business in town. The terms that were used for them revolved around the idea that they were cattle and did not deserve a place in the world other than under the direction of the British elite.
Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Alex. I don’t want to keep my learned colleagues from asking questions, so please go ahead.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Good day, Mr. Alex Thomson. Thank you so much for your evidence. Can you hear me loud and clear?
Thomson: Perfectly well, thank you.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Excellent. Mr. Thomson, I would like to know, and you have actually touched on the African continent and specifically you’ve mentioned Cecil John Rhodes, I would like to know from you: what role does the City of London play currently on the African continent? Can you please just elaborate on that?
Thomson: The role that it plays is a very dark and complex one and is largely seen when coup d’états and revolutions occur in former British colonies. Of course, there is a whole band of countries formerly coloured pink on the map, famously from Cairo all the way down to the Cape, where Britain nearly installed a railway and a single colony. And in these countries, you see it most clearly. Mrs. Thatcher’s son was involved in a failed coup attempt in a non-Anglophone African country, Equatorial Guinea. This is just one example where the attempt was bungled and the City of London sponsors left Mark Thatcher to dry on his own, as it were, when this failed. I think most particularly what we see in former Rhodesia now the nations of Zambia and Zimbabwe, is that there’s been a node where the City of London has retained financially corrupt and powerful people and the local SAS contingents from the era of white rule who have done a lot of the dirty work, even in London itself, in the post war period. And this has been done on the basis of having, on paper, ownership of rich mineral assets in Southern Africa. That’s the most general way in which I could talk about it. There are even suspicious deaths as late as the 1979 Lancaster House accords paving the way for Zanu-PF to take over from the Smith government in Rhodesia as it became Zimbabwe, with lawyers falling, supposedly, to their deaths out of windows. It’s an extremely dark picture. And the more you look at some of the companies involved, Kroll Security is one that comes to mind, the more you see that there is a Nexus between MI6, SAS and the City of London, and it regards Southern Africa in particular as its prime asset.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you very much. So, will you then agree with me, Ms. Thomson, that when it comes to financial dominance, when we look at Covid-19 debt is at the core. So, you will agree that financial dominance is at the core of the Covid-19 pandemic?
Thomson: Yes, I would, and I would qualify it very slightly by reminding you that in Carroll Quigley’s summary of the Anglo-American elite establishment’s worldview, he points out that the ownership of financial assets is already outdated by the 1960s. And he knows that the great brains, not necessarily the good brains, a century prior to him, already saw this coming. They were regarding the real wealth as human minds and human health and the ability to alter and to copyright, in time, the human being into a new model that would behave as expected. That is the great wealth in the world. But with that caveat, if we call that wealth and in extension, we can call it financial, then yes, that is the greatest price there is. The whole point about the City of London is: if you are somewhat intellectually gifted and come up from a privileged British background into Oxford and Cambridge, you really only have the choice between money making in the City of London or some branch of national service such as intelligence or officer ship. And the difference, time and again I saw between myself and those who went the other way in my cohort, was principle. Neither group doubted that the real power in the world was ownership of capital. It’s just a question of whether you wish to serve that by being an intelligence officer, who reports to the City of London ultimately, or whether you wish to be part of the action making the money. There is no higher ideal than that in the Anglo-American model.
Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. Thank you very much. No further questions for me. Thank you.
Reiner Fuellmich: Any questions from Ana or Virginie or Dipali?
Ana Garner: No, I think this was quite excellent. The only question I would ask is: how do you turn this? You mentioned various things like copywriting the human mind, copywriting, maybe the genetics even. Do you feel that there is a link between the current vaccines, so-called vaccines – the shots from Pfizer, Moderna, Jansson, AstraZeneca – do you think there is a relationship between those and this goal of copywriting the humans?
Thomson: I very strongly believe that, I’m not medically or biotechnologically qualified to explain how much truth there may be in this, but I’ve seen time and again that where there is hype and where there is a pseudo theological belief among the elite in Britain and America that you can achieve a certain aim by pulling a certain trick such as by editing a gene and stamping a copyright on the human body, as it were. That is enough motivation in and of itself to fuel a serious attempt to go that way. And I know that when Debbie Evans takes part of Brian Gerrish’s testimony slot later this evening, she will be talking about that. I think that the very heart of it is the idea that genetic editing will allow de facto sneaky copywriting of the number of souls and bodies in humanity that are affected so that they’re no longer under the creator.
Ana Garner: Thank you.
Reiner Fuellmich: Okay. Then that concludes Alex Thomson’s testimony.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Thank YOU, Hilda. We can only express gratitude, however, to The Expose site for doing the transcripts. Yes, we agree – jamming 2 days back to back is a lot to take in.
Thank you and the Expose for the great effort to publish the transcript.
The Grand Jury videos are mindblowing and the truth exposed there are essential to understand what is really going on.
However, videos are very long (as it is the case in any Jury proceeding) and they should have spaced DAY 2 and DAY 3 because it’s too much to absorb in just a week end (which was busy with many other things like Freedom Convoys and protests).
They should also have made the gran Jury last longer with shorter sessions and preferably in the week (as week ends are used for other things by most people).
BUT IT’S GREAT and thank you for the transcript.