Mandelson, Starmer, and Jeffery Epstein how are they all connected
Starmer brings in Mandelson ‘The Prince of Darkness’ only to put another nail in Labour’s coffin.
Lord Peter Mandelson has been described as many things none of them good. The standouts are ‘Mandy’ ‘The Prince of Darkness’ or ‘Dark Lord’. all fitting for a political career that has been has shady as the name suggest.
Mandelson has a political pedigree he carries like the appointed title he uses, Lord Mandelson was born in Hendon, Middlesex, on 21 October 1953, the son of Mary Joyce (née Morrison) and George Norman Mandelson. His father’s family were Jewish; his grandfather had founded the Harrow United Synagogue. His father was the advertising manager of The Jewish Chronicle. On his mother’s side, Mandelson is a grandson of Herbert Morrison, the London County Council Leader and Labour Cabinet Minister in the Attlee ministry.
From 1985 to 1990, Mandelson served as Labour’s Director of Communications. He was one of the first to whom the term ‘spin doctor’ was applied and gained the nickname ‘the Prince of Darkness’ because of his ‘ruthlessness’ and ‘media savvy’. He served as Member of Parliament (MP) for Hartlepool from 1992 to 2004 and held a number of Cabinet positions under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He was the European Commissioner for Trade between 2004 and 2008.
Mandelson was one of several key individuals responsible for the rebranding of the Labour Party, into ‘New Labour’ along with Alister Cambell and millionaire Roland Rudd brother of Amber Rudd the former conservative home secretary.
Mandelson was twice forced to resign from the Cabinet before leaving Parliament to take up an appointment as a European Commissioner. The then secretary of state for Trade and Industry had borrowed £373,000 from Brownite Treasury minister Geoffrey Robinson to buy a house in west London. Mandelson had failed to declare the loan, even though Robinson was under investigation by his own department. Both ministers were forced to resign in this tit-for-tat street battle between the Blairite and Brownite gangs. Not for the last time, Mandelson’s political career was pronounced dead.
But those who wrote him out of the script forgot both his resilience and the extent to which Tony Blair depended upon him. When Mandelson resigned, ironically the two exchanged pious letters about the need for New Labour to be ‘whiter than white’ and free of the sleaze that had helped destroy the Tories. But Blair always said that if world war three ever broke out, the first person he would phone would be his old friend Peter. So, only ten months after his first departure from Cabinet, he was back — this time, as secretary of state for Northern Ireland.
For those that want to listen to the article instead press play
And this time, his fall was more complex, more dramatic and probably unnecessary. It centred on the Hinduja brothers, the money they had given to help fund the Millennium Dome (a Mandelson project) and whether or not he had lobbied Mike O’Brien, a Home Office minister, on behalf of Srichand Hinduja, who was seeking British citizenship. Had it been any other Cabinet minister, Blair might have waited for the Hammond inquiry into the whole messy affair. But it wasn’t, and he didn’t. Mandelson, devastated that he had been so quickly ditched by his Blairite comrades, resigned in January 2001.
And that, it was assumed, was that. In November 2004, having resigned as MP for Hartlepool, he became Britain’s European Commissioner for Trade, and headed off to join the Brussels elite. From time to time, the word ‘Mandy’ and ‘investigation’ would appear in a headline, for old times’ sake. In April 2005, it emerged that Mandelson had spent the previous New Year’s Eve on the yacht of Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, which was the subject of a major EU investigation.
But there was no allegation of impropriety in the story: Mandy, a yacht, a tycoon. Such stories had become almost traditional.
So it was business as usual when, in October 2008, a furore broke out over his presence in Corfu on a yacht belonging to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Of course, Mandelson had been there. It was a yacht, after all. Much more attention was paid to what had been said and asked for by Mandelson’s fellow guest, shadow chancellor George Osborne. For once, ‘Mandy’ was not the first word in the headlines.
Nathaniel Rothschild, a fund manager and banking heir, helped arrange the meeting on the yacht and others Osborne had with Deripaska on the Greek island of Corfu.
Rothschild became angry when he learned that Osborne had been spreading gossip about Mandelson’s relationship with Deripaska, which made its way into the British press.
In a letter published in “The Times” on October 21, Rothschild revealed that Osborne was also present on the yacht and, together with a Conservative Party fundraiser, Andrew Feldman, had solicited a campaign contribution. “Not once in the acres of coverage did you mention that George Osborne, who also accepted my hospitality, found the opportunity…to solicit a donation,” Rothschild wrote,
Osborne confirms meeting Deripaska. But both he and Feldman deny seeking a contribution. That in itself would not be illegal, but accepting an overseas donation would.
