Wednesday, December 30, 2009

A curious bit of flag history ... and some flippant speculations

So, it turns out that the US flag is actually an adaptation of the flag of the East India Company, a private corporation granted monopoly license under the British Crown. Originally, rebels were turning the flag on its side and affixing some stars as an emblem of the rebellion. George Washington later introduced a version of the flag that put it back in its correct orientation, with the cross of St. George redacted.

Have you ever asked yourself why Washington, D.C. is not part of the 50 states? The answer is simple: It is actually the property of a corporation granted monopoly privileges by the British Crown... the US Federal Government is actually a sister corporation of the British East India Company! We have been a British colony all along and only a small number of people on the inner circle of Washington (and London) have known about this... the first to know would have been our first President, Mr. Freemason himself, George Washington. When King George could not hold onto the colonies any longer by force, he decided to hold onto them through subtlety. He sent agents from London to buy out and corrupt the so-called "Founding Fathers" on the condition that they consolidate the 13 colonies under the umbrella of a more easily controlled Federal government. By controlling this puppet government, the British Crown could keep all the American colonies in line and all without the active resistance of the Americans themselves, with the hand of the monarch now hidden behind a Constitution, Congress, Bill of Rights and so on.

The war of 1812, then, should be interpreted as an attempt at a silent secession by the Federal government, which it ultimately lost. The Crown retained control over Washington and it continued to do the Crown's bidding. All the hand-wringing by Lincoln about the possibility of British recognition of the Confederacy was just disinformation. As CEO of the Federal Government holding corporation created in 1789, he was the Crown's handservant and the Crown would not tolerate the loss of its colonies.

There are just a handful of wholly private, sovereign patches of land throughout the globe: the City of London - a 1 sq. mi. wholly private block with port access carved out from London, England - Washington, D.C. (also with port access) and the Vatican, that I know of. Is London the handservant of the Pope, just as Washington is of the Crown? Bear in mind the Vatican actually maintains embassies in most countries in the world and has its own intelligence (i.e. "spy") service. The Pope looks like an impotent old man. He is a lot more powerful than he looks.

No comments: