by John Hamer
This attitude is becoming more and more prevalent today and I refuse to believe that is because these people are inherently evil, as is strongly suggested and portrayed by the media in all its forms. In my view, it is simply a natural consequence of the way society is strongly biased towards those who have more than their fair share of power, influence and money. Maybe you or I would not commit murder for a few pounds, but we are all a product of a combination of our genes and upbringing and it is I believe, hypocritical to assume that had our own personal circumstances been the same as those disaffected, that we would not have followed exactly the same course, as we can never know for sure.
Living as we all do in a quasi-police-state-cum-dictatorship, what do the powers-that-be need to further pursue their agenda of greater security and control of populations? I would strongly suggest that they need a crime-ridden society very much like the one we have today. How convenient, not to mention coincidental. This is just what is needed to sway public opinion in their favour; ‘the streets are not safe to walk at night’ = ‘more police and security surveillance cameras please’ and yet again, these are classic ‘problem–reaction–solution’ strategies.
Each year the system is faced with ever-growing bills for crime, medical services, policing and social benefits etc. This is an inevitable consequence of ultra-consumerism and all its many side-issues. And the solution to this as proposed by those who believe they ‘know best’ is simply to propagate and facilitate a greater expansion of consumption and production to generate more money by ‘growth’ of the economy and thus the cycle continues, ever onwards to its own inevitable destruction.
In order to disguise the shortcomings of and protect this system-from-hell, the Elite need strong police and security forces and other such abominations as ‘secret services’ like MI5, MI6, CIA and the Mossad. These are there ostensibly to ‘protect’ us all from foreign powers who covet our country, our ‘freedoms’, our ‘wealth’ and lifestyles and also to guard against the extreme terrorism that we are told exists and is a great threat to our lives and freedom. In reality, these secret-service organisations actually exist to hide the truth of what is really going on in the world from their own citizens and to protect the Elite from those who would dispossess them. These so-called security services actually spend far more time spying on us, who their masters fear may be challenging the status quo, than they do protecting the country from outside attacks from so-called terrorist groups, who are usually infiltrated and controlled, if not actually created in the first place by these very same security organisations themselves, anyway.
There are a multitude of tactics that they use to further these ends, such as phone-tapping, the bugging of rooms, hidden cameras, agents provocateurs, computer-hacking, framing suspects and assassinations. These tactics are all used by the wonderfully benevolent country in which you live – against its own citizens – yes, that means you too.
I have often heard it said that ‘if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to fear’. This glib, oft-quoted statement is misguided in the extreme on so many levels. Firstly, who decides what is wrong or right? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Is it wrong for example to peacefully challenge the government if you believe that it is acting illegally or against the best interests of its citizens? Is it wrong to write books such as this that challenge the status quo and expose what is really happening throughout the world?
You may say ‘yes’ and you may well be right, I do not have a personal monopoly on the truth, but I do believe that it is everyone’s right to peacefully challenge any form of injustice or suppression, as I am attempting to do in writing this book. But would my own (or any other) government agree with those sentiments that challenge its very authority to dictate to its citizens what is and is not acceptable? I doubt that very much. In fact the very writing of this book probably would expose me to covert surveillance and may already have done so, but I do not believe I am doing wrong by writing such a volume as this and nor I suspect do most free-thinking, fair-minded individuals, whether or not they agree with the bulk of what I have written, per se.
Also, do we actually trust the entity that has the power to suppress us if we deviate from their decrees? According to the above quote, I would have nothing to fear unless I was doing wrong. But do we trust our government to decide whether I am doing wrong or not? What if it was decided by them arbitrarily that you or I were doing something wrong when we patently were not, by any standards? Do we trust the government to always act in the best interest of its individual citizens? I think not. No. I am afraid that that statement is at best misguided and at worst, a deceit of great magnitude. All governments will do ‘whatever it takes’ to maintain control and stay in power, without exception and are far from being the benevolent yet bumbling, monolithic institutions that they overtly appear to be and are portrayed to be by the compliant media. Any one of their own citizens who is perceived either as an actual physical or even a passive threat to their supreme power will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely, either overtly or covertly. This is the very embodiment of fascism/communism/socialism (communitarianism) and is precisely what we have in place today in our so-called but grossly mis-named ‘democratic’ societies.
Also, if politicians believe that they have the right to impose any ‘law’ they wish and police and security forces maintain the attitude that as long as anything is deemed ‘lawful’, they will enforce it rightly or wrongly, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the ‘law-makers’ or their legal enforcers obviously and not even peaceful petitions to the politicians will be effective. Politely asking oppressors not to be oppressive has a very poor track-record of success, historically. When tyrants define what constitutes ‘law’, then by definition it is up to the ‘law-breakers’ to combat tyranny and sometimes the end will justify the means.
