Transcript
Speaker: 365 episodes, you know what this means? We're depressingly old? No, that's been true for a while. It means that a person could listen to an episode of this podcast every day for an entire year. Well, unless it's a leap year. Yeah, there's no such thing as a leap year. Sorry, that was a prank we were playing on you that got way out of hand. But all of my happy 29th of February greeting cards.
Speaker: What about my Happy 29th of February greeting cards? Fakes the lot of them, but that's not the point. The point is that our grand working is complete. A podcast every day. The wheel of fates is in motion and our eternal opus moves into being. Have you started drinking? Do you need to start drinking? Well, no.
Speaker: The grand working? The thing we've been building towards this entire time? Oh, yes, sorry. The working. Yes. You know I made that up, right? What? Did you really believe that all of our years podcasting were really a secret plot to invoke a Crowley -esque occult ritual that would influence the gods of television
Speaker: into retroactively producing more episodes of the seminal and classic late -90s animated sitcom The Critic. Well, I mean, when you say it out loud... Exactly! Now who is pranking home? I was onto your leap year ploy from the start. This was all my plan from the beginning.
Speaker: Or at least, that's what I wanted you to think. For you see... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not doing this, roll the theme. Fine, I'm going home to sleep with my wife. The Podcaster's Guide to the Conspiracy, brought to you today by Josh Addison and Dr. M. Denton.
Speaker: Hello, you're listening to the podcaster's guide to the conspiracy in Auckland, New Zealand. I am Josh Addison and in Zhuhai, China, it's associate professor of philosophy and avant -garde taxidermist Dr. M .R .X .Dentist. I thought one of these things was meant to be a lie. Yeah.
Speaker: It will be eventually. I'm sorry. Am I going to stop being an adult takes you to some point or I'll get fired from being an associate professor? I'm just saying, eventually one of the things I say will be a lie about you, but it hasn't happened yet, obviously.
Speaker: Yeah. So are you aware that the only YouTube strength that we've had, at least on the version of the podcast that I've put on my channel, is for using a very small section of shake, wrestle and roll the last time we made a clue reference.
Speaker: No, did we do that? I didn't even remember. Did you stick a little clip in and it got pinged? I did, yeah. And we got pinged for about the three seconds of shake, rattle and roll. I said shake, rattle and roll. Because we did get done that one time when you put a clip of a numbers station. Which is why I then created my own number station clip that we can use in future episodes if we ever want to do number stations again.
Speaker: Although that one didn't get taken down, did it? It just got, it just got there. Anyway, no, so you've, you've, you've been stepping out on me again. I understand with some other fancy podcast. Well, two fancy podcasts. Two fancy podcasts. So I got interviewed on Embrace the Void about my views on particularism. And I also was on In Time.
Speaker: Which was talking about medical conspiracy theories, so I've been I've been stepping out. I've had quite the adventurous Podcasting week a will just continue Josh it will just continue well It's like I always say you're a painter Jezebel, and you'll never be any good
Speaker: That is what Reviewer B said about my last article. That explains that little disclaimer you added to the end of it. Anyway, do we have anything to talk about before we start the episode apart from your repeated infidelities? No, no, no. So instead, I think we should we should go back in time. Well, actually a long way, long way back in time. 800 years and talk about a whole bunch of stuff which has no substance. Doesn't really make any sense, but it's OK. Yeah. Play a string and we'll do that.
Speaker: Actually, that's a guaranteed way. Because Nintendo does not like using any of their intellectual property. I'll put a thing in here.
Speaker: So for those of you, can you hear the racket in the background at the moment? I can indeed. That is my children washing the dishes with violence. Surely not just throwing the dishes out and then unwrapping new dishes from a box, because it sounds more like they're replacing the dishes with fresh dishes they've bought from elsewhere. Quite possible. As long as they're clean at the end of it, I don't care.
Speaker: Anyway, if you tuned into the little filler episode last week, you'll you'll have heard me go over a bunch of articles from an at the time unnamed website, which were which is the source for the main thing we're going to be talking about right now. The website rather is called Truth Control www .truthcontrol .com
Speaker: And the specific article we're looking at today is called the Treaty of 1213, the Beginning of the Lie, which found its way onto our list of things we could possibly do a podcast episode about via you. Where did you hear about this, if you can even remember?
Speaker: really sure it was linked to from the email list I belong to Wake Up Kiwi which is the email that I get once a month telling me with assurance that this is the point in time where the globalists are losing control of the narrative and it's all going to shut down and they've been saying that now for about eight years
Speaker: and they're beginning to repeat the same links again and again and again. And I'm fairly sure this was one of the many things of, oh, actually, that looks vaguely interesting. We might want to do an episode about that at some point. Well, there we go. Yeah, so if you did listen in last week, you would have heard the other articles on the site. There's a lot of sort of Illuminati New World Order -y stuff
Speaker: There was a lot of the existence of alien stuff. There was a bit of anti -organised religion, but pro -religion itself. And the top 100 list of conspiracy theories. Top 100 conspiracies. Some of which are going to surprise you. But not many, to be honest. And this article carries on with that theme a bit.
