Starmer: If Boris Goes, Is This All There Is? Rock and a Hard Place

ER Editor: We’re running an op-ed piece by Frank Furedi for RT from October 1, 2020 discussing Starmer’s woke posturing and what a sinister phenomenon it masks, along with a piece by Paul Knapp for Labour Heartlands from February 24, 2020, which deals with Starmer’s behind-the-scenes, deep state affiliations.

Our title doesn’t imply that globalist Boris is preferable: it’s that there is no real choice. Starmer is no genuine critic of the liberty- and economy-destroying lockdowns that nobody really wants, that are shredding the lives of working class people he’s supposed to represent, making them much poorer and unemployed. Here’s an Oct. 20 tweet ambiguously showing support for the people the Tories have locked down, yet he doesn’t oppose the fact that ‘communities fac[e] restrictions.’ Instead, he opts to take the knee (see below), which is an implicit criticism of the people he’s supposed to represent:

See also these damning articles about Starmer:

UK Column: Where were the Missing 300 MPs in Wednesday’s CV Vote? [VIDEO]

High Treason in UK Destroys Democratic Governance Producing Totalitarianism

Unstoppable Rise of Intel Agency Favourite Keir Starmer Shows How UK ‘Democracy’ Really Works.


‘Forgive me, Father, for I am white’: Kier Starmer absolves himself of the sin of whiteness with unconscious bias training


The British Labour leader enthusiastically prostrated himself before the gods of woke to purge his soul of racism, but this is not harmless virtue-signaling, it is promotion of dangerous indoctrination.

When it comes to taking pride in your achievement, the leader of the British Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, sets the bar rather low. This is why his spokesman has actually bothered to inform the world that Starmer has passed his unconscious bias training course.

‘Forgive me, Father, for I am white’: Kier Starmer absolves himself of the sin of whiteness with unconscious bias training

In reality, anyone who is prepared to humiliate themselves and listen to a moral entrepreneur lecture them about their bias and unwitting racism can pass their unconscious bias training.

All you have to do is nod your head, acknowledge that you, along with all white people, are unwittingly racist and confess to a time when you used your white privilege, and you will get your course certificate. As Starmer no doubt understands, what’s important about the ritual of unconscious bias training is your willingness to participate and subjugate yourself to a few hours of humiliation.

It is the woke equivalent of an old-fashioned confessional. A willingness to be humiliated indicates that you are prepared to be reborn as a re-educated white person. It is not a particularly expensive ritual and in return you are rewarded with a certificate that indicates that you are a person of virtue.

It is a symptom of the moral disorientation of the British establishment that they feel compelled to demonstrate their willingness to be trained out of their biases. Recently, it was announced that MPs will be made to take anti-racist training at work in parliament. At a time when the nation struggles to deal with a pandemic and the economy is in ruins, our members of parliament will line up like like naughty pupils line up to acknowledge their unconscious biases!

While some MPs have been hesitant to show up at a training course, Starmer has beaten them to the punch. He had an early lead over the rest because Starmer boasted back in early July that he would sign up for unconscious bias training at the first opportunity. He stated:

‘I think everybody should have unconscious bias training. I think it is important. There is always the risk of unconscious bias and just saying ‘Oh well it probably applies to other people, not me’ is not the right thing to do.’

He also added that that he was going to introduce unconscious bias training for all the officials in his party. And to underline his enthusiasm, Starmer declared: “I’m going to lead from the top on this and do that training first.”

Starmer’s enthusiasm for training was provoked by his concern that unless he did something to demonstrate he was on the side of the angels, his anti-racist credentials would be questioned by his woke supporters.

Just before he showed his willingness to sign up for the first available training course, he made the unpardonable error of describing the Black Lives Matter protests as a ‘moment.’ He later tried to correct himself by saying that he had meant to describe the movement as a “defining moment” and was not suggesting it was a “fleeting moment[ii].

However, Starmer’s half-hearted apology was not good enough. Labour MP Florence Eshalomi stated that his ‘choice of words [was] wrong,’ and it was only a matter of time before an army of race entrepreneurs would jump on the bandwagon and denounce the Labour leader’s unwitting racism. Heading for the re-education class was his way of asking for forgiveness. No doubt when he arrived and was instructed to jump, his response was ‘how high?’

So what is this unconscious bias that white people need to be trained out of? Unconscious bias is the original sin of white people. It implies that even if you think you are anti-racist, you are not free from your unconscious biases. Race entrepreneurs argue that they know better than you what is really going on inside your head. Therefore, it does not matter what your think or say, they get to decide what’s on your mind. And their aim is to control how you should think and express yourself.

The promotion of unconscious bias workshops has nothing to do with fighting real racism. It is about indoctrination and mind control. It might seem like a harmless exercise of playing along with the demands of woke culture. But the institutionalization of these workshops calls into question your right to think for yourself. And that’s a truly dangerous development.



