All Episodes
Nov. 5, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
58:06
The Real Deal (4 November 2021) Nicholas Kollerstrom on "The Gunpowder Plot"
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, where my special guest today, Nick Kohlerstrom from the UK, is going to discuss the Gunpowder Plot, which appears to be the first of a multitude of false flags in England, and where I expect to include this in our False Flag and Conspiracies Conference 2021.
Great pleasure to have you here, Nick.
Go right ahead and give us your thoughts.
Well, I think this is amazing.
You and I first started checking things over together with the London bombing of 2005.
And that was basically the 400th anniversary of the gunpowder plot in England.
And a few years after that, we had a 9-11 truth group going in London, and Webster Tarpley came and gave us a talk.
Claiming that the gunpowder plot was a totally state-fabricated event, that nothing ever really happens.
And his whole theory of how they were, he described his whole theory of how they're arranged, you know, with moles and patsies sent in.
You've got a group of discontented rebels who might think they're going to do something, and actually the government is masterminding it all.
And he gave us this epic talk, which we'll have a look at towards the end.
And it's interesting that now, years later, I've come around to seeing how true that was, and looking at this going back 400 years to the enormous stresses as the Stuarts took over from the Tudors, a changing dynasty, and the traditional religion for a thousand years of this country, the Catholics had been banned and abolished, made illegal, And so there are enormous political stresses and the new incoming king from Scotland, James I, used this whole event to kind of warrant his authority and give it apparent moral or divine approval by having this whole... Shall we go to the next one?
Right, this shows the The idea of some sort of divine approval that James claimed he'd got from this terrific plot.
A wicked plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder put directly underneath where everybody was sitting on the 5th of November 1605.
And he was fortunately just caught red-handed just in time and all his wicked plotters were then executed.
And you can see in this image here, the devil himself is sitting in the mirror with horns, right?
And you can see the Pope to the left of the devil.
Pope holding it with his Pope's hat and everything.
So the Catholics are demonised by this event.
Catholics are blamed.
The whole point of this event was to blame Catholics and demonise what had always been the traditional religion in this country.
And set up this new religion whereby the king was head of the church, which a lot of people objected to.
Obviously it wasn't in accord with scripture at all to make the king the head of the church.
I mean people pray for the safety and well-being of the king and that is what emerged from this gunpowder plot.
So we'll see how the people who were kind of perpetrators responsible for bringing it
up got promoted. This is a key feature of modern state-fabricated terror. So I'd like to suggest
here that our experience of 21st century state-fabricated terror enables us to look back at what
really happened at this event.
So Nick, just for clarification, are you saying this was the beginning of the Anglican
communion and of the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church? Really was, yeah.
Yeah. I'm.
Henry VIII had sort of broken with the Pope, you know, because he wanted to get a divorce, but the whole thing was, the religion was still very much Catholic, and the abolition of traditional Catholic beliefs and Catholic ways of living had Left the state in a very unstable position.
There were door-to-door searches by the Inquisition.
Did you have a crucifix on your mantelpiece?
If you did, you're in dead trouble.
Could anyone find a rosary in your house?
Well, that's about putting you in jail.
Were you harbouring a Catholic priest?
Well, that would get you executed.
Catholics weren't allowed to go more than about five miles outside their own home.
So they were like prisoners in their own country, just for believing in the traditional religion.
So this whole situation was kind of stabilised and ratified by this gunpowder plot.
The whole official narrative could be made about how wicked Catholics were, because had not Catholics plotted this?
And we'll see that is the main problem in believing the idea of this plot.
We can see there are a whole lot of furious people up in the Midlands or the North of England who talked about doing something, you know.
People were really fed up with Catholics being crushed more and more, and obviously the idea of blowing up Parliament was sort of appealed to people, especially after having a few pots of ale, you know.
But actually doing it is a very different thing, and it wouldn't be hard to realise that if you tried to do anything like this, or if you actually did do it, The prospects of Catholics will be infinitely worse.
There's no possible benefit to Catholics from a plot like this.
There's no conceivable successor to the crown who will be a Catholic.
If James I had been killed, the successors would have been Protestant.
So this is a terrific turning point.
Let's just look at the oppression of Catholics.
James I, when he came down from Scotland, because Queen Elizabeth died in 1603 not leaving any heirs, and it had been strictly forbidden to talk about who might inherit the crown after her, so suddenly a Scottish man comes down who isn't a Who isn't a Tudor?