Speaker: When I started reading through it, I thought, this is a bit sort of sovereign citizenry, although it seems to be coming out from a different direction. I wonder if it's really sovereign citizen stuff, or if it's just sort of adjacent to the whole thing. And then I got to the end and was like, okay, you know, this is sovereign citizen stuff. This is just 100%.
Speaker: sovereign citizen, Freeman on the Land business. Because it's basically, from what I could gather, and as we'll see, it gets a bit murky, seems to basically say that the Pope runs the world, or at least the Western world. I mean, I mean, doesn't he? And that we're all we're all slaves.
Speaker: Don't they? I mean, there are currently two popes, and if the rumours are true, and Francis is thinking about retiring, soon there could be three popes. I think there's a conspiracy at the moment to have as many popes as possible, but going, I mean, you have to be pope for a certain amount of time before you can retire. So as long as we just keep on appointing popes and the other ones don't die, we could just have popes up the wazoo.
Speaker: Well, is Benedict technically still Pope, because it's for life or something, even if it's episode? Yeah, no, he is the other Pope. He's still a pontiff, he's just simply not the reigning pontiff. How about that? But anyway, so thank you. So it's actually worth noting this, because one of the tricky problems the Catholic Church has, and I say this as if there's not many tricky problems the Catholic Church has. One of many of them, yes.
Speaker: you can't really defrock someone from an elevated position when they get there unless they engage in some kind of blasphemy or mortal sin which allows you to then ex -communicate them. So this has always been an issue with respect to bishops, archbishops and cardinals who have been found to have broken the law but not broken
Speaker: canon law so for example you know all of those priests bishops archbishops and cardinals who get investigated for sex offences which turn out to be not quite against canon law even if they're against the civil or criminal legal codes of the countries in which they reside it turns out that is not a fireable offence because once you're given a particular title in the catholic church you basically have that title for life
Speaker: So once you become pope, even if you retire, you remain pope in the same respect that you can be a cardinal who's a very naughty boy and of course that's one of the things we don't have to worry about being sexist about that because all cardinals are men according to Catholic doctrine. Once you become a cardinal you're basically set for life unless you're actually willing to stand up on a pulpit and deny the existence of God.
Speaker: right but like being a made man in the mafia i assume and that they're also right i suspect it's almost exactly like being a made man in the mafia given that almost all cardinals are italium and most cardinals are probably linked to a mafios affair
Speaker: family or some criminal syndicate through a family connection. The mafia controls the church, and the church is where we're about to discover controls the world. So, the mafia controls the world. Now, before we say anything else that might get us dead animal heads in our beds, maybe we should look at the specific claims made by this article.
Speaker: So this goes all the way back, all the way back to pre -1066. So before the Norman invasion of England in 1066, apparently the people of England held a low -deal title to their land. The article doesn't do a great job of explaining what that means, so I had to look at it. A low -deal means without a lord, land without a lord. So if you have a low -deal title to land, you don't have a lord or a landlord, you don't tithe, you don't pay rent.
Speaker: you don't have any any feudal duties. I'm interested while I was googling to find out what that would mean. I found there was an article from just last year about some squatters making an allodial claim to a one million dollar homestead here in New Zealand. These people showed up and claimed that
Speaker: There's a historic British common law that says by erecting a flag and planting a crop on an abandoned property, you're entitled to own it. So these people went into this million -dollar homestead that was currently unoccupied and said, yet we live here now, we're making an allodial claim. And as I understand it, the courts basically said, that's not a thing, and it hasn't been a thing for a thousand years, go away.
Speaker: yeah i believe i believe the i mean so i mean there are still squatters rights in the uk but the allodial stuff i believe was rescinded back sometime in the 1960s also so anyway 1066 the normans invade william the conqueror herald takes an arrow in the eye or possibly doesn't people might have just misread that bit of the bayou tapestries but anyway so the the the the the frenchies i mean they weren't french then obviously it was 1066 but
Speaker: They took over the country, and so William the Conqueror, as the Conqueror, then took everyone's land, and no one had a low -deal title anymore. They were all beholden to some manner of law or other. So it then skips forward 100 years, 133 years, to 1199, where King John passed the Law of Mortman, or Dead Hand,
Speaker: And this was the law that basically said, you can't leave your land to the church unless you've got the king's permission to do so. Now, the law of Mormon is a real thing. But again, I looked this one up and couldn't find any mention of it actually being enforced until the late 1200s. Edward I was listed as the first person to pass that law. So already the history is looking a little bit sketchy.