Sir Keir Starmer: The Trilateral Commission and Jeffrey Epstein

The Washington Post, the publication that brought to light ‘The Watergate scandal,’ revealed to its American readers a conspiracy that shook a nation. The same newspaper also brought to light the truth about the Trilateral Commission, an organisation with dark connections to what’s termed the ‘Deep State,’ the title of that publication being:

Behind closed doors, they meet hidden away. Some call them “the shadow government,” “the Establishment,” the “global elite” that runs the world.

They call themselves simply …

‘The Trilateral Commission’

There are plenty of conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission, a 47-year-old organisation that helps in making them easy work. They range from anti-democratic, anti-Christian or anti-worker, and that it is scheming ultimately to abolish the sovereignty of nations and establish one-world government! However, sometimes you don’t need conspiracy theories because the truth is far more shocking.


Most reporters/journalists or commentators tend not to explore or bring to light anything remotely conspiratorial. It ruins reputations and allows others the ability to scorn at the readership. Real investigative journalism died a very long time ago. Today, we are spoon fed directly from the ‘fourth estate‘ for the mainstream our views are channelled directed and manipulated.

George Orwell writes: “If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.” In this country, intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.

It is no secret that over the last 4 decades, mainstream media has been consolidated from dozens of competing companies to only six. Hundreds of channels, websites, news outlets, newspapers, and magazines, making up ninety percent of all media is controlled by very few people—giving people the illusion of choice.

But in the interest of democracy, we should always have an informed society. Almost every democratic theorist or democratic political actor sees an informed electorate as essential to good democratic practice. Citizens need to know who or what they are voting for, who we are choosing to represent us, and who and what their associations are. The very reason we have a members’ interests bill.

It should, therefore, be very concerning when we find that the Labour Party Leader is a member of an organisation that believes that we the people have too much freedom, too much democracy.

An organisation that believes the working class, the masses should be removed from any democratic process, leaving the issues of democracy and government to the Elite, the establishment.

It is therefore incumbent on all Labour Party members to understand that Sir Keir Starmer is a member of such an organisation, a very powerful undemocratic organisation that advocates a ‘New World Order,‘ one in which the people’s role in government and democracy is greatly reduced.

The foundations of a new world order

In 1973, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission. Involving highly influential people from business and politics in the US, Western Europe, and Japan, the Commission was soon perceived as constituting an embryonic or even shadow world government.

This global governance and body of international diplomacy should be considered a product of overlapping elite networks that merge informal and formal spheres across national borders.

An organisation that was created to spread neoliberal free-market values across the globe, that now finds itself having to recreate its form and mission to manage the spread of nationalism, populism and protectionism, all of which they vehemently oppose.

Advocates of a new world order

Critics accuse the Commission of promoting a global consensus among the international ruling classes in order to manage international affairs in the interest of the financial and industrial elites under the Trilateral umbrella.

Preposterous, say members of the Trilateral Commission. It is merely a “discussion group” on world affairs, composed of high-level corporate and public-policy types from North America, Western Europe and Japan. The commission seeks only to promote international cooperation, for the betterment of everybody. Nothing sinister.

Its annual reports and task force papers are available for the public to read. Its membership list isn’t secret. Just ask and the commission will send you stuff. Anyone who can dial directory assistance can get its New York phone number.

Still, plenty of ordinary, educated people have no idea what the Trilateral Commission is or what it does, even though its former members include some very prominent people including US presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush and Bill Clinton, to name but a few.

The Trilateral Commission is led by three regional chairs for Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific regions. The regional chairs have several deputies and an executive committee. The entire membership meets annually in rotating locations to consider their strategies and organisational platform. Regional and national meetings are held throughout the year. Regional headquarters are in Washington, D.C., Paris and Tokyo.

The Trilateral Commission wields its power economically and politically. It is sometimes considered a “rich men’s club” with few women members. The Trilateral Commission espouses support for private enterprise, economic freedom and stronger collective management of global problems. Its members include influential current politicians, banking and business executives, media, civic, and intellectual leaders and several union chiefs.

The Trilateral Commission’s agendas sync with those of the G7 summits between the leaders of the world’s largest economies. Members have held key positions in U.S. administrations and in the governments of other member countries.

Five questions for politicians

“Five questions for politicians:

1. What power have you got?

2. Where did you get it from?

3. In whose interest do you exercise it?

4. To whom are you accountable?

5. How can we get rid of you?” — Tony Benn

Sir Keir Starmer seems to be doing a good job at pitching himself as being on the Left. He and his supporters claim he will “unite the party” while making a point to emphasise his so-called “Left-wing credentials”.

You may hear that in his twenties he edited a Trotskyist magazine. Or that he was the defence barrister for the miners out on strike in 1984/5. That he stood alongside McDonalds’ workers on picket lines.

