Leveson inquiry: Murdoch editors warn of 'chilling effect' of state regulation … Six months after the phone-hacking scandal erupted, the editors of the now defunct News of the World's sister titles said they supported radical reform of press regulation but not through legislation. Their evidence to the inquiry on Tuesday contrasted with that of the Guardian's editor- in-chief, who was also testifying. He has proposed a "regulator with teeth" and a statutory underpinning. – UK Guardian

Dominant Social Theme: This phone-hacking scandal really begs for government intervention.

Free-Market Analysis: We have made to us what seems obvious – a commitment to analyzing directed history – and now many things are coming into focus. It now seems to us that this puffed-British phone-hacking scandal is nothing more than an effort by the powers-that-be to put into place further press regulation in Britain.

In America, right now Congress is trying to regulate the Internet. But in Britain, old-line Anglosphere Money Power is apparently hard at work erasing British press liberties that go back centuries.

This makes sense to us, given that Murdoch is evidently and obviously a Money Power man, funded by the power elite that is trying to rule the world and positioned as the "conservative" voice to a plethora of liberal media groups.

But before we expand on our main theme, let's re-examine the idea of directed history, which admittedly sounds a bit paranoid. The idea, in our view, is that the Anglosphere power elite and its associates and enablers manipulate "historical" events for purposes of increasing government power and creating a New World Order.

It is the Internet that has made us aware of directed history. The Internet has allowed us to see fully the sweep of history in the 20th and now the 21st century and to realize that perhaps almost every man-made event (excluding natural disasters) has had the effect of further supporting the Western world's movement toward global government.

Our big breakthrough on this front came when we re-examined "Yalta" and Winston Churchill's statements regarding American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's shameful give-away of Eastern Europe to Josef Stalin and the USSR.

Something increasingly didn't ring right about this tale but we had never fully followed through on our suspicions. We were aware, of course, that that the famous libertarian economist Murray Rothbard had questions about the so-called Cold War, but we had never ourselves questioned the foundational myth. Here's something on Churchill and FDR from The American Almanac, circa 1995:

On May 10, 1982, Henry A. Kissinger mounted the podium at Chatham House, the London home of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, to deliver the keynote address for the bicentenary celebration of the Office of the British Foreign Secretary. Kissinger boasted of his loyalty to the British Foreign Office on all crucial matters of postwar policy matters in dispute between the United States and Britain.

The crux of his disagreement with his own nominal country, the United States, he told his audience, was the basic dispute in policy and philosophy between "Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, reflecting our different histories.'

Roosevelt, Kissinger stated, had condemned Churchill as being "needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist in his attitude to what is now called the Third World, and too little interested in building the fundamentally new international order towards which American idealism had always tended.' It is Churchill who was right, and Roosevelt, who was wrong, in these matters, said Kissinger.

What are the chances of this, dear reader? How neat it is! Almost too perfect. Yes … It burst on us like a thunderbolt. Alternative history shows clearly that Wall Street and the larger Anglosphere cabal/mafia funded both the USSR's red rebellion and later on Adolf Hitler's rise to power. There's no doubt about it. It's a fact. There's surely evidence that the Anglosphere put Mao in power too, in China.

That's how the Anglosphere seems to work. They need enemies in order to maintain and expand control of the world's sociopolitical engine. They fund both sides of any given conflict in order to ensure, as much as possible, that they end up winning what they can of the eventual disasters, military and otherwise, that occur from their manipulations.

So what did we realize? How incredibly neatly the Yalta trio fit into the larger promotional elements of the Cold War mythology. Here was Roosevelt, supposedly the liberal. Then there was Stalin, the authoritarian. And finally there was Churchill in the middle.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. And who does Kissinger – a mouthpiece of the power elite – support in his talk (excerpted above)? Why, the synthesis, of course. Churchill.

It was Churchill, in fact, who did the heavy lifting. Roosevelt was to be seen as soft-headed and "wrong" by history. Stalin was to be seen as a monster. Somehow, Winston Churchill emerged as the moderate, civilized, melancholy adjudicator of East and West. Here's a bit of Churchill:

In a letter to his wife Clemmie, just before World War I, he confessed, "Everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be made like this?" In another letter to a "friend," he added: "I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it."

("The Anglosphere Counterattacks with Elite Icons")

This is the Winston Churchill that emerged as the great bulwark of Western civilization after World War II. The Winston Churchill who told acquaintances that history would be kind to him and to Britain because "I intend to write it." And he did. A history of England, and schoolchildren still read it today.

Or at least we are told that he wrote it. Who knows whether he did or not. We do know that he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, which we have decided (like the "Peace" Nobel) is often nothing more than a public relations vehicle designed to add credibility and luster (often undeservedly) to those who gain it.

Anyway, this was the insight that we had. It was simply too neat. They played their parts! And Churchill then spent a number of years grumbling about Stalin, Yalta and FDR. Was it all "for show?" Churchill was in the thick of the power-elite program.

He knew the aim was world government, and he even spoke of Money Power in guarded terms. Like so many others, Churchill, apparently, was an elite drummer, a kind of PR specialist. A marketing man. Sorry. That's how it seems to us now.

The world is filled with directed history and only recently, thanks to the Internet, have we been able to begin to sort through what's fact and what's fiction.

There's no science to it, this meme-watching. It's an art. An instinct. You need to put stuff together. The more you read and think – with proper skepticism – the more you'll end up understanding, in our view, about the Way the World Really Works.

Keeping this in mind, we think we've made some strides in the past weeks. Not long ago, we were able to explain why (possibly) Bloomberg pursued its demands that the Federal Reserve reveal its loan book. And just yesterday we think we stumbled on to one explanation for why America's Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail. And here, thanks to a UK Guardian article, we may have a clearer picture of why Rupert Murdoch's empire has been hounded.

All three of these entities – Bloomberg, Lehman Brothers and the Murdoch media empire – are evidently and obviously Anglosphere power elite facilities. Bloomberg was given his start by Merrill Lynch; its traders gave him a kind of legal insider information about long bond prices, making his terminals extremely valuable. They then took a 30 percent interest in Bloomberg.

Lehman Brothers was a huge securities operation, with subsidiaries around the world. Its financial empire was interlocked with the great firms of Wall Street and London's City. There is no doubt that Lehman Brothers was an asset, in a sense, of the coming global government and its ruling appendages.

Rupert Murdoch got his start in Australia, but he from our point of view his career really blossomed when the Anglosphere powers-that-be decided that his media empire would provide the antithesis around the world to the liberal theses of most Western media.

Murdoch was the man in the black hat. He never failed making a deal and the sums of money available were extraordinary as well. We would tend to think this was because the Anglosphere itself – those financial families that seem to control tens and hundreds of trillions of dollars via their hold over central banking worldwide – funded him to create the necessary antithesis that would result in the appropriate synthesis.

In all three instances cited above, we think we can see the hand of the power elite slyly at work, manipulating the news via dominant social themes – those fear-based promotions intended to frighten the West's middle classes into giving up wealth and power to internationalist facilities.

In the case of Bloomberg, the information the publishing house finally received was used to strengthen the case not against the FED but against Wall Street! This is a kind of false flag that we have analyzed over and over again.

When the powers-that-be want to redirect attention away from their prime money spinner – their central banking operations – they foment populist discontent with Wall Street and the "one percent." In this way, people are tricked into USING the trappings of empire, including its authoritarian and wretched judicial system to punish Wall Street tycoons. The big central banking families go unscathed, as planned.

Then there's Lehman Brothers. Just yesterday we reported on how a new judicial facility set up at the Hague seemed to be a direct result of the Lehman default. The facility, intended to adjudicate financial matters, was reportedly an outgrowth of "concern" over another Lehman-style default.

And now it's occurred to us that this whole so-called "phone-hacking" affair, featuring Rupert Murdoch's far flung empire is a similar type of setup. This is the way directed history works after all. One uses the tools at one's disposal.

Maybe Murdoch didn't outright agree to be targeted, but surely his vast company provides a convenient methodology for press censorship in Britain. There are few companies that are as large as Murdoch's and few individuals inspire the kinds of strong feelings that Murdoch does, on both sides of the aisle.

All right, dear reader, it could be that you have concluded all this "conspiracy theory" analysis is just so much claptrap. There is no Money Power; central banking is merely a routine financial evolution and the strange assortment of global facilities – criminal and civil courts, NATO, the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. – are merely a rational expansion of modern man's "internationalization." We are, after all, an exceptionally energetic and active species.

On the other hand, believing in the Internet as a force for irrevocable change – similar to the Gutenberg Press of 500 years ago – we would tend to believe (as we have often stated) that we are subject to a kind of Internet Reformation, one that is revealing more and more about the Dark Ages and manipulation of the 20th century.

The world is a far more complex and melancholy place than we once believed. Increasingly, we see the hand of Money Power behind most if not all of the world's important events. Repelled and attracted as we are, we will continue to study what we can on the Internet (especially) and make conclusions that seem judicious (to us, anyway) about what's REALLY taking place.