Essayism,  History,  Politics

The murder of a princess

Do you remember anything about what happened on Sunday, September 1, 1997?

Probably not. But I, like maybe you, remember all the fuss and media hype that arose in the wake of Lady Diana and her – so to speak – sudden death. At least I know I was completely off because the gossip press ran the same style after her death that they had run while she was alive. I’m talking about the whole cult around the British royal house, including all the scandals that people love to goggle up. We know it from the Danish ditto about Prince Joachim and Princess Alexandra, which became a scandal and prince Fredrik and Princess Mary and a story about the damn old mother that refuses go step down like over there. But over there in England it assumes different and grotesque dimensions.

So: I usually turn off when media create goddesses. And 10 years ago I refused to watch mainstream media at threw out my telly. It’s disgusting, it’s ridiculous, it’s childish and it’s deeply damaging to our mental health. For while we digest glamor scandals, glamorous weddings and glamorous funerals within us, we do not discover that all this glamor is staged and deceived AND not least: what is going on in the political, social, economic world we should be extremely aware of.

In the same way it is with sports. Sporting events have the same airtime or column space and largely the same weighting as foreign and domestic politics in the media. It overtakes cultural policy. It is is horse heads in front of health issues. All things we should know a lot more about. But that might say just as much about the quality of all the important stuff in the media. We only get the headlines, almost never the full story. Everything is surface and facade, no in-depth analyzes, nothing that offends the establishment. Fast forward to reality TV, Big-Brother, X-Factor, bad TV series from the US. Or like many of the young: fuck it all and waste time with ridiculous nothingness on the smartphone and Facebook.

And so it was with the story of the English princess, who was highly loved and adored by the Englishmen and others around the world. My original feeling was – besides that she was adorable in the opinion of many (not just my type, but …) – that it was because Prince Charles was so unpopular. Apart from the fact that he looks like Goofy and completely lacks charm, there is something about his appearance that makes one think: he is not who he pretends to be, or: his brain is running in overdrive to invent, how he should behave right now. There is something forced and unauthentic about him, and the gods must know what made a young blonde marry him. But perhaps we do not know enough about forced or convenience marriages of the English nobility.
Read about that her: The Dying God – The History of Kabbalah

Simply put: Prince Charles seems as lost as the rest of the English royal family, who do not even dare to call their family by the right name because they are Germans. They are unauthentic. Just look at the monster of a stone-faced queen they have. Or had – they say that she is dead, and a stand-in, a clone, a double has taken her place.

A video clip that can be found online almost tells the story. A journalist asks Diana and Charles as they announce their wedding: ‘Are you in love!’. Diana answers blushing and shy: ‘Yes!’. Charles first looks down into the ground, after which he says: ‘Of course … whatever being in love means’. Then Diana stops smiling and her eyes turn slightly away from Charles. There’s something wrong here from the start.

But let’s put the whole royalist cult aside and go to the case. For the story of Lady Di has far greater seriousness than the morning press let us grasp. And one should not always underestimate people’s intuition that something rotten was going on. An English newspaper conducted a survey among its readers, and as many as 95% of them believed that Diana had been murdered. I do not belong to those who followed in the gossip up to her death, but apparently she even gave some hints that she would come of days. She even stated that it would be in a car, and not least she suggested that her husband – because she was still married to Charles when she died – tried to murder her! A pretty strong statement.

1st test question:

Did you know e.g. that Diana Spencer led an intense campaign against landmines, and that she went straight into confrontation with Bill Clinton, so that he was pressured to propose a total ban on landmines in the world? If you are not fully aware of how extensive and cruel a landmine problem is, check it out. The subject is so uncharming that almost everyone who is introduced directly to the phenomenon turns away in disgust. And we will never be to that in countries like Denmark, that are participating in wars of aggression together with the USA and England out there. We are a member of NATO that uses landmines – along with chemical, bacteriological, nuclear weapons: Totally disabling for men, women and children, young and old – for generations. And the media is silent about it.

2nd test question:

Did you know that Prince Charles’ mistress, Camilla Parker Bowles, six weeks before Diana’s death was the victim of a ‘car accident’, completely identical to the one that killed Diana Spencer? In other words, a car where the driver loses control of the steering, the accelerator and the brakes. Compared to the campaign that Diana led and the topic it dealt with, it may seem like a more insignificant topic. But when you think about it, it’s very strange and very significant.

I could have asked myself these questions back then, and I would have had no idea what to say other than: no idea. And if you had asked me what The Boston Brakes are, the answer would be the same. The technique behind it is apparently well known in British intelligence services. It consists of planting a chip in a car that takes over the electronics by remote control, which in modern cars can control these units, since they are not purely mechanical any longer. Of course, this is not workable in a Wolkswagen from1956, but was definitely possible in the Mercedes that crashed in a tunnel under the Seine in Paris on September 1st 1997.

