Autism Project Donations:

Autism Project Donations here - https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=23MBUB4W8AL7E

Thursday, 26 March 2020

The Problem With The Fleming Story

There are two things to consider here - one is the undoubted (and I don't doubt it) ability of Ian Fleming as a writer, but the other is the myth and government-directed propaganda about what his involvement in the James Bond stories really was.

I have managed at least on one previous occasion to jolt some of us here out of your slumbers, with a vigorous argument over Leslie Charteris and his screenplay activities in Hollywood - and I guess I'm about to do it again now, if there's anyone still around to pick up the other side.
Viscountess Rothermere, the real one...
You only live twice, or so it seems...
Trust me, you don't know what you don't know;
but I'll tell ya. A bit at least.

Okay that Charteris is not the Charteris family of 'hellfire club' infamy in the UK; but if anything both he and those UK Charteris people have a jointly much more interesting real history together.

I defy anyone to produce even one single authentic fact as evidence that Ian Fleming ever was a UK spy in the field, ever. He was effectively a personal assistant and private secretary to a Royal Navy Admiral on recommendation of his then soon-to-be father-in-law, and owner of the Daily Mail. In other words, he was a journalist. A press spokesman, as it were, not unlike what modern politicians nowadays all have.

However, what he did do, as the direct consequence of his recognized and undoubted skills as a reporter and journalist, was interface, officially, with William Donovan who was then heading the US intelligence co-operation between the USA and the United Kingdom - and Donovan eventually started the CIA. One of his kids started a company that I personally worked with and partly also for, which is even today still in operation and situated (headquartered) in Lincolnwood, IL. It's a business information company.
Anne Rothermere - Mrs Ian Fleming

The reasons I make much of all of this is to have the thoughtful people among you, come to a realization about the UK, and the relationship (if any) that the US has with UK secret intelligence. You see, Churchill was not the good guy you all think...

The trouble with today's UK, is that it is not, 'Great Britain' as such; it is 'the United Kingdom.' And there is a difference - and the following explains what that difference is:

The Windsors may not genuinely claim 'Britannic Majesty.' That ended when some of the merchants and baronial class committed the regicide of their king. 'Britannic Majesty' came about because of Charles' uncle Louis of France and their joint command of the seas of the world. Louis provided the money, Charles had the naval architects and technology. Windsors had nothing. Ever.

This rivalry extended well past the fact of the Windsors remaining, because those Irish and Scots whose loyalties were still with Charles and Louis (as indeed was also the case with many states in the new 'America') were continually rebuffed by Whitehall. 

O'Neills of Ireland - Earls of Tyrone - were among those, so were the Macleods of Skye, for example. 

Now what you have to appreciate, is that the guilt complex of the fake current layers of 'aristocrats' in the UK causes them to need to suppress all of that history, and they do it by obstructing any possibility of those on 'the other side' as it were, becoming prominent in England. 
Hugo Charteris - Anne Rothermere's brother

The person who was a field agent doing covert work for major official agencies - was Noel Coward - but he effectively left the UK for good when he discovered that Churchill had deliberately blocked his knighthood which was actually sought by George VI himself. 

...And the other person who really was an active spy in the field, was Fleming's wife Anne Rothermere. She had originally been married to Lord O'Neill who died in a military campaign. Rothermere worked for the same organization that Fleming interfaced with but did not actually work for, if you see the difference. This is the same thing as if today, you were the UK representative of the Five Groups co-operative intelligence grouping, but not actually in let's say, the NSA, which actually has all the core data.

Now whenever you read stories about Fleming and UK secret services bear this in mind, you are not being told where those stories are emanating from, who is driving them, and how did they get the so-called 'information' they are proliferating.

The difference, my friends with me, is that my godfather, was an O'Neill from those O'Neills, and my dad's first cousin was Kevin McClory, the guy who actually wrote 'Thunderball.'

Except that he didn't actually 'write it,' as in, not as the final cut, nicely edited, piece of UK propaganda that was actually internally about an American covert operation, partly run by an American private corporation, by name 'Glomar' or at least 'Hughes Corporation Deep-sea Exploration.' However, his name and the name of the CIA operative designated to oversee the project, Jack Whittingham, are on the copyright notice.

As you know, Anne Rothermere's brother was Hugo Charteris.

And I've mentioned here many times that my father used to have to 'take in' a number of UK luminaries over the years - either when they were doing something for Shell Far East, or on rehabilitative furlough, as in the case of Anthony Burgess, or for some other reason. Burgess I 'donated' (voluntarily I might add, because I felt sorry for him) my bedroom when I was just a very very young child!!

So let me now take a few words directly from Wikipedia since I find nowadays there are a lot of idiots who prefer 'the facts' and 'the truth' from Wikipedia above from the horse's mouth directly:

"After the war he went to Malaya where he served as public relations officer for south-east Asia command."

Ahem. 

Okay?
Marilyn Monroe's favorite - the thing she slept in naked,
and Fleming's favorite brand. And yes, she also spoke about
Chanel No 5.

So that's Mrs Ian Fleming's wife's brother. Got it? My father was head of teacher training Malaya at the time, but he also had the most extensive tea and rubber plantations as well at that time (up to '47) - and then eventually he became permanent director of Education for the Federation of Malaysia. I'm not going into what specific relationship he had with the UK government but he had one.

So stop trying to gainsay what I am telling you, those of you who have that bent of mind. You don't know what you are talking about, and neither does 'the Robb Report' for that matter! They simply have no clue.

(Anne) Rothermere 'donated' the bases of the stories on the whole, to Fleming, but he was himself a very good writer up to a point.