Mandelson survived the scandal once again. He later rejoined the Cabinet for a third time after being created a Life Peer, sitting on the Labour benches in the House of Lords. He is the only person to hold the position of First Secretary of State as a Peer.
Mandelson was not only the architect of New Labour, in recent times, but he is also better known for creating and leading the so-called ‘Peoples vote’ AKA the get ‘Corbyn out campaign’.
Behind the Peoples vote unaware for the most ‘Remainers’ ran a parallel campaign constantly attacking Corbyn, one much publicised by the media designed to undermine Corbyn and Labour’s precarious Brexit position.
The peoples’ vote became cover for Remain Labour MP’s having a popular support base to attack and undermine Corbyn directly and openly. This was evident when Chuka Umunna after a series of attacks from within the party crossed the floor with the other treacherous six later to become ‘Change UK‘ or indirectly as in the case of Starmer, Watson, Thornberry, Lamb, Et al, all putting their public wight behind the Mandelson’s movement.
Owen Jones offered a left-wing critique of the movement, particularly pointing out that despite Labour’s policies and actions to support a second referendum, People’s Vote still routinely attacked its former leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party, indicating a potential ulterior motive in stymying progressive voices in the United Kingdom.
Some on the Left have always seen the bigger picture of both Open Britain and the so-called people’s vote campaign it was clear to Corbyn supporters that anyone remotely connected with the so-called People’s vote was from the ‘ABC’ (anyone but Corbyn) campaign or Jeremy Corbyn’s political opponents.
The People’s vote has cynically carried remain supporters along a journey of forlorn hope. Even in the unlikely event of the Tory Party calling a second referendum, of course, the Tories understood that such a move would be tantamount to political suicide, however, the reality would have been that the Government this time would campaign to leave the EU.
Unlike in the 2016 referendum, the Tory government-backed reaming in the EU where they put the might of the government machine against the leave campaigners yet still did not win the argument to remain in the EU. This time with the Government backing Leave and using the same resources as they did for reaming including £9 million worth of pamphlets. The outcome would be more than a bias conclusion.
Mandelson’s Peoples vote was always doomed as a movement to bring about a second referendum to remain in the EU but what it did achieve was always a primary objective the removal of Jeremy Corbyn and the threat to the Establishment.
Mandelson telegraphed his intentions.
Lord Mandelson was infamously recorded stating “he is working every day to undermine Jeremy Corbyn” Mandelson, who has made no secret of his antipathy to Corbyn’s leadership, he added: “Why do you want to just walk away and pass the title deeds of this great party over to someone like Jeremy Corbyn? I don’t want to, I resent it, and I work every single day in some small way to bring forward the end of his tenure in office.
“Something, however small it may be – an email, a phone call or a meeting I convene – every day I try to do something to save the Labour party from his leadership.”
In response, a Labour source hit back at the peer, suggesting Mandelson was part of the establishment. “The idea of Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister and implementing policies that actually benefit the people terrifies the establishment, so it’s no surprise Peter Mandelson has found time in his busy schedule of spending time on oligarch’s yachts to attempt to undermine him,” the source said.
Here we touch on the real reasons why Mandelson so despised Corbyn. Corbyn had literately declared war on a fixed system he had dared to challenge the status quo. Corbyn’s policies would have gone some way to redressing the inequalities within the UK and if he had succeeded here the momentum could well have travelled like a wave across the EU changing the world social-economic system losing the establishment’s grip on the people.
The Dark side of politics
Starmer and Mandelson have many things in common and many things they don’t like us to know.
Both Trilatrilist, members of that elite organisation seems to be just passed over by the mainstream press.
Of course, other than both being members of the Labour party and the fact they both have titles from the establishment one being a knight of the realm the other a Lord, both Starmer and Mandelson have deeper links. They are both ironically connected to organisations that over the last four decades have lent themselves to many conspiracy’s.
The secretive Bilderberg Group gathers for its annual meetings. A collective of elite North American and European politicians, business leaders, financiers and academics, the group has attracted a good deal of suspicion over the last half-century, with conspiracy theorists confidently asserting that its members are plotting the New World Order and are hell-bent on global domination.
Protesters who believe the Bilderbergers represent a “shadow world government” regularly picket their yearly meet-ups, creating a need for high security at all times, but attendees insist the group is simply a debating society taking place outside the glare of the political spotlight.
The group publishes its guest list the day before its annual get together – between 120 and 150 are invited by its steering committee – along with a list of the subjects they intend to discuss as a gesture towards transparency. This typically consists of broad issues like macroeconomic concerns, the threat of terrorism and cyber-security.