Speaker: Yeah, so I did some research into this as well, and like you, I couldn't find anything pre -Edward I. Now, we'll probably talk a little bit as to why they're trying to associate this with King John later on. What I did find interesting was the rationale as to why the law of Mort Main was initially put forward, which was basically that if you gave your land to the church,
Speaker: you could never get it back because the whole point was you gave your land to a person. That person would then die and then the land would return back to the feudal lord that controlled that parcel of land in England. But the church and its associated ministries do not die as corporations. So once the church had its grubby little hands on a parcel of land, the feudal lord had no way to get that back.
Speaker: And of course the church was really keen on this, they were quite keen on accruing lots of land, so they were encouraging peasants to, you know, or other smaller lords within feudal titles, give us your land when you die. And the feudal lords were going, no,
Speaker: no no we can't have that which is why Edward the first then goes yeah we really can't have that because there's a grave danger that i will start losing my land as well to well -meaning simpletons giving their land to the church so it was very much a financial motivation to go no no i want to make money from this land i don't want abbots to be or bishops to be making money from this land instead she goes to me not you
Speaker: Yes, I think certainly when it came to the crown and the church, it was all about money, but also there could be advantage to the people, sort of like, why would you give your land to the church? Possibly there are reasons about, you know, because they think it'll help them get into heaven or something, but also again, under the feudal system, you have feudal duties towards your lords. If they go to war, you might get called up to fight for them and what have you. If the church is now your landlord,
Speaker: um you're much less likely to have to have have the same sort of duties towards them unless it's a whole a holy crusade yes going on at which point the pope will say you have to send yourself and the king might be going oh but we're not sending troops to go
Speaker: Damn it, I'm living in the wrong parcel of land. Yes. So anyway, according to this article, King John passed the law of Mortmarne, which of course made the church unhappy because he's now stopping this flow of land being bequeathed to them.
Speaker: And so they excommunicated him for it. And King John did not appreciate being excommunicated, wanted to get back into the church's good books. And so according to this article, here I quote, King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature, he groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals and saw submission and loyalty to him.
Speaker: King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury and offered the Pope a vassal's bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication at Winchester by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October the 3rd, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope as Vicar of Christ, who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on Earth as tradition.
Speaker: So this is the Treaty of 1213 that the article concerns. Now, the first question, did that actually happen? Actually, before we get to that first question, I want to say it's quite amazing that a King of England can give to the Pope ownership of everything and everyone on earth. I mean, what typical English arrogance to go, oh, well, you know,
Speaker: We'll just give you everything. I mean, we are the English after all. We probably should control it all. And now we'll give it to you, the Italian Pope. Well, it says that the Pope claimed ownership of everything. King John, I think just gave him... King John still has to sign the treaty going, oh yes, by the way, I'm using my Kingly authority to give you everything. Yes. That is apparently...
Speaker: That is apparently what happened in 1213. So again, I didn't do a lot of looking around here, but I hit a quick browse through Wikipedia, for instance. Good old, reliable Wikipedia, I say, giving it the side eye. Yes, that said,
Speaker: I would if it's a choice between Wikipedia, and an article on a website that gives us control dot com about and has lots of articles about why we should believe in aliens and who the who the secret rules of the world are, I'll bend towards Wikipedia. But certainly they mention
Speaker: Nothing about this, they say, I mean, yes, John, King John was excommunicated. He did negotiate terms for a reconciliation and people terms for submission, according to Wikipedia, people terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate, Pandolf Viratio, in May the 2013 at the Templar Church at Dover, all the Templars. And surprisingly, that doesn't get much mentioned here.
Speaker: And he goes through the details of his settlement here. I should point out there's a really interesting thing here about the equivalent amount of money
Speaker: for england versus ireland so 700 marks or 466 pounds i'm assuming that's in money then as opposed to money money to say for england and less than half for ireland only 300 marks or 200 pounds irea should be seriously devalued there
Speaker: Yeah. So, yes, I mean, there was a there was some sort of restitution, perhaps that the king paid towards the pope, but it doesn't seem to go as far as handing over the entirety of England to the church and saying that now they own all the land. It also says that
Speaker: he paid some of the money he had promised to the church but he actually stopped making payments in late 1214 and apparently the pope conveniently forgot that the king still owed them a bunch of money in the in the name of smoothing things over. So again a cursory glance of history does not appear to support what the article is claiming.
Speaker: Yeah, and the problem here, because they're associating King John's activities with what Edward I was going to do later on with the Law of Mortman, is that the authors are going, oh look, John had to grovel towards the Pope,
Speaker: and return Kingly authority back to the Vatican Sea. This must be the point where things were being attributed back. Basically they're not understanding exactly what the issue was back in England at the time. So end of the
Speaker: 10th century, beginning of the 11th century, because I'm getting my centuries, so 11th century would be the 1200s, 10th century, yeah. So I'm getting those wrong. I was, we have a stupid dating system. I just say 1100s and 1200s because I get confused as well. Although then historians get concerned that 1100s and 1200s is basically 1100s or 1110.
Speaker: and 1200 is 1200 to 1210. So it's a very stupid system in every single way possible. But the reason why there was this contract between John and the Pope was not because of land or monies or vassal states. The issue was the Archbishop of Canterbury had died. The Holy See in Rome wanted one particular person to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury.
Speaker: John elected for a different bishop to be elevated to Archbishop of Canterbury. The Holy See said this is unacceptable. He communicated John as a result for exceeding his temporal power.
Speaker: that then had the problem of the king of England was now excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church which meant that not only was he going to hell because he was no longer one of the saved but also as he was no longer one of the saved this then opened him up to a potential
Speaker: crisis of succession or indeed usurpation because as not being a Catholic in good standing someone else might go well we can't have a heretical king on the throne now can we and that's why he groveled the Holy See in Rome to return himself to a position of safety and that also meant that
Speaker: he had to show a certain amount of difference towards the Holy See such as, you know, providing the Holy See with land and money as a consequence of showing how contrite he was. So the issue here isn't what they want it to be, that it's this fight between the feudal lords and
Speaker: the Holy See, it's more a religious fight. It just turns out that by John doing this thing, he also pissed off the feudal lords in England at the same time because they were going, but the Holy See keeps on taking our land and now you're giving it more land and also money. You're kind of making the crisis we're pointing out to you even worse, which is why you get the kind of reforms you see with Edward I later on.
Speaker: But yes, as you say, now even according to this article, which as we've seen is already diverging slightly from what we think we know about history, they nevertheless agree that yes, like you say, the Barons were not happy about this. The feudal lords were now angry at King. He'd had smoothed things over with the Vatican, but now had problems back at home, and so there was sort of this feudal revolt of sorts.
Speaker: And so to get back in the good books with the Barons, this is where the Magna Carta comes in.
Speaker: which was signed in 1215. Now I know almost nothing about the Magna Carta. I went and had a look of that as well. I thought it was the sort of foundational document. I see it was signed by King John and the Barons, and both parties immediately started ignoring it and violating its terms pretty much immediately. I mean, isn't that such an English thing to do? Sign a contract with a whole bunch of people, and then immediately break that contract? I mean, there's a treaty back home.
Speaker: which also seemed to be broken the very minute it was signed as well. Yes, yes. It's almost as history with the English just keeps on repeating again and again and again. Welcome to the podcaster's guide to really hating the English. If you're an English listener, I'm so, so sorry. I'm just so sorry. Yes. I mean, in the 1200s, the English are really the French, I think, to a great extent, but yes.
Speaker: Now, so it's sort of going backwards and forwards. Pope's angry at the king, so he signs over control of all of everything. Now the barons are angry with the king, so he signs to make the carter. So the problem, the whole argument here in this article seems to be
Speaker: that the Magna Carta is completely void because it couldn't possibly be legitimate because there was this treaty in 1213 was a contract between the king and the Vatican. And here we start getting contract. And this is the sovereign citizens, they love a contract. It's all about contracts with them. The contract is the most sacred and inviolable thing that they could possibly ever be. And so they're basically saying,
Speaker: So the Magna Carta had to have been void, because it was between the King and the Vatican, and the Barons can't come along and say, no, we don't like your contract, because they're not part of that contract. So it could never have been. Apparently, in the real world, the Pope was the one who eventually declared that the Magna Carta was void. But
Speaker: Anyway, to put it in the words of the article itself, what did the contract of 1213 AD create? A trust, all caps, or contract, all caps? Only the two parties, the King's ears and the Pope, can break the contract, for the trust -slash -contract cannot be broken as long as there are ears to both sides of the contract.
Speaker: These people are really, really big on contracts being inviolable as if nobody breaks contracts or indeed contracts aren't broken routinely throughout the political history. I mean, if these people discovered
Speaker: that there was a contract signed by the ancient Roman in, let's say, 300 BC. All of that contract stands. That contract, unless that contract was ever rescinded by the Roman Senate, it must be standing today. And so by ancient Roman law, if I see an Etruscan on my property, I am entitled to remove their scapulae.
Speaker: Yeah, actually, as we will see when we get to the bonus episode, and we'll talk about a
Speaker: recent case along these lines. Yeah, it's all about contracts, and part of the sovereign citizen thing is believing that the state is constantly trying to trick you into entering into a contract with them. And once you're in a contract with the state, then all your rights are gone, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. So yes, they take their contracts very seriously. And it seems to be that
Speaker: The whole thrust of this article is that this 1213 treaty is the only thing that applies. This treaty was made, a contract was formed, and nothing else can be done to break that unless the King's ears or the Catholic Church chose to break the contract.
Speaker: I just want to point out, I mean, by their gloss, for the trust contract cannot be broken as long as there is to both sides of the contract. Now, two problems here. One, the whole point of the British Royal Family
Speaker: is it's not the same royal family as some of the earlier royal families given that there have been fights between the noble houses of the United Kingdom. And so the lineages are not clearly going back to one central king 3 ,000 years ago, they go back to various families that won wars or battles at some point.
Speaker: And so, popes don't have... well, I say popes don't have hairs. Actually, some of them do. Some of the popes were very, very naughty men who had a large number of children.
Speaker: In most cases, those children never ascended the throne of Saint Peter. So you can't go, oh, the heirs of the Pope. Popes don't have heirs. Popes are replaced and they have successors. And all that hinges on the definition of heir here.
Speaker: Yes, if you take a more general, not necessarily familial inheritance, but you could, I suppose, you could say that one pope inherits the station and powers of his predecessor, I don't know. But the point still stands that given the way that treaties work with respect to kingly lineages, once a royal family gets replaced by another successor royal family,
Speaker: those treaties, unless that family decides to adopt them, go, we're going to continue the state status quo, they can effectively just go, yeah, that was there was an agreement that you signed with the roses, where the who was the students? Yeah, the tutors where where the tutors now that that agreement doesn't stand. That was that was those people take it up with the remnants of that house.
Speaker: We're going to do things differently now. Maybe we'll have pantomime in the street. Maybe we'll ban plays. Who knows? We're going to do things differently. But yes, there's a bunch more for me, but from what I could gather...
Speaker: And I'm not 100 % on this. But from what I could gather, the thrust of this article is that that 1213 treaty was never broken. And so it applies to this very day, which is that anything that came after that is invalid, because it's against this treaty that still exists. So for instance, the American Constitution is invalid.
Speaker: And because it is, and I mean, it was a British colony. America is a former British colony, and
Speaker: you can't revolt against that because the constitution rely - oh yeah yeah i mean it just does trust me yeah yeah it's well i mean we're actually going to find out apparently why it does very shortly because we're about to talk about the secret treaty of verona something which every time i say the word verona all i can think of is that terrible lmnop song verona
Speaker: Ah, I just immediately think my shirona bite. That's it. When I signed you in Verona.
Speaker: You sat down, I moved over. Pretty contract, but all I saw was you. Something along those lines. Yes, anyway, so at this point, it brings up the Secret Treaty of Verona, apparently made on the 22nd of November, 1822, in which the parties basically pledged to end representative democracy, control the press,
Speaker: and do whatever it is the Pope says. Do we want to read out the whole text out here? Let me read you this article because I did some research on the Treaty of Rona. I didn't go to Wikipedia. I went to academics also. Oh la vida. I work in a university and can download these things.
Speaker: This is the text, and actually we'll actually talk about what's odd about the text shortly, but this is the text of the Secret Treaty of Verona.
Speaker: The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments in whatever country may exist in Europe and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known. Article 2.
Speaker: As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state, but also in the rest of Europe. Article 3.
Speaker: Convent that the principles of religion can contribute most powerfully to keeping nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes. The high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own interests
Speaker: so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the pope for what he's already done for them and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations. Yes, I see at the start their additions to the Treaty of the Holy Alliance
Speaker: which I think is meant to be the Treaty of 1213, so these are amendments, these are extra stipulations added on to that treaty, or so it claims. Or at least so is intimated. So is intimated, yes. So at this point the article says,
Speaker: Do we have a false god before us and worship him and his church instead of the real Lord Jesus and his government? The divine right of kings exists in Clinton. Interestingly, they say Clinton. This article was published 2009, but they speak as though Clinton's president. So I wonder if it's been a reprinted thing from the 90s. Or maybe, maybe she is president. I'm wondering whether they're going, ah, Hillary's the real power behind the current throne.
Speaker: could even be. But anyway, the divine right of kings exists in Clinton and every governor of the states and corporate union. Well, let me go on record and say that the Lord gave me the same right as the pope claims was given to him. Am I not a steward upon the land of the Lord as a mere sojourner the same as the pope? I not you also a steward.
Speaker: Did the Lord make a covenant with Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and reign over the animals and to populate the earth? Doesn't that contract still exist? And doesn't it exist with you also? And we, the true believers in that contract, can we take all the nations' man's laws in the world and dump them in the ocean to regain our rightful place on this earth under the Lord's natural law to thwart the contract between King John and the Pope that appears to defeat the original contract the Lord made with man?
Speaker: love a contract those sovereign citizens know my answer is just no yep but okay so you found out about the supposed secret treaty of verona then what um what's the deal there right so i am citing from the secret treaty of verona a newspaper forgery and i think the title of the article kind of gives away the conclusion by one tr shellenburg which was published in the journal of modern history back in 1935
Speaker: So this is, it's almost a hundred years old and what's interesting about the conclusion of this particular piece is it's treating the Treaty of Verona as being a historical oddity that nobody cares about. Little did TR Schoenberg
Speaker: realized that nearly a hundred years later this forgery would come back to haunt everyone in the same way that other famous forgeries, which were debunked at the time, have come back to haunt us, say like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,
Speaker: et cetera, et cetera. Now, when this particular treaty is talking about a holy alliance, it's not really referencing anything to do with King John at all. It's referencing the nation states of Europe, which were Catholic, and the activities they were engaging in, particularly around a recent revolution in Spain,
Speaker: which was causing the British some consternation. So we're going back here to the mid 19th century. There were congresses going on in Europe at the time, which were largely different nation states, so Austria, Spain, Germany, France and Russia.
Speaker: talking amongst themselves trying to prevent the outbreak of large -scale war on the continent. And Britain really wasn't keen on this and this always makes me think of that line in Yes Minister where Sir Humphrey explains that the entire purpose of the British Civil Service by and large is to keep the Europeans fighting amongst themselves
Speaker: which will then further British interests abroad. So it's always been in the interests of the United Kingdom to have a disunited Europe because it allows the UK to do whatever it likes. A united Europe has always been a very frightening prospect to a particular kind of British politician. Once again welcome to the podcaster's guide to really hating on the English. Now
Speaker: The Brits at the time thought that because of the situation in Spain, where King Ferdinand I had been deposed by revolutionaries, they were sure that France was about to engage in large -scale military action.
Speaker: to invade Spain and return Ferdinand to the court and the monarch of Spain. And they were also convinced that other nation states in Europe, particularly Russia, were going to lend military aid.
Speaker: and indeed many newspapers kept on harping on about how there was going to be this grand alliance in Europe which were going to restore the monarchy to Spain and the United Kingdom which was by this time a parliamentary democracy was going well that's that's a bit of a concern because you know what if those Catholics turn their eyes towards Britain
Speaker: So a London newspaper in 1823, the Morning Chronicle, started producing false report to what we call disinformation about how there were Russian forces in Verona that were going to march in lockstep with French forces into Spain to return Ferdinand to the crown.
Speaker: And this didn't occur, so the Morning Chronicle one day revealed via a secret correspondent the so -called Secret Treaty of Rona, which they printed in English,
Speaker: in the front pages of their newspaper. And to quote the article, this document explained the failure of the paper's conjectures to materialize by the stipulation that the three northern powers in confiding to France the task of putting an end to the revolutionary disturbances in Spain and Portugal, assure her of assistance which may at least compromise them with their people and with the French people by means of a subsidy
Speaker: on the part of the two emperors of 20 million, is that 20 million or 20 billion francs? 20 million? Yeah it is 20 million francs per annum. Now what's interesting about this, I know I say what's interesting about this about everything, but what is interesting about this is the treaty was exposed as a forgery that very afternoon by another London newspaper. So
Speaker: The members of those courts living in London pointed out to the sun, of all things. That's the tabloid rag that we know and hate today, the sun. They pointed out to the sun this was an obvious forgery because it contradicts itself in numerous places in the original text.
Speaker: and they point out that the author of this is either a satirist, a humorist, or someone who has a political agenda. Now the Morning Chronicle tried to downplay this by simply claiming that the treaty was itself not particularly special, and it just reflected other reports coming in from the continent, but by and large the English were going, yeah you are
Speaker: you got caught out printing a falsehood, you naughty editor of the morning chronicle, you naughty, naughty, naughty, naughty editor. But the problem is, by the time this was pointed out, the treaty in question had already got to France, where it was translated into French and printed it in what I'm assuming is pay lot, which is a Parisian news paper.
Speaker: Now, the French authorities actually imprisoned the editor of the newspaper for
Speaker: putting a forgery in the front pages of a Parisian newspaper. But the Morning Chronicle back in the United Kingdom used this as further evidence of a democratic put down of information on the continent. The stuff they don't want you to know. Precisely. And it is one of the dangers of, say, imprisoning editors of newspapers for misinformation is that certain people who
Speaker: think the misinformation isn't in fact misinformation are then going to go well look they're suppressing the truth joshua they're suppressing the truth but they're saying it in a french accent they're suppressing the truth joshua they are suppressing the truth it's not an invasion to me with the gray cells the truth is being suppressed now by the time this is going on in france
Speaker: This treaty has got itself to New York and then it gets to Washington and then it gets to South Carolina and it starts to explode in popularity because of course the United States is in very much one of its isolationist moods.