England has two major intelligence services: MI5, which is the ‘normal’ intelligence service, and MI6, which is the agent of the nobility, big business, the royal house and, in general, The Establishment. They can be compared a bit with the police and military intelligence in DK. An entire intelligence service to make dirty tricks for the royal house and the stinking rich would be unthinkable in countries like Denmark. Next, one must know that an intelligence service of that caliber does not only provide intelligence. It must also be active, it must carry out military operations and liquidate when notified. Or informs himself of it. It is e.g. quite officially that it, along with the CIA, was complicit in the 1956 military coup that de-democratized Iran and brought a Western marionet puppet, the Shah, to power. The same is true of virtually every military coup we have witnessed in recent times. English Prince Phillip is an MI6 agent, Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands was an MI6 agent – in addition to being an SS agent and founder of the Bilderberg group. But the Nazi-MI6 connection is that category. It was formed in classical Imperialist days as a service for the British East Indian Company – you know the guys that tried to murder the Chinese people in the Opium Wars.

Diana’s possible divorce, and in particular the possibility that she could become pregnant at any time with her lover Dodi al Fayet, was such a serious constitutional matter for the royal house and thus also for the British government that it was considered deeply problematic. Add to this the deeply disturbing point of view of the Americans, ie the CIA, that Diana’s campaign threatened the military-industrial complex in a decisive way. Landmines are, if anything, the true picture of the abomination of war, and the merchants of death make trillions selling weapons. There are currently approx. 200 million landmines in the world with over a billion built-in blasting units, and they mutilate and kill hundreds of people every day. Together with drones they are one of the most cowardly weapons available. Add to that airborne side pieces for landmines, fragmentation bombs that also shave the earth’s surface, so that torn limbs and pieces of meat hang everywhere. Or bombs that just lay in the bushes and wait for someone to come by so they go off. Maybe they contain white phosphorus (NATO used them in Libya), maybe they contain depleted uranium. Cluster munitions were used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

War is business and therefore industrially put into system. A trillion-dollar industry. The more war, the more weapons, the more money, the more jobs. At some point – and it happened, as most people are aware, already after World War II – the apparatus becomes so large and self-enhancing that war is necessary to keep the monstrous apparatus going. Incidentally, part of the story about Bill Clinton is that he made a U-turn just three weeks after Diana’s death, and announced that he still thought it was a bad idea to ban landmines. Quite interesting!

Diana Spencer, on the other hand, appears, at least in my eyes, in hindsight more and more like a real heroine, a person with great personal courage. She went one blonde in war with one of the world’s most powerful families, governments, military, intelligence services, death merchants, you-name-them. It is just before – but also only just before – that I am willing to sign a regular canonization as a saint.

The British journalist Jon King, together with John Beverage, published in 2005 a brick of a book: Princess Diana Evidence, in which all these matters are outlined. His background gave him the opportunity many years ago to have insights into how people from the intelligence services and the British military think and act. He grew up in Sandhurst, the locality south of London where virtually all military and intelligence personnel live within a radius of 30-40 miles. The military academies are located here, the research and development facilities are located here, and a special security company operates here. MI6 hired people from this area for e.g. to go to Angola.

3rd test question:

What is special about Angola in relation to England?
Ok, now I’ll probably leave here, this is not a high school exam in history, and students are never-ever told anything, but remember: I’m asking myself the same questions, I’m just as stupid as you. So of course it’s not meant for you guys out there who have already done your homework and whose intelligence and knowledge I probably insult all the time 🙂 But Angola is actually one of the most oil rich countries in the world. And the greedy and backless English and American imperialists arrived many years ago. Maybe we remember the wars and freedom movements – or are they now called terrorists, it’s hard to know these days? – who fought down there.

Campaign against landmines, Angola

Diana’s landmine campaign was particularly focused on this country, and thus she was extremely annoying to the government, the royal family and the military in Britain and the United States. She deliberately used her popular appeal and pet status as a means in a delicate political struggle. And media around the world followed her visits there. Maybe someone can think of pictures of Diana with a mask and explosion-proof body vest, and in the background is Bush-Cheney’s oil syndicate and the mercenaries from MI6 and the CIA who supported the MPLA, the bribed liberation movement in the country that fought those who wanted the imperialists out of the country. Countergang-pseudogang as described by British military strategist Frank Kitson on how you create a false conflict for the pretext of intervention. Another example of the USA and England divide-and-conquer policy in the world, here Africa, where one analyzes what old tribal antagonisms exist and then exploits the split to one’s own advantage. Angola is, paradoxically, totally resource-rich, while its population lives on the brink of poverty and whos infant mortality is one of the highest in the world.
Official British explanation: Africans are too stupid to govern themselves.

Sandhurst, Berkshire, 55 miles southwest of London, is a mini-community. Jon King grew up, went to school with and went to the pub with the military people who, among other things. had been in Angola and done things to people down there. These things were in principle secret, but when you now sit in the pub among friends and agree and want to brag a little, and when it is the only subject you know about, because you do it all the time, says Jon King, yes then there is talk. Amazingly open even. These are former SAS people (Special Air Service), former special forces who could not keep their mouths shut after 3 pints. In addition to the bragging, it could also have the character of confessions of a troubled mind. When you have done the dirty work of the government and liquidated a few hundred people over the years, including civilians, you need to talk about it with other people, and since you can not talk to anyone about it, then younger colleagues are a good bid. And then it also gives status in a hierarchical organization to have been involved in the worst and the toughest.

In 1997, Jon King worked on investigations and publications on various topics related to the Diana case, without Diana, as he reports, being on his radar system at all. And a week before her death, there was a rumor in his network of the above insiders that there was a hi-level liquidation in the waiting lounge. The name was not mentioned, but Jon King’s source said it would be bigger than the assassination of Kennedy. Jon King took the rumor as pub bragging. A week later, he realized that his source had told the truth.

Diana stated in 1995 in an interview in the magazine Panorama – believe it or not!

This is the hardest period of my life. My husband is planning an assassination attempt on me in my car, where a brake failure is going to give me a serious brain injury with the intention of paving the way for him to get married.

She and Charles were separated but could not actually be divorced due to the constitution. She leaves a similar statement with her lawyer. This material, which could have pointed to many clues in the case and led to a clarification, was deposited afterwards. We have his verbal statement for that, but the material has since been stolen, because immediately after her death, the entire cover-up starts. This is another of the specialties of the intelligence services: loss of evidence.

Tony Wright, who at the time was an assistant to Lord Irvine, then Lord Chancelor in the British Parliament – similar to the Speaker of Parliament, but of much greater importance – stated publicly before her death that the constitutional significance of a princess who got a possible heir to the throne and all the quirks that would entail would mean that the church would be separated from the state, disestablished and lose its representation in the Upper House of Parliament. So seen with the eyes of the Establishment, the Crown and the royal family it meant huge and fundamental consequences.

MI5 considered Camilla Parker Bowles also to be the problem according to Jon King’s sources and they wanted to get rid of her. The Royal House’s intelligence service, MI6, wanted to get rid of Diana, and it had long been in the drawer as a plan. One does not perform such a complicated action without very thorough preparations. And why an assassination attempt on a car? Obvious: because of probable deniability.

Diana also stated that her former lover – they are not bored in the British royal house! and bodyguard, Sergeant Barry Manneke, was assassinated in 1987 that way. Sir Ranulf Fiennes, adventurer, former SAS officer, record holder, Mount Everest climber, personal friend of Prince Charles – a man with high credibility and closeness to first-hand sources – has described the technique of The Boston Brakes in detail in a book. The first incident happened in 1986, a year before Barry Manneke. Another SAS officer, Sir Peter Horseley, was himself assassinated with this chip, and it happened in exactly the same way as in Diana’s case: a car overtook him and suddenly he lost control of the car. Camilla Parker Bowles described her accident in the same way. Both survived, as you know, so they could tell the story.

In the official explanation, the driver of the car was drunk. This is the explanation that is obvious when using this technique. It is possible to deny it, no one knows it, cars go crash all the time, people are killed all the time, it is their own fault or the fault of others. They are either drunk or inattentive or bad drivers. Or it is the car, but in that case it is also their own fault, as they should have maintained it. An electronically implanted chip is the last thing that comes up as an explanation.

By the way, Diana’s driver, who did not survive either, was not drunk. The blood test that was to prove it was not his but had a label: ‘unknown male person’, and it also contained signs of 20% carbon monoxide poisoning. A video from the Ritz hotel shows the driver, Henry Paul, shortly before the trip tying his shoelaces standing on one leg. No drunk man can do that, any traffic police officer would know that. He speaks quite normally and casually to guests at the hotel. Two former special-bodyguards were with him for two hours before and can confirm that he was not drunk. He simply would not have been allowed to drive with a royal celebrity if he had been drunk. But he loses control of the car. There are no brake tracks, so no braking takes place. He bangs right into a pillar in the tunnel after swaying and crashing back and forth across the road at full speed.

There were 10 CCTV cameras – surveillance cameras – at the tunnel where the ‘accident’ took place. All 10 remote-controlled cameras faced the concrete wall instead of filming the road and tunnel. By the way, that was almost the same thing that was the case in the 7/7 bombings of the London Underground – you know, England’s 9/11, which Tony Blair used to drag England into the Iraq war. In London, they were just out of order. Also here officially by pure chance, all 10 that is.

