by Professor Revilo P. Oliver
The current issue of "News of the New World" (Honeydew, South Africa) contains an excerpt from the issue of "Special Office Brief" for 20 June 1985. It is a clear statement of an important element in the elaborate swindle that is called "democracy."
The ambiguously named "Special Office Brief" is the confidential and extremely expensive report of a private intelligence service that is the successor of Kenneth de Courcy's ill-fated "Intelligence Digest." It is now published in Dublin for security from harassment by the gang of aliens and traitors who presided over the liquidation of the British Empire and are now presiding over the liquidation of Britain itself.
The editor, commenting on the function of the persons whom the public in a "democracy" regards as its political "leaders" and thinks it has chosen as Prime Ministers or Presidents, observes that "They are presented to us as actors. A great actor may portray Napoleon on the stage brilliantly without possessing the smallest knowledge of military strategy. He is an actor and we see only the actor. We know nothing of the real person behind the actor.
"Today the world's office holders are schooled by professionals, physically made up by experts, and produced on the screen by show business directors. The real person is deliberately concealed both in respect of his or her true physical appearance and as to his or her abilities.
"The speeches are written by professionals who themselves have no constitutional responsibility. Few, if any, statesmen now in office are capable of appearing on a public platform without make-up to deliver an explanatory speech about world affairs. Moreover questions and answers for television interviews are (for the most part) pre-arranged. The public never sees or hears the real person and cannot judge what the statesman himself really knows, believes or plans. (Furthermore, in the English House of Commons the true relevance of questions and answers and still more the worth of them is lost amidst a shouting and screaming staged for effect – rather stupidly. The idea is to give an impression that a minister is caught out or confused.)
"Only a handful of people meet in private persons who hold exalted positions. They are not supposed to relate their genuine impressions or if they do are never again invited. Time and time again we learn only long afterwards that such a visitor discovered a Minister to be virtually ga-ga and to be a mere puppet. (It was only years afterwards that we learnt that when still Prime Minister Churchill had little idea where he was or what the conversation was about. We were told only long afterwards whereas one would have thought the British Nation was entitled to know that its Prime Minister was no longer mentally functional.)(1)
"It is very tough on Democracy to deprive it of a fair and true picture of the persons who aspire to lead it. One wonders whether it is proper for democracy to be invited to vote for Saatchi & Saatchi's make-up edition of a Minister without being permitted the least glimpse of the Minister as he or she really is. Ought we to be required to vote for the actor of a part rather than the true person? One does wonder. But the true person we now never see or hear. We see a made-up face and dyed hair and we hear a speech written by someone other than the speaker. We see a presentation arranged by show-business experts [and] rehearsed under tuition with intent to mislead and deceive us. Politics and show business are now inseparable. Perhaps that is why the stage idol we vote for turns out in practice to be a hopeless fool.
"Saatchi & Saatchi and the like are paid millions to produce an image and to conceal the reality. We vote for the image and then wonder why the image does not come up to the expectations aroused by its speeches which were also made-up and not the composition of the idol.
"Everyone concerned knew exactly what such persons as George Washington, William Pitt, or Gladstone really were. Only a tiny inner circle has the least idea of what our contemporary public personalities are composed. If we judge from the extent of make-up and stage management the reality must leave a good deal to be desired."
(In copying the foregoing, I have reproduced oddities of diction and punctuation that are surprising in a British writer.)
The editor's description of the "democratic process" holds true for all of the Aryan nations that God's Master Race is now liquidating, but the editor was, of course, immediately concerned with Maggie Thatcher, the "shabbat goyah" who now rules the ruins of Great Britain for the Jews. She is the English counterpart of our Ronnie, and although she did not have his experience as an actor in low-grade motion pictures, she had a natural talent for histrionics and was easily trained for her role when, as Colin Jordan says in his excellent article, "Kosher Queen of Britain," in "Spearhead" for June 1985, a team of theatrical experts "got to work on her: her hair, face, clothes, voice, gestures, situations (namely the arrangement of 'controlled walkabout situations' where she was filmed talking to 'ordinary people' and doing vote-fetching things)."