And has he really got a right to inherit the British Crown?
That wasn't at all evident.
In fact, a law had been passed in the Parliament forbidding anyone from Scotland from taking the Crown.
So his position was rather dodgy.
As he came down south, he promised religious toleration.
Now, this might seem quite evident to us nowadays.
Well, sure, you know, live and let live.
Let's have some Catholics here and some Protestants there.
What's the problem?
Well, it became evident, or it was felt to be the case, the politics of Britain, that you couldn't have different religious systems.
You had to have one religion and it supported the state.
That was partly why you could only have one religion, because whatever religion you had would support the state.
And without going into details, Britain had been flopping over, a Catholic Protestant, with people being burnt at the stake, literally, if they believed the wrong thing.
So there was enormous weariness and stress.
And why could James I not keep his promise of toleration?
OK, now, in the background to this gunpowder plot, there's the Earl of Essex.
Shall we go on to the next one?
Go on, next one.
Earl of Essex, yeah I'm saying here, this is a very wise Catholic author, a Jesuit, Gerard, he's saying there's the absence of any possibility that the cause could be benefited which the conspiracist had at heart.
So whichever way this plot fell out, there's no way that Catholics will be improved or liberated.
And this is a main argument against The idea that the plot really existed.
And you can have one guy going berserk with rage.
We can imagine that quite easily, can't we?
But you can't have a group of 13 plotters all acting together and maintaining secrecy and galloping up and down England just out of rage at being oppressed.
If you want a complicated event like this, especially with one and a half tons of gunpowder somehow being assembled, right?
There's got to be a rational hope for what the aim is of the plot.
And that is what is very much lacking.
In this whole plot, we have hardly any genuine confessions from the plotters.
Nearly all of it is through government intermediaries, what people said.
And as we'll see immediately after the thing, it was a non-event.
Nothing happened.
Nothing blew up.
Nothing happened.
It was in a way it's the ultimate non-event but the two people blamed as ringleaders were quickly shot and then the others were tortured to confess.
So this is kind of very suspicious.
Okay I'll just finish what I'm saying about the in 1601 talking about religious toleration there was the Earl of Essex He was a very popular figure.
He was the one sane, balanced politician in this very paranoid climate.
He was a favourite of Queen Elizabeth and he favoured religious toleration.
So just relax a bit and stop tormenting and torturing burning Catholics at stake and let's just calm down a bit, shall we?
Anyway, he got beheaded in 1601 and a lot of the ringleaders of this gunpowder plot, there's a chap called Catesby, who's generally regarded as a main ringleader, were in that Essex plot and were put in jail and convicted, right?
So Of the alleged 13 plotters of the gunpowder plot, about 13, a good half of them had been in the Essex plot and convicted.
Catesby had been financially ruined, had to sell his home to pay for the fines.
And if you look in terms of, in modern terms, the way people are manipulated these days, when people are arrested and found guilty like that, they're pliable to be manipulated, aren't they?
So I'm suggesting that's what happened.
That is why a lot of the plotters had previously been arrested as part of the Essex plot.
And it's why it's unlikely that this plot was genuine, because if they've been arrested and lucky to get away with their lives because they took part in a rebellion in 1601, would they really get together for another plot?
Even worse.
Is that likely, you know?
Anyway, so here are some quotes indicating, sorry just go back to the previous one, indicating that various people are commenting on how plots in this time of history seem to be being used by the intelligence services to entrap people.
There is a French quote saying, plots undertaken under Elizabeth and James I have this feature in common that they prove one and all extremely opportune for those against whom they were directed.
So, in other words, plots allegedly directed against the state were then detected and rounded up and gave the state more power.
They were a way of undermining any political opponents by claiming they were involved in diabolical plots and then putting them in the tower or executing them.
Okay, and in fact Shakespeare, whoever he was, in Richard III, one of his first plays, has these comments which Webster Tarpley used to like quoting.
Richard III, he's the bad guy, bad king.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous.
So he's weaving plots and then one character Talks about how these plots are being cast that nobody dares to talk about.
Who is so gross that cannot see this palpable device?
Yet who's so bold but says he sees it not?
So a plot is woven here, very much I feel like modern state-fabricated events that people don't talk about.
That's why they work, that people don't dare talk about them.
OK, now we're coming out of the master, the guy who probably might have woven the whole plot.
Next one, please.
This fellow, Robert Cecil.