Although members do not, as a rule, discuss what goes on within its conferences, Labour MP and onetime party deputy leader Denis Healey, a member of the steering committee for more than 30 years, did offer a clear statement of its intentions when quizzed by journalist Jon Ronson for his book Them in 2001.
“To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair,” he said. ”Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”
Here’s Mandy – or should I say, the chairman of Lazard International or his other title Board of Trustees of Deutsche Bank’s – Mandelson perfectly embodies the ghastly, muddy fudge of public and private that so typifies the atmosphere at Bilderberg. Throw a rock and hit a public servant turned investment banker. Alongside Mandelson in the 2014 Bilderburg meeting was his old buddy and sailing partner George Osborne another beneficiary of the “revolving door”.
Here’s where the links get even murky.
The Epstein story is probably one of the biggest scandals of the last decade. We are talking here about sex trafficking, paedophilia, rape, blackmail, financial fraud, intelligence agencies etc. And that spider web involves the most powerful and wealthiest people internationally (perhaps this is the answer). Yet there was barely any investigative journalism. Most of the coverage done by journalists was barely scratching the surface, the tip of the iceberg.
One of the most surprising things about Epstein is that he is a member of some of the most powerful and influential groups in the US.
He’s a member of:
- The Council on Foreign Relations
- The Trilateral Commission
- Trilateral North American Group
Coincidently Joe Biden is a member of the ‘The Council on Foreign Relations’ another murky organisation of elitists.
Mandelson may be a Trilatrilist, he is also a Bilderberger, there seems to be a big crossover, after all the one percent is only one percent and you cannot have too many groups without doubling up a little. As we know Sir Keir Starmer is a member of ‘The Trilateral Commission,‘ an organisation that sees the issue with democracy as the fact that people like you and me have the vote. They feel that the vote should be only for those with what they believe is a real stake in democracy, they see it as the rich have more to lose!
If you have ever wondered how Sir Keir Starmer could go from being first elected in 2015 as a Labour MP to Labour Leader in 5 years, That’s one parliamentary term, maybe look at his friends and the organisations he belongs to.
Lord Mandelson wasn’t afraid to phone Jeffery Epstein looking for a favour — even while the paedophile was behind bars for sex crimes, according to a new documentary.
A new “Dispatches” documentary aired on Channel 4 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 newspapers.
The Epstein and Mandelson were seemingly so close that Epstein even had a pet name for the UK cabinet member — calling him “Petie,” according to the report.
“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
Both Sir Keir Starmer and Lord Mandelson have connections in common the notorious Jeffery Epstein
“I pledge allegiance to the Trilateral Commission, and to the domination for which it stands, one planet, indivisible, with tyranny and poverty and top-down order for all…”
Epstein’s connections to the rich powerful and famous spread like a spiders web they include royals. politicians, Bankers and celebrities, he was even a member of The Trilateral Commission a small exclusive club of some of the most powerful people in the world a club Sir Keir Starmer belongs to. LINK
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.
Peter Mandelson pictured with Jeffrey Epstein: Labour ex-minister who’s friends with Prince Andrew shops with paedophile financier in 2005 after being introduced by Ghislaine Maxwell
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.
In an explosive interview with two Trilateral Commission members, highlighting how much political power can be controlled in the hands of a few, this stunning piece of forgotten history, a 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission. (Source: Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management; ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980, South End Press, Pages 192-3).
Goodbye, separate nations.
Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
The 1978 conversation featured reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took up the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.
How does a shadowy group like the TC accomplish its goal? One basic strategy is: destabilize nations; ruin their economies; ratify trade treaties that effectively send millions and millions of manufacturing jobs off to places where virtual slave labor does the work; adding insult to injury, export the cheap products of those slave-factories back to the nations who lost the jobs and undercut their domestic manufacturers, forcing them to close their doors and fire still more employees.
And then solve that economic chaos by bringing order.
What kind of order?
Eventually, one planet, with national borders erased, under one management system, with a planned global economy, “to restore stability,” “for the good of all, for lasting harmony.”
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 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 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.
Apathy and obedience.
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, three major industrial countries, basically the Carter administration, that’s where they come from.
That is the more interesting one [The Crisis of Democracy, a Trilateral Commission report]. The American rapporteur Samuel Huntington of Harvard, he 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.
“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—they concluded that a major problem is what they called, their words, “the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young.” The schools, the universities, churches, they’re 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 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, he 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 don’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, what comes? Neoliberalism, which has exactly those effects.
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.
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.