Those who are proud to be ‘law-abiding’ would not agree and may even decline to think rationally about this, but what is the alternative? If we do not have the right to resist injustice, even if that injustice is called ‘law’, that logically implies that we have an obligation to allow governments to do to us whatsoever they may choose and also to our homes and families. Realistically, there are only two alternatives; we are either slaves, the property of the Elite, the politicians and their lackeys, with no rights at all or we have the right to resist government or Elite attempts to oppress us. There can logically be no other options.
“When the law has deviated from common sense and become an evil tool used for the robbery of others, do you obey it?” John Kaminski, researcher
So is the terrible state of affairs and of the planet in which we find ourselves living, simply the consequence of human nature as we are always led to believe? We are constantly fed the tired old line of ‘…well, its human nature to behave this way, nothing can ever change that’. The Elite cabal that rules our every moment are themselves clinical psychopaths, as discussed in a previous section. They exhibit every psychopathic trait known to man and indeed it is only by being psychopathic that they can possibly perpetuate this most unnatural state in which we all live. Psychopaths have no conscience; feel no remorse for their actions and no empathy for their fellow beings. They are ultra-manipulative and habitually lie whilst convincing themselves that they are in the right at all times. In short, for a psychopath, the end always justifies the means, no exceptions.
Now please think about your family, your neighbours, your friends and indeed most people that you know. Think about those people from other cultures or countries that you may have briefly met whilst travelling through life. What is your overall impression of 90% of the people with whom you come into contact and socialise? Although none of them may be perfect, are they not for the most part, decent, honest, caring, compassionate people who share other’s joys and sadnesses alike? Would they not offer their help to you in a crisis, and vice versa? What about the so-called foreigners and immigrants
who live in this country and with whom you may have occasionally had cause to interact? Are they the monsters that our wholly-engendered prejudices are induced to paint them to be or would you say that deep down we are all really the same?
The truth is that we are a social animal, we are naturally programmed to co-operate and co-exist in peace and harmony, but the divisions between sex, races, religions, colours and cultures are constantly emphasised and exaggerated by the psychopathic Elite to cause dis-harmony and conflict. It is by this very methodology that they generate all of the unease and unrest, wars and conflicts in the world, partly as a means of controlling us through fear and of course in order to make their utterly obscene profits, usually by arming (and controlling) both sides.
It does not have to be like this. Humanity is by nature, decent, caring and good and not inherently evil as we are made to believe. We are all capable of expressing that goodness and by doing so, can change the world. When the time is right, the transformation that is imminent will free us all from the current state of economic slavery in which we all reside and it will not come a moment too soon.
Let us now depart from the generalised themes of this book for a moment to closely examine some specific examples of how many well-known historical events have been presented and given a cosmetic ‘face-lift’ and a completely different slant for the purposes of mass-consumption and manipulation. I will also demonstrate how easy it is to accomplish this seemingly impossible feat.
Who really wrote the works of William Shakespeare?
Did William Shakespeare really write such immortal works as ‘Romeo and Juliet’, ‘Macbeth’ or the ‘Merchant of Venice’? How about ‘Hamlet’ and ‘Twelfth Night’? And are we really sure that he wrote all the sonnets and countless other poems attributed to him? There would appear to be little doubt that all his works, stylistically speaking, were the product of one individual, but who was that individual?
Let us start at the beginning, then. Who was the character known as William Shakespeare and what was his story?
Shakespeare was born in 1564 in the English midlands market town of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the early years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. He was a contemporary of such notables as Sir Walter Raleigh, of Sir Francis Drake and the literary giant Christopher Marlowe but for someone of such apparent great stature in the literary world, almost nothing is known about Shakespeare’s life.
We know that he was the son of a master glover (glove maker), John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, an aristocrat’s daughter and had seven siblings (four sisters and three brothers) about whom nothing is known and he married Anne Hathaway in 1582 at the age of eighteen, with Hathaway giving birth to their first child just six months later in May 1583. Despite several sources claiming that he attended King Edward VI Grammar School in Stratford, this is pure conjecture as the school records from that period have not survived. From his marriage at age eighteen until his sudden appearance on the London acting circuit more than ten years later, nothing at all is recorded or known of his actions and whereabouts.
It is intriguing for example, that during his assumed 25 years of living in London, with as many as eight addresses quoted in a range of sources, he is never recorded in church attendance lists, even though attendance was compulsory at that time and therefore had to be recorded by law.