Now, he and his father were the chief intelligence officers for Queen Elizabeth and then for James I. And they had a terrific knowledge through spies of all sorts of stuff going on.
Right.
So they were regarded as very valuable by the monarch.
But they also had this strict power to manipulate events.
And here's a French person judging Cecil, who was also called Salisbury, the Earl of Salisbury, right?
A person deeply read in politics, who had inherited the double spirit of his predecessor Walsingham, knew all his tricks and le jour de main, and could seasonally discover plots as construed them.
So he was a master at weaving plots that then gets blamed on other people.
And here's someone else.
After Cecil died, the obituaries weren't very favourable, generally.
And one well-known commentator, John Chamberlain, says, he juggled with religion, with the king, queen, their children, with nobility, parliament, with friends, foes, and generally with awe.
So he was regarded as a kind of master manipulator.
And the big question we face is, to what extent did he pull this plot together?
Did he just know that it was going to happen?
He certainly knew that it was going to happen.
Did he just know that it was going to happen unless it happened?
Or was he the guy who made it happen in the first place?
You know, that is the difficult question that faces us, right?
Okay.
Now, let's look at these three main views.
Down through the centuries, as people discussed the Gunpowder Plot, there have been the three main views, and let's just go through them.
An archbishop made this judgment.
According to the orthodox, old-fashioned view, Salisbury discovered the conspiracy.
A second judgment is that he nourished it.
And a third, that he invented it.
So that's the difficult issue.
And I've just summarised these three in terms of what they involved.
The first one is what everybody traditionally believed, and that's gone into the Church of England, the Book of Common Prayer, that this plot was a plot devised by fed-up Catholics to blow up the Houses of Parliament, but it was not a success.
Second view, ditto.
The whole thing was followed by the Crown's intelligence, which had its own agenda.
So the plot was allowed to run its course, almost.
And then the third is that the plot was instigated by Robert Cecil, King James's chief intelligence officer, and so the plotters were essentially dupes, recruited and used.
It was a total success.
Now, that's the third view is the one that Tarpley has given to us in modern times.
And there's a chap called Ed Edwards, who's written a fairly definitive book on the subject.
And the bestseller, as we'll see, is by Lady Antonia Fraser.
Can you see that?
And that's generally the bestseller book about gunpowder plot, terror and faith.
That is the second view.
That expresses the second view.
Okay, now here's a picture of all the main plotters and the only problem here is that they were all known troublemakers and they were generally involved in the Essex Rebellion of 1601.
Now, I think we're very familiar with the way in which modern state fabricated power, the guy who's arrested is always known to the authorities.
You know, they've always been tracing him for some years, haven't they?
And they've got a handle on it.
And so he's known to the authorities.
And then he never speaks.
He goes silent, he's bumped off or he's put in jail and he never speaks.
And that is the normal feature, I think, I guess, we're all familiar with, aren't we, from modern South Africa.
OK, so that is very much what happens here, with these plotters.
We want to know what was really their motive, what they really think, what they think they were going to do, especially characters like Guy Fawkes, Gizo Fawkes, what did they think they were going to do?
And it's very hard to get that.
Okay, here's a wise judgment by a lady called Claire Asquith about the, this is given a second view.
LiHop, by the way, LiHop is let it happen on purpose.
Modern 9-11 conspiracy stories have LiHop as one view, let it happen on purpose, versus MyHop, MiHop, make it happen on purpose.
Okay, those are the two to get discussions of these two different views.
So this is the second view we could call Leihob.
The plot was infiltrated and controlled by Robert Cecil from its earlier stages and its carefully stage-managed discovery delivered the decisive coup de grace to the English Catholic cause.
It was the last in a long line of assassination plots that historians can now demonstrate were deftly infiltrated, nurtured and exposed by the intelligence service.
But, in spite of attempts at the time, and ever since, to blame the whole thing on Cecil, the evidence is inescapable.
The plotters were utterly dedicated men.
Most of them died resolutely defending their actions.
Okay?
Now that's a very interesting and kind of sensible view, That the plotters really did want to do what they're said to have done, and really wanted to, but they were definitely manipulated by British intelligence in order to crush the Catholic cause.
So, in other words, they were incredibly dumb people who failed to realise that their actions would be absolutely the opposite of what they allegedly hoped for.
Okay, so this is a good sort of gossipy book about British royalty.
Lady Antonia Fraser.
Gliding reviews by all the media, and it gives a second view.
But let's look at what she concedes, and we'll discuss each of these in turn.