The theatrical experts trained the unscrupulous and clever, but fundamentally stupid, actress so well that, as Mr. Jordan says, "when the day of the great political sale arrived, and her promoters took their perfected product to the general election, this plasticized personality leapt to the top of the political pop-chart, and the Conservatives won the day." (Readers need not be told that there is nothing conservative about the gang of thieves and traitors in Britain who, in well-staged competition with other gangs, call themselves "Conservative" because the name enables them to enlist and exploit the demoralized and befuddled debris of the aristocracy and gentry who once made Britain Great, and to jabber about "free enterprise" and "privatization" as they sell, for the profit of the Jews, the industries that their "Labour" counterparts took from the owners and "nationalized" a few years ago.)
That Maggie was sold to the stupid British in the same way as soap and hamburgers is well-known in England. Even a periodical devoted entirely to business, "International Finance," in June 1984 remarked that "Margaret Thatcher's use of the Saatchis to mastermind her election campaign in 1979 marked the first selling of a British candidate by a professional advertising agency." If the editor of the journal had been interested in strict accuracy, he would have written, "The Saatchis' use of Margaret Thatcher," the synthetic image of a woman whom they had manufactured for the purposes of their predatory tribe.
The Saatchis, now recognized as "the leading British advertising agency," are a pair of porcine Sheenies, whose parents left Iraq a few years after the European catastrophe of 1945 and fastened themselves on the muddled and bewildered British. Within ten years after the brothers set themselves up as experts in "advertising" (i.e., coaxing boobs), they had seventy-four branch offices throughout the world and were taking in $941,000,000 a year. Stupid people think such phenomenal success by Yids is won by business acumen and hard work.
Maggie is a well-trained "shabbat goyah" and a highly profitable investment for her creators. The Saatchis have been given a virtual monopoly of advertising for the British government, and it is known that just one such deal, the contract for British Airways, brought them a net profit of about $6,147,000 in 1983. (I have not seen figures for later years.) And the Jews from Iraq have even commissioned a portrait of Maggie, painted by an artist named Hans Hacke, in which the actress is surrounded by other products of the Saatchis' advertising business and even by disks that bear portraits of the big Sheenies' repulsive features. But it is only natural for manufacturers to label their products.
Enriching the Saatchis is only a small part of Maggie's function, however. It is also well-known in England and even admitted by the press that she "prefers" Jews for public office, and her "predilection" for them is explained by the disingenuous remark that "They share her approach to life." It would be more honest to say that she has been taught her masters' approach to plunder. She has filled the government that rules Britain with grinning Kikes, most of whom try to disguise themselves under such pseudonyms as "Nigel Lawson" and "Leon Brittan," to name only the present Chancellor (who presides over the occupied nation's finances) and the Home Secretary (who controls the police, immigration, and what is called "national security"). Among the many other disguised Yids who are hastening the liquidation of the English people are "Sir"(!) Keith Joseph, Minister of "Education," Stuart Young, who operates the "British" Broadcasting Company, and "Sir"(!) Alfred Sherman, who teaches Maggie what to say when she pretends to have opinions of her own on public issues. To be sure, a few Anglo-Saxons, servile witlings devoid of self-respect, are included in the government for the sake of appearances.
In sum, what the British see of the "British" government is a stage show produced by the world-conquerors to keep their serfs amused and to provide a screen behind which they work their will on the country they have occupied. And, as Colin Jordan points out, Maggie so enjoys performing on the big stage that she sacrifices her own children and even sent her daughter to be petted in a "kibbutz" in the Chosen People's Chosen Land, the future capital of a world they are making One. Like all actresses, of course, Maggie is a star for only a season. When the public becomes tired of her act as Britain's Prime Ministress, she will be replaced by an actor or actress who is now being trained for a debut as a political "leader," probably billed as playing for either "Labour" or the "new" party called "Socialist Labour."