But there is one association Sir Kier Starmer and his supporters are not talking about….

The Trilateral Commission, of which Starmer is a member. Other members include top executives of multinational conglomerates such as AT&T and ITT. Oil companies such as Mobil and Exxon, but also the top C.E.Os of the Chase Manhattan Bank, First Chicago Corp, General Electric, TRW, Archer Daniels Midland, Pepsi, RJR Nabisco, Nissan, Toshiba, Fuji Bank and Goldman Sachs.

LINK Trilateral membership January 2020

Starmer’s name first appeared on the membership list of the Trilateral Commission in April 2019. Out of 650 MP’s, he was the only one invited to become a member. These perhaps aren’t the sort of people Sir Keir would see as an ideal photo opportunity, to be used in his campaign highlighting his “lefty credentials”.

What we have is Sir Keir Starmer as part of an organisation that Holly Sklar, who edited a book on the organisation entitled “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management”, identifies as the commission that “represents the interests of multinational corporations and banks”. This means it is contrary to the interests of so-called ‘non-developed’ countries and workers the world over. It wants wages kept low. It wants voters kept apathetic and polarised.

Sklar states that the Trilateral Commission is not a “conspiracy” and is not “omnipotent… But that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.” And the Commission set out to economically “co-opt” OPEC to persuade the Saudis to put their petrodollars into Western banks and to purchase Western arms, rather than investing in the ‘developing’ world.

Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy

How elites on both sides of the political spectrum have undermined our social, political, and environmental commons.

Chomsky on Crisis of Democracy by Trilateral Commission

Noam Chomsky says the Trilateral Commission’s aim is to bring about a moderation in democracy to allow only the elite to vote. A backwards step in democracy and the working class movement.

Social critic and academic Noam Chomsky has criticised the Commission as undemocratic, pointing to its publication The Crisis of Democracy, which describes the strong popular interest in politics during the 1970s as an “excess of democracy”.

Chomsky described it as one of the most interesting and insightful books showing the modern democratic system not to really be a democracy at all but controlled by elites.

Two documents came out right in the mid-’70s, which are quite important. They came from opposite ends of the political spectrum, both influential, and both reached the same conclusions. One of them, at the left end, was by the Trilateral Commission—liberal internationalists of three major industrial countries, and basically the Carter administration. That is the more interesting one [The Crisis of Democracy, a Trilateral Commission report]. The American rapporteur Samuel Huntington of Harvard looked back with nostalgia to the days when, as he put it, Truman was able to run the country with the cooperation of a few Wall Street lawyers and executives. Then everything was fine. Democracy was perfect.

But in the ’60s they all agreed it became problematic because the special interests started trying to get into the act, and that causes too much pressure and the state can’t handle that.


We have to have more moderation in democracy.

“The cure for democracy is more democracy.” He said, “No, the cure for this democracy is less democracy.”

This is the liberal establishment. This is a consensus view of the liberal internationalists and the three industrial democracies. They—in their consensus—concluded that a major problem is what they called, in their words, “the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young.” The schools, the universities and churches are not doing their job. They’re not indoctrinating the young properly. The young have to be returned to passivity and obedience, and then democracy will be fine. That’s the left-leaning end.

Now, what do you have at the right end? A very influential document, the Powell Memorandum, came out at the same time. Lewis Powell, a corporate lawyer, later Supreme Court justice, produced a confidential memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce, which has been extremely influential. It more or less set off the modern so-called “conservative movement.” The rhetoric is kind of crazy. We won’t go through it, but the basic picture is that this rampaging left has taken over everything. We have to use the resources that we have to beat back this rampaging New Left, which is undermining freedom and democracy.

Connected with this was something else. As a result of the activism of the ’60s and the militancy of labor, there was a falling rate of profit. That’s not acceptable. So we have to reverse the falling rate of profit, we have to undermine democratic participation, so what comes next? Neoliberalism, which achieves exactly those results.

Chomsky says that as it was an internal discussion, they “let their hair down” and talked about how the public needs to be reduced to its proper state of apathy and obedience. Essentially liberal internationalists from Europe, Japan and the United States, the liberal wing of the intellectual elite.

The Trilateral Commission are concerned with trying to induce what they call a “more moderation in democracy”—turn people back to passivity and obedience so they don’t put so many constraints on state power and so on. In particular, they were worried about young people.

They are concerned about the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young (that’s their phrase), meaning schools, universities, church and so on—they’re not doing their job, [the young are] not being sufficiently indoctrinated. They’re too free to pursue their own initiatives and concerns and you’ve got to control them better.

An example of Government influence

Barack Obama appointed eleven members of the Trilateral Commission to top-level and key positions in his administration within his first ten days in office. This represents a very narrow source of international leadership inside the Obama administration, with a core agenda that is not necessarily in support of working people in the United States.