First of all, foreknowledge is not fabrication.
Just because British intel knew it was going to happen, doesn't mean they made it going to happen.
By the way, on the front of this book, you can see the divine eye, which is spotting the wicked Guy Fawkes, OK?
So that is the theme, which is the official narrative of some divine intervention, which gives the King a sort of divine aura of authority, of rescuing Britain from this wicked plot.
OK.
She admits, first thing, the gunpowder was dud.
It was called corn powder.
It would never have gone bang.
So that's a very shocking thing that's come about.
About 40 years ago it was discovered that there was a record.
The record of some Gambadis was dead.
There's an alleged mine that the plotters constructed from a house they'd rented near the House of Lords, underground, to allegedly try and put 36 barrels under the House of Lords.
So this mine was a major part of the story and showed how wicked the plotters were.
And then a century or so later, when they came to replace the House Lords and everything, it was ascertained that there never had been, there was no trace of any such mine, it didn't exist.
And then a main letter which warned the King, warned a chap called Montego not to go into the House of Commons.
That is almost one bit of evidence we've got of anything really happening.
That letter was faked, so we'll come on to that.
So, these three things she's admitted all tend to undermine the idea that there was a real plot, don't they?
Okay, now here's an image of what was allegedly planned to happen.
Everybody's sitting in the House of Lords, listening to a king, Underneath them are these evil wicked plotters assembling all the barrels of gunpowder.
So Parliament was opening on November the 5th and the King was due to make the opening speech, right?
So the whole place would have been crawling with security agents all around the House of Lords, especially because this letter giving a warning, which we'll come to.
So underneath, here are a load of Barrels of gunpowder which are alleged to have been stored there for about six months.
Okay, the story is that they put these barrels there months before and hid them away and left them there.
So the question is, one question is, is there anywhere under the House of Lords to leave a whole lot of barrels of gunpowder, 36 barrels, in a way that they wouldn't be seen?
Okay, that's one question.
And then there's a second question, Which only shocking sceptics dare to ask that how come there's no trace of any witnesses for these barrels of gunpowder?
Quoting the Catholic John Gerrard, from the moment of the discovery, the discovered gunpowder disappears from history.
Now, allegedly the gunpowder was discovered very early in the morning on November 5th.
Now you'd expect a terrific palaver of the army being called in and you know getting all the barrels out one by one and not allowing anybody anywhere near the place until they've got all the gunpowder out and we don't get anything like that at all.
So there's a theatrical process here whereby on the evening before, that's November the 4th, A chap in charge of security of the House of Lords, called Sir Thomas Nevitt, led a posse of people down to look through the basements of the House of Lords, inspect it all.
And allegedly, story goes, this huge pile of barrels of gunpowder was covered up by faggots.
That's bits of wood for burning.
Now if there's a huge pile of faggots in a room directly behind the House of Lords, would that be allowed?
Could you just have that?
So he asked about it and he was told the cellar was rented out to Percy.
Percy was a very Sort of fairly well-established character.
He had support from the Duke of Northumberland and therefore his name was sort of sounding okay.
He was one of the plotters there.
And so Nevitt somehow didn't get to hear, over all the months, a group of characters who moved dozens of barrels of explosive from the river.
It's about 50 yards from the river to this House of Lords, which is a highly, very public, crowded part of London, moving all his barrels of gunpowder into the cellars.
These are shady Catholic characters, already been arrested a few years before, and yet he didn't get to hear about any of them.
And instead of being told off by this, he was rewarded.
OK, so this is a major witness.
So we wonder, what did he see?
And he gets promoted by being a Baron, Baron Everett, and then made a Member of Parliament.
Okay?
So that's very significant that a main witness, a person who kind of facilitates the whole story, gets promoted.
And I think we're used to, we're used to seeing this in modern state-operated terror, that the perps get promotion.
And OK, if I just comment one more about the previous slide.
OK, this is Thomas Nevitt.
There was a fellow who was in charge of renting this whole huge, huge basement room called Mr Wynyard.
He rented out the little house they were staying in and this big cellar under the House of Lords.
And he was asked, he was the guy who told them Sellers rented out to Percy.
And then Nevet, a spy, is Guy Fawkes, lurking suspiciously around all these barrels and arrests him.
So this is a crucial part of the whole legend.
And Mr Wynyard is obviously a witness.
Because he lives there and he rented out the premises.
So this chap, Mr. Wynyard, dies of shock immediately after November the 5th.