Speaker: and wants to show that there's a good reason why they should be isolated from the decadent old world. Because look, the Democratic Republic of the United States is standing against the kind of things the secret treaty of Verona is advocating. And this just shows you the danger of the old world. And the other thing which is interesting about this is that by the time the treaty gets to America,
Speaker: It's not the English version that was printed in the Morning Chronicle. It's a translation of the French version of the treaty that appeared in Paris, which is itself a translation of the English version. So you have a very bizarre translation.
Speaker: of the work which actually also reflects some of the bizarre aspects of the protocols which ended up having a very strange translation effect from French to Russian to English and then getting re -translated back into French again. So there's this very long history of using translations of translations when there's an original text you actually could refer to although I should point out in both
Speaker: in both the treaties case and the protocols case, there's no authentic original text. There's simply an original forgeries. There's a forgery that you could refer to without having to go with translation of a translation. And because America is in its isolationist mode,
Speaker: This text ends up being cited in a large number of books advocating for isolationist policies. It gets used as a justification of racism towards recent European immigrants at the time. So there was a large influx of polls to America at this time. The secret treaty of Verona was used as a reason to be very suspicious.
Speaker: of these Catholic Poles because they probably have allegiances to the Pope and aren't going to be good citizens of America. The treaty plays a foundational role in the formation of the Monroe Doctrine by President Monroe that very year in 1823.
Speaker: where Monroe came up with a foreign policy position that said that European colonization in the Western Hemisphere, i .e. North and South America, ought to be opposed as any intervention by those old world powers in the political fears of the Americas would be a potentially hostile act because they'd be against the kind of representative governments and democratic oversight that America was advocating for at the time.
Speaker: because the secret treaty of Verona is very anti -democratic and anti the free press and thus it ends up being really popular in the United States throughout the course
Speaker: of the 19th century fading into obscurity in the early 20th century only to have been resurrected in the latter part of the 20th century and now appearing in conspiracy theory websites in the 21st century is evidence that the Pope controls everything.
Speaker: So let's pretend everything you just said isn't true and that the secret treaty of Verona is a real thing so that we can wrap up the rest of this article, which sort of relies on it a little bit. So towards the end there, the author of the article brings up a bunch of things, including the idea that the King James Bible has been deliberately mistranslated
Speaker: to support the goals of King James and the Pope. The author gives as an example that they read, apparently, in a version of some Bible somewhere, that when Jesus was on the cross, in a version which he claims is a very old manuscript, Jesus said, Forgive them not, for they know what they do. Why that's the complete opposite of what's in the King James Bible. What else?
Speaker: What else is going to be... I've said to radically change a person's notion of exactly what Jesus died on the cross for because typically we take it it's for the forgiveness of sins and that predates the King James Bible quite considerably
Speaker: This appears to be advocating for Jesus died on the cross to condemn every sinner to hell. I mean that is a radical reinterpretation. Probably also support quite a large nahamba of libertarian leaning and I'm putting in scare quotes because once again we're not a video medium Christian.
Speaker: So it carries on, brings up the concept of eminent domain, which again is something that would break this contract and you can't break the contract unless you're a descendant of King James or the pope or something. And then it starts to get very sort of without mentioning the word sovereign citizen, explicitly sovereign citizen -y, talks about the idea that yes, now you are under a contract supplying the dictionary definition of what it means to be under.
Speaker: And then a bit later it supplies the dictionary definition of what an estate is, an estate versus a state, and so on and so forth. It brings in a little bit more again of the theme that we saw elsewhere in the site of how organized religion and the Pope and the Catholic Church
Speaker: contrary to Christianity in general, it says, the article says, you bet your life the Pope has something to hide. He is no more powerful than you. The king is no more powerful than you. The American president and governors are no more powerful than you. You allow them to run your lives? Why?
Speaker: And after, at the end of it all, having sort of rambled through this, again, when I talk about sort of this is the theme and this seems to be the central claim of it, it's never actually stated that it just kind of goes and goes and goes and goes. And this is me trying to desperately pick out a theme in it until
Speaker: it finally gets to the end and says, you are not a citizen of the corporate or organic state if you want to be free. You cannot claim it as your constitution and remain free. You cannot claim representatives in the legislatures and remain free. How about your estate? State and estate come from the same contract. I mean, the same word with an E in front of it. It sure is. And again,
Speaker: The whole insinuation that I have taken from it, that I'm assuming it's getting at, is that yes, it's all a legitimate, it's all contrary to the Treaty of 1213, which apparently is the only thing that counts at all, and therefore the Constitution and everything, and it's all a lie, and so that's why you shouldn't sit down when the judge tells you to. Oops, but I'm getting ahead of myself. That's something for the bonus episode.