Obama was groomed for the presidency by key members of the Trilateral Commission. Most notably, Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller in 1973, has been Obama’s principal foreign policy advisor.

According to official Trilateral Commission membership lists, there are only eighty-seven members from the United States (the other 337 members are from other countries). Thus, within two weeks of his inauguration, Obama’s appointments encompassed more than 12 percent of Commission’s entire US membership.

Trilateral appointees include:

* Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner

* Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice

* National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones

* Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon

* Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker

* Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair

* Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell

* Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass

* State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke

Trilateralist Brent Scowcroft has been an unofficial advisor to Obama and was mentor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. And Robert Zoelick, current president of the World Bank appointed during the G.W. Bush administration, is a member.

Connections to the Dark side

Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein reportedly hanged himself in his cell (Image: Reuters)

Jason Cridland and David Hitchen from the Dorset Eye write: In 2019 the Commission published a report with the express aim of becoming more en vogue. The rise of Trump and other right-wing neoconservative governments and parties has meant that the free market has come under attack. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism was always a contradiction (as Thatcherism and Reaganism found out) and the lurch to the political right has had a negative effect upon the ideals of the economic right.

The Trilateral Commission has sought to reinvent its doctrine in the face of increasing suspicion, certainly of globalisation and its impacts upon nation-states but also in cases in which some people have become increasingly aware of the deep state in which the Tripartite Commission, Davos, Bilderberg, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are significant parts.

To add to their problems, there are those whose behaviour could somewhat tarnish their already suspect reputations, including amongst the most prominent Jeffrey Epstein, former hedge fund manager and convicted sex-trafficker

Birds of a feather, flock together.’ It is almost certain that some current and former members of the elitist Trilateral Commission who participated in Epstein’s follies are likely very nervous that he would ‘flip’ and expose their debauchery, if not their sexual felonies.’ This, of course, has now been ‘avoided’ as Jeffrey Epstein ‘officially’ took his own life in August 2019. LINK

Let’s take a closer look at Mr. Epstein.

One of the most surprising things about Epstein is that he was a member of some of the most powerful and influential groups in the US.

He was a member of:

  1. The Council on Foreign Relations
  2. The Trilateral Commission
  3. Trilateral North American Group


Aside from Clinton, who are the people that Epstein was associated with?

  1. Prince Andrew
  2. Alan Dershowitz
  3. Larry Summers
  4. Donald Trump
  5. Ehud Barak
  6. Eliot Spitzer
  7. Kevin Spacey
  8. Peter Mandelson

Powerful associates, including Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew, have had their conduct scrutinised in the wake of the ongoing scandal.

Mr Mandelson, who was friends with Epstein’s former lover Ghislaine Maxwell, was staying on the island of Saint Barthelemy when the pictures were taken.

Peter Mandelson shopping with Jeffrey Epstein on December 27, 2005, in St. Barts

But it is suggested the two may have met on other occasions.

In 2011, Virginia Roberts – who claims she was a sex slave to Epstein – said that she was introduced to Mr Mandelson at a dinner party at the financier’s house in New York.

She said: “I never heard of Jeffrey knowing Tony Blair, but he did know Peter Mandelson. I remember him being at the house in New York and I was introduced to him at a dinner party.

One of Britain’s most powerful politicians wasn’t afraid to phone Jeffery Epstein looking for a favor — even while the pedophile was behind bars for sex crimes, according to a new documentary.

A new “Dispatches” documentary set to air on Britain’s Channel 4 Monday claims Lord Peter Mandelson was Labour Business Secretary in 2009 when he called Epstein — then cooling his heels in a Florida jail after pleading to procuring an underage prostitute — trying to arrange a meeting with the boss of JP Morgan bank, according to The Sun.

The pedo and the politician were seemingly so close that Epstein even had a pet name for the UK cabinet member — calling him “Petie,” according to the report. LINK

“I must say I was astonished that a British Cabinet minister at that time, probably the most powerful man other than the Prime Minister, was calling Jeffrey in jail,” a friend of Epstein’s who revealed the call told the documentary.

Here are some of the people that have current (past) membership in elite organizations.

Members of all three (CFR, Trilateral, Trilateral N.A.) include:

David Rockefeller Sr., Harold Brown, John Deutsch, Mortimer Zuckerman, Richard Holbrooke

Democracy has to be about more than just casting a vote. An informed society creates a better more open democracy. A democracy that does not have an informed public is destined to decay. Unjust legislation would be passed, laws would be unequally enforced and elected officials would fall to corruption.

ER: Which is exactly what we are seeing with the state of the UK Parliament, a state of affairs that Keir Starmer is doing nothing to rectify, as he incites his MPs not to vote against the government, effectively rubber stamping the elite-driven agenda behind Boris. See the articles we linked to in the introduction.




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.