So I think we appreciate that this key witness cannot live.
He can't live because for the story to be projected, he has to die off.
So that's a shocking demise of a key witness.
He's actually got a wife, Mrs Wynyard, who gives some testimony which sounds, I won't go into detail,
but it sounds remarkably from her testament as if Guy Fawkes is not guilty of anything and
wasn't really plotting anything.
Okay.
Right, here's a picture of what you imagine would have happened.
or...
All the barrels of gunpowder had been taken out by security agents and carefully stacked somewhere.
That would have had to happen on the morning of the 5th November before parliaments could possibly open.
Nobody would agree to come into the House of Lords if they were told there's a load of gunpowder directly underneath them.
Quoting from a recent book, The gunpowder plot of deceit.
And the author asks, who actually saw the powder?
A great stack of barrels anyway.
What proof is there from anyone outside Cecil's circle or sphere of influence?
So this is part of the mystery, or we could call it a psy-op really, but the story is so dramatic and suddenly there's stories of terror and people being arrested.
And a story is quickly put out and nobody's allowed to ask these key questions of what happened.
Here is where Guy Fawkes is alleged to have stored the barrels.
Now this is underneath the big House of Lords chamber and this Hasn't really got any secret corners to it.
There's a big story of Guy Fawkes being given the key to this cellar, having the key.
Well, the cellar didn't really have a key.
It was used for storing coal and it had previously been used as a kitchen for cooking stuff.
So its design wasn't a very closed sort of room.
You couldn't have stored 36 pounds of gunpowder for six months here without anyone noticing.
So if you look at all the different pictures of Guy Fawkes, where he was when he's arrested, it's always incredibly vague where he's supposed to have been.
There isn't a definable place where the powder could have been located or where he could have been planning to blow it all up.
It's kind of part of a legend that doesn't really have a location.
Okay, so yeah, here's a typical picture of Guy Fawkes.
He's laying in a trail of gunpowder.
He's always pictured with this lantern.
And did this ever happen?
I'm suggesting it didn't happen.
But we'll never find out quite what was intended or what did happen.
And the question is what did anyone actually do?
Part of the story of building that underground tunnel was to make it appear that the plotters had actually done something, right?
That was earlier in the year of 1605.
It's alleged that they spent several months from the little house they rented to dig a tunnel to the House of Lords.
And that gave the image that they'd actually done something, that they hadn't just talked to.
Otherwise it might appear as if all they'd done was talk about stuff.
So what had actually happened, for example, do we have any witness apart from this fellow, the fellow who detected Guy Fawkes?
Who got promoted.
There isn't any other witness.
None of the other people there would testify to what they've seen.
So we just get a kind of official silence.
Okay.
Here's another picture of him.
He's at a door now.
He's got his lantern.
He usually has stirrups and he's got a big key you see.
Now what is this door?
Where is it letting him into?
This is very obscure and it hasn't got a fixed geographic location.
So I'm suggesting this is all just a kind of, this is a story that can't be really located at all.
And it's not even clear that he was arrested at midnight in this place.
There's other evidence that he was arrested in his little room that was rented and people noted how when he's first apprehended his initial attitude suggests one who had nothing to hide.
He showed all the fearlessness of a good conscience.
That was an early report on him.
Okay.
So Thomas Percy, quite prestigious and he His connection with the Duke of Northumberland, which gave him a certain credibility and prestige, and was able to rent this room next to the House of Lords.
Various of his characters were caught coming and going from the main building in London, York House, which is where Robert Cecil lived.
So, as if Cecil was persuading them, promising them with a reward, which never came, you know.
Here is a witness, somebody who was around at midnight.
He said, Sir Francis Moore, having some occasional business with him at midnight, and going thus homeward from York House to the Middle Temple at Tew, several times met Mr Percy coming out of that great statesman, Father Cecil's house, and wondered what his business should be there.
So I think there are several accounts of Cecil, as it were, secret meetings, and these plotters would have been given illusory promises that they'd be okay if they just did what they were asked.
Right, now we come to Hackney in London, which is quite near where I live, north London, and there's something happened 10 days before, 26th October, which is an essential part of the construction of the story.
Okay, this fellow, Lord Monty Fury, was having dinner at Hackney, And he wasn't usually there, he didn't usually have dinner at Hackney, so he hadn't been there for a month, and he said, the letter said, quote, My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation.