The origins of Shakespeare's professional career are also still debatable. For example, we do not know where or with which company he first became an actor and writer but after 1592 however, his life in London suddenly does become a little clearer. Shakespeare's early fame came through history plays, his first being a trilogy on the ‘Wars of the Roses’ and by the end of 1592 he had supposedly written the sequel, Richard III. His first definite address is documented as Bishopsgate in tax records and he is thought to have lived there from 1592, maybe earlier.
Shakespeare’s supposed ‘rival’ Christopher Marlowe was murdered in May 1593 and this event, perhaps significantly, marks the point in time at which Shakespeare's almost ‘overnight success’ began.
For many years there has been much conjecture and intrigue surrounding the writing of those masterpieces of English literature ascribed to the pen of William Shakespeare. On the one hand, those people who revel in controversy and the attribution of conspiracy theories to almost anything we can name, gleefully add the name of William Shakespeare to the list whilst those of a more prosaic nature tend to hold the opposite, traditionalist view of the world and cling rigidly and sometimes blindly to the mainstream position, regardless of evidence to counter their views. The facts in all cases such as these should be examined thoroughly before jumping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions. So, let us begin…
The belief that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him, may seem at first glance to be both bizarre and unbelievable. How and why could this be? What would be the purpose of, or the motive behind, such a deception? Surely it would defy any kind of logic? However, Shakespeare’s doubters are by no means cranks or so-called ‘conspiracy nuts’, they number amongst them such well-respected literati as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Henry James, Walt Whitman and Daphne du Maurier, to name just a small selection. Their view was most definitely that there is a real and compelling ‘authorship’ issue.
For starters, there is a total lack of evidence in biographical records that a man by the name of William Shakespeare the ‘Bard’ of Stratford-upon-Avon was ever a writer. The only positive identification between the man himself and the works bearing his name came posthumously, as noted by Sir Hugh Trevor Roper…
“Of all the immortal geniuses of literature, none is personally so elusive as William Shakespeare. It is exasperating and almost incredible that he should be so. After all, he lived in the full daylight of the English Renaissance, in the well-documented reigns of Elizabeth and James I. Since his death and particularly in the last century, he has been subjected to the greatest battery of organised research that has ever been directed upon a single person. Armies of scholars, formidably equipped, have examined all the documents that could possibly contain at least a mention of Shakespeare’s name. One hundredth of this labour applied to one of his insignificant contemporaries would be sufficient to produce a substantial biography.”
So exactly what has all this intensive research revealed about the man? It is fairly certain that he was an actor, a shareholder in a theatre, a tax defaulter, a malt dealer, a commercial moneylender, a landlord, a litigant, a mean husband and a churlish father. However there is no existing evidence connecting him, however tenuously with the profession of writer, let alone indicating that he was the greatest dramatist that ever lived. If a psychologist were to undertake a psychological profile of the man, he would without doubt declare him to be a most undistinguished and ordinary individual, totally removed from the image one would expect of the genius who created the magnificent works which bear his name.
There is an absolute abundance of incongruity surrounding the life of this strange, mysterious character. As previously stated, for example, there are no records of the education of Shakespeare in existence. In fact, on the contrary, it is known for certain that he did not attend university and left no trace regarding a school education. It is also extremely surprising and possibly significant that he did not leave a single manuscript of even one of his plays or poems in his own handwriting, nor is there any evidence that he ever wrote a single piece of correspondence. All in all, very odd indeed.
It is also surprising to learn that both of Shakespeare’s parents were illiterate, as was his daughter Judith, who could only sign her name with a virtually indistinguishable mark. Would a profoundly intelligent, educated and enlightened person such as one who was able to produce the wonderful masterpieces he allegedly did, treat his children in such a way, even a girl child? Was he perhaps of the view that the education of girls was a waste of time? This does not fit the picture of his supposed character at all.
It is also extremely clear from what we do know of the ma
n and his family background that even very basic literary competence and/or a tradition of education was not a priority in any way for his family. And yet, in spite of this fact, Shakespeare was apparently immensely well-read and worldly-wise in an age where information was not ‘on tap’ instantly to those who wished to enjoy its benefits. Indeed books were a rare commodity to which virtually none but the wealthy and privileged had access and significantly Shakespeare’s will makes no mention at all of any books, nor any of his literary works whose potential values, even at that time must have been immense.
Also significantly, of the six surviving alleged signatures of Shakespeare, only two are generally regarded as emanating from the same hand.