Speaker: was confounded by by this article was all of it well oh yes but there were specific moments of intense confoundment which calls my brow to far farrow and me even to go maybe for me even to go maybe that works for me even to go want
Speaker: Why? Because I couldn't quite tell. Are they anti the King John Papal Treaty, or for us? Yes, they're impinging a lot on this is the only treaty that matters, and all treaties and constitutions post that are invalidated by the Treaty of 1213. But then I was going, but I'm assuming
Speaker: you're a Ginnert. I mean, I'm assuming you're a Ginnert because you're saying it was, you know, it was signed on flimsy pretenses, but you're not really stating you're a Ginnert. You're simply saying that everything post that is bad. So are they going, look, the only treaty that we should consider is one between an English king whose lineage has died out and a pope who had no children.
Speaker: It seems to be. Yes, no, you're right. It doesn't say, this is the only treaty that counts, and this treaty is good and we should live by it. It seems to suggest this is the only treaty that counts, but it's bad because the Pope is bad. There was that one little paragraph about how the Lord made a covenant with Adam and Eve, and so that's the contract that really counts.
Speaker: and which which then would suggest okay everything's currently is invalid because it contradicts this treaty which was established for better or worse and yet that treaty does contradict our contract with God.
Speaker: But yeah, no, I don't know. So I mean, this does seem to be a nicely sort of representative of a lot of sovereign citizen stuff in that in order for it to make any sort of sense, you have to rewrite history essentially.
Speaker: and accept only the things that you want to accept such as a treaty which is largely either ignored and when it is talked about as widely agreed to be a hoax and then it kind of doesn't make a lot of sense even when you get to the very end of it. Much like this podcast. It's true. It's very very true. So I mean we've reached for want of a better word the end of this. Any final thoughts?
Speaker: No, no, I've kind of I've any thoughts I may have had of kind of just being shuffled out of my brain in the mere reading of this. So I think I think we'd best put it to rest before things get even worse. Well, if we're putting to rest, I need to know, Josh, are you for or against the Treaty of 1213?
Speaker: Well, given that it appears to be completely imaginary, I'm thoroughly for it. Same. Same. I'm all for imaginary. Imaginary contracts. I mean, the Treaty of Verona sounds fantastic. It does. Put my John Hancock on that right now. Don't be disgusting.
Speaker: So, that's the end of this episode, but we do of course need to go and record a bonus episode for our patrons. And as I have suggested multiple times, we're going to be looking at a very sovereign citizenish situation that recently popped up in a courtroom here in New Zealand. We're going to talk a little bit about Jacinda Ardern and her recent trip to the States.
Speaker: We have to, I suppose. I mean, there's all the January the 6th stuff going on at the moment, which we can't not mention. And maybe we should have a chat about that Google employee who thinks his AI is sentient.
Speaker: Yes, I do think it's important that we should have a conversation between one interlocutor who's definitely experiencing human emotions at this time, and another interlocutor who is definitely experiencing human emotions at this time. As two interlocutors experiencing human emotions, I think it's very important for us to share those human emotions around this AI with human emotions as well.
Speaker: Yes, my human emotions are telling me that very thing right this moment. So if you'd like to hear us talking about all of those things, become a patron, damn you. And if you are a patron, good job. But if you'd like to be one, you can go to patreon .com and search for the podcaster's guide to the conspiracy. And if you don't want to be a patron, well, then you don't get to hear that stuff, but that's okay. You just got to hear, where are we sitting at? Oh, just under an hour of stuff now. So quite frankly, I don't see how your lives cannot have been improved by it.
Speaker: uh so we're gonna it's the lot is that the lot that is the lot that is the lot we're done we're done we're completely done so everything from here on in is procrastination and I can't even say preverification a little bit something like that yeah well we're just we're just filling in time now we're filling in time for no reason we could just stop it we could just stop right now and so I think could be long I we couldn't I'd listen watch watch listen listen
Speaker: Goodbye, everyone. I mean, that was quite convincing, but I'm not actually entirely sure at all. Shall I try again? Okay. I will then finish things off in the traditional method of saying goodbye. One more time. Goodbye. This time with human emotions. Goodbye. Ah, Mr Hitchcock. Thank you. Torengo! The podcaster's guide to the conspiracy is Josh Addison and me, Dr. M .R .X. Denterth.
Speaker: You can contact us at podcastconspiracygmail .com and please do consider supporting the podcast via our Patreon. And remember, the truth is out there, but not quite where you think you left it.