Therefore I would advise you, as you tend to your life, to devise some excuse to shift your attendance at this Parliament.
They shall receive a terrible blow this Parliament, Yet they shall not see who hurts them.
Now, that letter was, first of all, it was taken to Cecil, who did nothing about it for several days.
Then he showed it to the King, and the King was made to appear very insightful of realising what the letter was about.
And again, nothing happened for ten days after this letter, a warning, An explosion blowing up Parliament.
Nothing happened prior to what we've just seen of the detection of the events of that eon, the evening of November 4th.
Now people wondered who could possibly have sent this letter and so this was a letter that seemed providential and nobody could figure out who the friend of Lord Monteagle could have been, who would want to write a letter instead of just telling him.
If somebody knew Monteagle well, why didn't they just tell him or say this to him instead of giving something that could be used, obviously used, to incriminate the plotters?
Right, here's what Lady Antonia Fraser said, and this is a best-selling book, Monteagle and Salisbury were of course bound.
Oh, she's saying they had produced the letter themselves, right?
The handwriting was actually secretly Cecil's own handwriting or possibly somebody writing on his behalf.
Monteagle and Salisbury were of course bound to produce an author or at least a suspected author of the letter which they themselves had concocted.
The Monteagle letter was fake.
And not only Monteagle and Salisbury knew it was fake.
It was brought into being for a special purpose.
Nothing else makes any sense of Salisbury's extraordinary urbanity, one might even call it complacency, in the days following.
There was certainly no sense of impending danger in his contact, such as might have been expected if the letters had presented him with a genuine mystery.
So she's saying that Britain's Chief Intelligence Officer had made this letter in order to create the image of a real event that was about to happen.
Okay?
I mean, if there was a real plot, why would they want to make up a letter?
You know, it doesn't make sense.
Okay, this is just...
Near where I live, Hackney, North London, Lord Monteagle received a letter unmasking the plot, led by Garth Vaux, to be out of the House of Parliament.
So that's the official story.
So that letter really exists, okay?
It's in the National Archives and the question is, what does it mean?
Okay, now something else happened.
I mentioned A newspaper, the Daily Chronograph, in 1978 reported that the original receipt of the gunpowder barrels by the Office of Ordinance, that's what it's called, Office of Ordinance, that's what the gunpowder was called, was found.
Now you can read it today in a scrawled out handwriting for £1,800, which is far less.
They said there was A couple of tons of gunpowder, but that is much less than a ton, of decayed corn powder.
Now, corn powder has got the ingredients of gunpowder, but not very well mixed together.
You have to grind it together very, very finely for it to explode.
corn powder will burn but it won't go bang okay uh so it's it's it's on the way to being gunpowder
but but uh it cannot explode Now, that is, as it were, the only evidence we have for something that really happened.
If you're trying to examine what really happened here, I suggest there's two bits of real evidence.
One is that letter we looked at, the Montego letter, 10 days before the event, warning that something's going to happen, written in an unknown hand by an unknown person.
And the other is this receipt for gunpowder, for a decayed corn powder.
So I suggest that this is a very decisive turning point in the whole debate in 1978, and it shows that the whole thing was a psyop.
OK, right.
I liked quite a bit of this epic speech by Webster Tarpley because I think that this gives a modern perspective on the whole thing.
I think it's terribly important that we do take this perspective because, especially in Britain, I think in America too, it's a culture where the government has been using state fabricated terror in a dreadful way and much, much too often it shouldn't be used at all.
And citizens need to apprehend that when a government does this, To terrorise the population, to get loyalty.
You know, things have gone very badly wrong.
And it is normally always used to ratify war.
That's the that's the bottom line of self-advocate of terror.
It gives you an enemy.
It mocks up an enemy, which is very vivid and powerful.
And it gives national unity, but only in a very negative manner.
National unity because everybody fears this enemy, which the government itself has mocked up.
That's the terrible reality of the State Department of Terror.
Okay, so I like Webster Tarpley's presentations.
Excuse me, I'll just read a bit, okay?
Or do you want to read it, Jim?
Do you want to read it, Jim?
It looks like this guy cats me as a double agent, and we've got Sir Dudley Carlton, who's helped them, who's one of Cecil's main diplomats, who helps them rent the first basement they try to tunnel from.
Now there are other people, we can't go into all of them, but you've got this group of ex-cons in effect in the Witness Protection Program, and you've probably got Guy Fawkes as a fanatic, a dupe, a patsy in that sense.