And that is not the current folklore but it is only folklore and not fact what is widely spruiked.

My uncle worked as plant manager for Wrigley's Singapore. Whittingham (Thunderball) was married to the Wrigley heiress - Wrigley itself being an American company situation also - along with Donovan's company - in Illinois.

So stop it, stop believing the nonsense people write in trash publications - you'll go blind.

Here's the massive point that goes missing whenever you following blindly the nonsense - you see, and I'm sure it's all coming together slowly in your mind, some of these things revolve around huge global private corporations and super-wealthy, connected but otherwise private people. Yeah there's official government agencies - there's also others... And so this all does tie back to my original plan to post about 'salon society.' 

You see, they haven't really gone anywhere. But if you read things like Wikipedia on Jack Whittingham, they make him out to be something like 'just a contract screenwriter.' OMG.




7 comments:

  1. Was the Felix Leiter character a metaphor regarding the American role in the intelligence partnership with the Brits: merely a provider of funds and logistics?

    At least, that was the impression I got from the films.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good to see someone has their thinking cap on here. 'A metaphor...' But for whom and for why? So we're supposed to think the US just wanted to provide unquestioning funds and logistics to whatever escapade - because 'Bond?' LOL
    The Bond books and in particular the films were US propaganda. Not UK propaganda. They were designed to encourage the UK government to 'like' their financial 'arrangement' under the hegemony of the US. They were written by, and peopled with, and styled along the lines of - the 'old world' original British aristocracy. You will recall, Fleming's first Bond book was Casino Royale - and no way Fleming ever had the personal time or money to swan around the gaming salons of Monte Carlo. But Coward and Charteris/'Rothermere' did. And all of these people - Coward, Rothermere, O'Neill, McClory, even Fleming himself, were NOT English fake aristocracy; they were the kind who would never have been able to settle and live in the UK, and they became what is known as 'trans-Atlantic' Americans. The films were thus able to peg the CIA has having this tiny little superficial 'on the outside' role, and so no sensitive operational secrets needed to be given away - only the same old typical 'world's best tech' propaganda that Bill Donovan always promoted from the beginning. You will note, that as soon as the UK finalized their obligations under 'lend/lease' (I think John Major/Tony Blair era), suddenly you start to see their true nature coming out. That is to say, the true nature of those who supplanted the old 'British' Empire and replaced it with mercantile street capital from London Town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yes and I know it's a tragic shock to those who once upon a time may have fallen in love with 'England,' but that's not TODAY'S England. And it's certainly not Fleming's BRITAIN, either, and absolutely ESPECIALLY not Noel Coward's Great Britain. There are sealed national security files, you know, on people that you would utterly utterly get so shocked to know about - which will soon enough come out. But, a little clue: think 'Mon Roi.' And I leave it at that. Well, at least alongside our present theme, which is - 'Paris Bohemian Salon Society.' ; )

      Delete
  3. After having watched the 1980s British TV mini-series, "Reilly, Ace of Spies," it occurred to me that UK spy agencies will probably contract with *anyone* to accomplish their nefarious purposes.

    But maybe that's no different than any other nation's security and intelligence organizations? They each seem to be disreputable. But then, when all is said and done, they're all spies, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess the standard definition of 'spy' is someone who is pretending to be someone and something on the surface but underneath they have an agenda that is hidden from view. So, essentially they are being deceptive. But you can still be deceptive without being malicious - there is the Biblical instance of Rahab being deceptive to protect the lives of two Hebrew spies sent by Joshua. Many well-known American covert organisations have this concept of 'situational ethics' but they still underpin it with the basic principle that everyone has a 'right to the truth' except that some of the 'opponents' do not want to know the truth or 'truth' because they have replaced that with ideology and/or they have a fixated idea about reality that cannot be shaken from them. The moral 'right' to be deceiving deliberately is part of academics across many disciplines not just where there are 'clandestine institutions' teaching young agents and analysts. I hold the personal view that most trained official covert people are HIGHLY moral and ethical, even if in very elaborated ways; the problem recently has been that if you take the example of Brennan, it's difficult to say he was never perfectly sincere - it's just that some people would have said he was 'falling in line' with foreign agendas, not that of the government and people of the USA... In the end, it all does and MUST, resolve with the phrase 'nefarious purposes;' what is the ultimate purpose of these people and their directors? 'Truth' is about the purpose, and the process is the 'ethos' which means that good people can and will tell you the whole truth if they a-judge you are responsible enough, whereas those who really are nefarious are out to do you harm in the end. This whole thing is part of executive life at a level even if you are just in private business or the corporate world. It's there. Those who are morally 'out-of-line' are those who will gratuitously harm you. Those are the 'disreputable' people. At the moment, we have this 'debate' about the ultimate morality of let's say Fed fiat money 'ruling the world' - but that's a fragile argument because of it's converse: what other thing or system will rule then? Gold? National (sovereign) gold was what caused major international hot wars. Sorry to be so 'Gore Vidal' about it. LOL So - 'are all spies disreputable?' No, I don't believe they are. I mean this is, and you are very correct to highlight it, a most important question. And it's something I will be going into as the result of at last coming up with some 'scenario situations' which provide future opportunities following the resolution of Covid-19. Is it going to be disreputable, us making a ton of money out of this?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good point. Well, I guess I'm willing to hold myself in disrepute, as long as I'm wealthy in the end. ("Money absolves a multitude of sins" as some cynical wag once said.) The only problem is that I might wind up both disreputable AND poor!

    ReplyDelete

Your considered comments are welcome