What was odd in the quotation from the "Special Office Brief" above is the editor's use of the term 'democracy' as though it designated a present form of government. As everyone knows, or should know, if words are used for their meaning, and not as sounds that soothe unthinking persons, a democracy is possible only when the franchise is very strictly limited to the comparatively small minority of citizens who have the intelligence, interest, and leisure to consider national policies rationally and with some forethought for the future. When the mass of inhabitants are all permitted to vote, the government becomes an ochlocracy, which necessarily becomes a kakistocracy, since the ignorant and stupid mass will, of course, be manipulated and herded by swindlers and thugs who use the techniques of advertising and evangelism to make the dumb brutes "want" to perform as their masters wish.
In a kakistocracy, such as Little Britain and the United States, it is specially important to keep the big herd of eventual victims amused with exciting melodrama until it is feasible to drop pretense and rule by sheer terror. The editor of "Special Office Brief" mentioned the secrets of the dressing rooms, where the actors are prepared for their parts, but failed to continue with at least some mention of the kind of plays for which the cast was chosen and trained. His omission is odd because he must have remembered Maggie's most thrilling performance, one which gave an illusion of reality to many Englishmen, who were spellbound during the performance and cheered the new Sarah Bernhardt enthusiastically, believing that she actually was the character she enacted and that time had turned backward in its flight.
It is understandable that Englishmen were deceived by a performance that was novel for them and in which they desperately wanted to believe, but American observers, who could be objective and had seen such melodramas on their own stage, recognized a standard plot and mise-en-scene. It was from the first perfectly obvious that the purpose of the British expedition to recover the Falkland Islands from Argentina was to appeal to the manhood, patriotism, and national self-respect that has not yet been totally extinguished by the occupation government, and thereby to create the impression that the government was still British. Saatchi & Saatchi were going to make their creation appear an "Iron Lady," a miniature Elizabeth I.
The ploy was begun, of course, by semi-officially intimating to the government of Argentina, hard pressed by economic pressures put upon it by world Jewry, that Argentine occupation of the British islands would please the traitors in London who had for so long presided over the liquidation of the British Empire, and would be glad to see Britain despoiled of yet another possession. The occupation, it was indicated, would meet, at most, with only a "pro forma" protest. I have no doubt but that agents planted in Argentina pointed out to General Galtieri that occupation of the islands, to which Argentina had a tenuous claim, would greatly enhance his government's prestige and popularity. He stepped into the neatly prepared trap.
From the very first, observers who had read enough in Argentine publications to know that the government there was rashly showing itself insufficiently obsequious to the Master Race, anticipated that the British expedition would be successful and that the defeat of Argentina would overthrow its semi-independent government and permit its replacement with one selected by the race that is conquering the world by deceit and treachery. Every attentive observer knew that was going to happen, just as in his childhood he had known that when the heroine fell over a cliff at the end of one episode in one of the old-fashioned "serials" in the motion pictures, she would somehow be rescued at the beginning of the next week's episode to permit the show to go on.
Continued in next file......
(1) The editor's reference to mental deterioration (as distinct from mere intoxication) evidently applies to the period 1951-1955. So far as I know, the medical diagnosis of Churchill's condition is still secret, but the symptoms belatedly reported by rumor remind one of the early symptoms of recrudescent syphilis in his father, Lord Randolph Churchill. The well-known British historian, David Irving, has written what is doubtless the first honest biography of Winston Churchill, but the publishers have broken their contract with him and no other publisher dares to take the book, since everyone knows what happens to commercial publishers of books that do not bear the Kosher seal of approval. One wonders what the Jews feel they must keep secret about their half-English stooge. The publication of his correspondence by the Oxford Press has made it clear that after 1929 Churchill's income depended on the Jews, who had saved him from bankruptcy and took care of his finances thereafter, and it seems unlikely that there can be much to be added to what is already known about the man's ruthlessness, duplicity, cowardice, and piggish manners off stage.