Now a couple of weeks before November 5th, when the Parliament is supposed to meet, this Catholic nobleman, Lord Monteagle, comes forward.
And says to Cecil, I just got a letter that says I shouldn't go to the opening of Parliament because it might be dangerous.
And he shows him the letter.
This is the famous Monteagle letter.
So Cecil waits three or four or five days until he can meet the king.
Cecil shows it to the king and says, Your Majesty, I got this strange letter from Lord Monteagle.
What could it mean?
That we shouldn't go to the opening of Parliament?
I really can't figure this out.
And James said, my God, they're going to blow up the Parliament.
Now, it turns out that James I, when he was in Scotland, was very unpopular.
There were numerous attempts to kill him.
And one of the attempts was allegedly a gunpowder plot.
We tried James and his father, so he's used to this.
Terrific!
I mean, the script here is just remarkable.
Nick, how you're laying it out, how they create a trail of crumbs to create a completely phony plot against Parliament.
Yeah, yeah.
And what Tom's telling us here, James First's father was actually blown up by, when he was a little kid, his father was blown up, I think he was killed, by A gunpowder explosion.
So he's very prone to believe in a story of a gunpowder plot, right?
Okay, next.
We're gone?
Right.
So this is again about the idea of Cecil planning the whole thing at least a year before and having various spies and so on.
Would you like to read this out again, Jim?
Sure, of course.
The month before that, in April of 1604, one of Cecil's spies by the name of Henry Wright reported to him that he had a sub-agent by the name of Davies who was working a Catholic treason plot, a sting operation to incriminate priests.
He should be able to incriminate up to 60 priests, he reckoned.
The reply came back that many would be needed, but they had top-level Jesuits and seminary priests.
Davies replies he needs a pardon in writing before he'll do anything, which he gets dated 25 April 1604.
Thus Cecil is running the plot a year and a half before the thing comes to the surface.
Right, okay.
So we see how people work for Cecil, work for the government, in return for getting a pardon.
Whatever else they're suspected of.
Yeah, OK.
Right, next.
OK, so the whole thing is given its religious significance and it actually goes into the Book of Common Prayer.
And so preachers have to give a sermon about this every year.
And obviously we all celebrate Guy of November the 5th.
Up until recently, the Book of Common Prayer in the Anglican Church talked about the wicked Catholics plotting this, and the Divine Providence letting the King escape.
So, you know, God's on our side.
This was the ultimate God's on our side story.
Whatever King James believed, he used to allude to November 5th as Cecil's holiday, you know.
Right.
Okay, now I'm looking at the dreadful modern implications of this.
Is it possible that British intelligence is somehow using the same technique now, centuries later?
I've got here A complete list of major state-fabricated events in Europe, okay?
And I think we published a book on that, Jim.
Yes, it's a wonderful book, Nick.
Yes, and in bold are the ones in London or in England, okay?
We've got no less than five events in bold here, and so it's more in England than any other country.
These are all I think they're pretty well all demonising Muslims, aren't they?
A phantom terror image of demonised Muslims is conjured up by these events.
And I say phantom because the actual terror, or mock terror, is woven by the government, or by Gladio, or NATO, or whoever thinks doing it, and it's not by the Muslims.
These are all fictional terror events.
In that sense.
And they follow on in a dreadful way from the gunpowder plot, and they're all successful in that horrible manner that people believe the story.
And you've got a very firm, very clear and strong demonised enemy then, that the politicians like to use.
The worst sort of politicians like to use, okay?
And generally used to ratify the next war.
OK.
Right.
Now, I think it's a very insightful comment by Webster Tarpley about the malign effect that this state fabricated terror has on British culture.
And I think you could say the same for American culture.
American culture has dreadfully followed Britain's example of making fabricated terror events.
So, would you like to read this, Jim, if you don't mind?
Sure.
A permanent weakness of British culture, a pro-war addiction, Webster Tarbly.
What we're identifying here is a permanent weakness of the English-speaking culture everywhere, because if you've had this fabrication, this orchestrated, manipulated, stage-managed stunt of the gunplowder plot, and you've made that into a religion that even got into the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and it says there, and this was up until 1859, 1860, every 5th of November, The priest has to preach on the gunpowder plot.
You've got to read the Act of Parliament.
You've got to go through this whole prayer routine about gunpowder treason and Guy Fawkes and the rest of it.
It becomes a civic religion.
Now, when you look at 9-11, there's an attempt to make 9-11 into a civic religion and ersatz religion, a fake religion, and force people to believe it.
Right.
Right.
Would you have any comment on that, Jim?
Oh, I think that's wonderful.
I think that's wonderful.
I mean, what you're doing here really suggests to me that Webster's had brilliant insights about the gunpowder plot, and I'm extremely pleased you followed up with us, Nick, because historically This is a classic false flag operation from the 17th century.
I mean, give us a break.
These have been going on forever, as it were.
And you find key elements involving laying out a trail of fabricated evidence to implicate the plotters, very reminiscent of the 19 Islamic terrorists and the man in a cave in Afghanistan purportedly responsible for 9-11.
When it turns out two of the planes weren't even in the air that day, the others, Flight 93 was over Champaign-Urbana after it officially crashed in Shanksville, 175 over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania after it had officially hit the South Tower, where a half a dozen or more of these guys turned up the following day and made contact with the media in the UK.
Nick, And yet the FBI never changes its official account of the 19 terrorists where they had a convenient list in the Mohammed Adda's suitcase.
Just what a conspirator would plan to do, Nick, write out a list of his co-conspirators for the benefits of the prosecution thereof.
Right, right.
Okay, so I think if this could be taught in schools, I think kids would, sorry, young people would enjoy history much more, because I think we all know this is the way the world works, you know, this is the kind of thing that really happens.
If students can be allowed to, you know, debate, say, LiHop versus MyHop, these different theories, we don't have definite answers, because that is one of the consequences of five great events like this.
You never really get to know what happened, or what the people could be bumped off in silence really thought they were doing.
That's the kind of tragedy from a You know, probably reconstructing it, but I think people would really enjoy debates about history much more if they could be allowed to discuss these options in a school classroom, you know, and then follow through with intermodal examples like Pearl Harbor and Gulf of Tonkin, you know, they're connected up.
And if we ever want to live in a civilization without war, Time-honoured techniques of the warmongers have to be brought up into consciousness, and if they aren't, they will continue to activate the very worst side of the British people, and perhaps American people too, of the need for a collectively shared enemy image, a demonised enemy they can all hate and fear, instead of trying to look at the motives behind what happened.
Yeah, I mean, in the religious debate, Catholics and Protestants, I suppose nowadays, they try and get on together, don't they?
This whole strife between them has perhaps played out.
It's fascinating how it was orchestrated to tarnish Catholics and to, you know, create the separation and the establishment of the Anglican Communion.
I'm just fascinated by this, Nick.
I think it's wonderful that you have followed up on Webster's work, because this is completely persuasive that this was a classic false flag operation.
Yeah, yeah, right.
I'm glad you feel that, yeah.
Anyway, if readers want to get one of his books, The Francis Edwards' Nigger and the Gunpowder Plot, that is a classic work.
I think it might be out of print, I'm not sure.
A brilliant one by a Jesuit, John Gerrard, but that's a rather long time ago.
Very, very insightful and honest.
And easier to obtain now.
Gunpowder Plot Deceit.
Gunpowder Plot Deceit.
That's a modern publication.
That's just a, you know, a very good review of the fairly short and up-to-date review of the situation.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, I think that's it, Jim.
Yeah.
Well, Nick, I'm simply delighted.
This is perfect for the Fall Swag and Conspiracy 2021 conference.
I compliment you once again, my friend, and of course your book, Chronicles of Fall Swag Terror, is available both in the UK and in the US at moonrockbooks.com.
I encourage everyone to follow up.
Nick is among the very leaders of the world in exposing these plots, and he does a masterful job of it, just as you've seen here.
I believe altogether you review 15 in your book, Nick.
It's something that's enlightening to the entire world about how these things are done, as you say.
If you want to understand history, you have to appreciate the extent to which conspiracies and false flags make an integral part of what's going on.
And it's recorded even in, say, the New York Times, which, as a nation's newspaper of record, is supposed to be reporting the official history of the United States, and it's just loaded with false stories, fake news, imaginary plots, and other nonsense that passes for what's supposed to be history.
Yeah, yeah, right.
Nick, I cannot thank you enough.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal and moderator and organizer of False Flag Conference 2021.
We hope you will partake of our presentations on that occasion on the 4th and the 5th of December.
See you then.
Thanks for a job well done, my friend.
Okay, Jim.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to your book coming out then.
That'll be off the conference, will it?
Well, let us hope, Nick.
Let us hope.
Export Selection