There was no doubt that there were at least four vehicles involved in the accident in the tunnel: Diana’s car, a white Fiat Uno (remnants of paint on Diana’s car), another Mercedes and a motorcycle. So, a princess, a member of the English royal family, dies in a tunnel in Paris – and all cars disappear! Diana’s car reappears with new paint and other repairs, and the three other vehicles and their owners / drivers have disappeared without a trace! The supposedly most advanced intelligence service in the world can not find three fucking vehicles !! If this one relationship in itself is not suspicious, then what is?

Although the white Fiat Uno hit Diana’s Mercedes, there were no brake tracks behind it. The driver was thus a very professional person who did not need to brake before he steered the car up from an exit and disappeared. This fact is documented by England’s foremost collision expert at the University of Birmingham, Murray MacKay. Incidentally, the Fiat belonged to a James Andanson who was both a paparazzo and an MI6 agent. But he did not drive the car. This is what is called a ‘red herring’. The logic is: Andanson was not directly involved, ergo MI6 is not involved. In return, he was found with a bullet in the temple near his work, where he, according to the official history, had committed suicide. Furthermore, the car had been set on fire and the keys were not there (quite difficult to get into a car without keys). He had previously boasted of having taken compromising photos in the tunnel, which he had intended to publish in a book, because he was there – just not in his own car. Later, there was a burglary in his office where his entire photo archive was stolen. In parentheses noted, only 0.1% of suicides set fire to themselves, and then it is usually Buddhist monks, Tunisian political Protestants or the like.

The doctor who examined the driver Henry Paul’s body and took blood samples, after which the conclusion was that he was drunk, was a female doctor, Professor LaComte. The study was totally incompetent and there was a sinful mess in the samples. At the interrogation, either she could not remember anything or mixed everything together. Funnily enough, she had previously investigated one of the other extremely rare and alleged suicide fires, a lawyer who was in the process of investigating a corrupt African leader who was bribed by: MI6! Here, too, her conclusion was true, too: the man has committed suicide and thus destroying his body as evidence of something else.

When the official investigation report on the incident came out 3 years later and 4 million English tax-pounds poorer, the only thing that had been dealt with was Mohammed al Fayed, Dodi al Fayet’s father, and his bitter claim that it was a murder. Which was rejected when his choleric and reckless behavior to the good fortune of his opponents and the authors of the report helped to strain legs for his cause. He showed too much lack of self-control, but he had actually lost a son. All other matters – all of the above – were omitted in the investigation and report. Tunnel vision and money laundering?

When the accident happened, it took about two hours for the ambulance to cover 3.2 miles, and it was not even the nearest intensive-care hospital. One may have to take into account that French ambulances are rolling hospitals, but in Diana’s case it would have been prescribed to bring her to a hospital as soon as possible. The doctor in charge of the entire rescue operation ordered the ambulance driver to drive very slowly, which was 8 miles per hour. Why? However, there is no reason to believe that the French paramedics were not real people. Diana was probably almost dead before they arrived.

Diana was very nervous that she might be murdered in a car, so she always wore a seat belt. It was a completely fixed ritual for her. But that morning, her seat belt was torn. By chance? Her relatives were very appalled and amazed at this as she usually would never have compromised.

The Mercedes in which the couple was driving was stolen a month before the accident. Furthermore, it was unguarded 3 hours before they left the Ritz, no surveillance camera in the parking garage. And it was the only car available that night.

There were reports of a so-called strobe gun in the tunnel. The car was chased by paparazzi. Incidentally, many of them refused to be questioned by the English police, because you can obviously do that when working abroad. A strobe gun makes an insanely flashing directional light, leaving the victim unable to see for up to 3 minutes. If the driver of the car has been hit by the man on the motorcycle while losing control of the car, it would simply be a contributing factor to the accident. Thus, a double assurance of the result remembering that Camilla Parker Bowles and Peter Horseley survived similar assassinations. A SAS officer reported this during the interrogation in Paris, but it was, like much else, omitted in the reports. He was even assaulted afterwards, robbed, terrorized – after which he changed his explanation. A witness in a car saw the man on the motorcycle make a throat-cut-over sign to the man in the Fiat Uno before disappearing at high speed.

Then there is a completely embarrassing chapter with the car wreck of the Mercedes. The French police and the relevant English were not allowed to investigate it. Another piece of destroyed evidence.

Then Princess Diana is embalmed – in a furious hurry. This is known to prevent examinations of a corpse, as the removal of all blood in the body during embalming + the addition of formaldehyde destroys the evidence = the body. One simply rinses the body with chemistry. Embalming is illegal in France and one must obtain permission from the city mayor or the police chief. None of Diana’s family members gave permission. The order came from a man named Keith Moss. He was Consul General at the English Embassy in Paris.

Finally, all her clothes disappear. Evidence is deliberately destroyed, extremely criminal! An attaché folder is confiscated by Prince Charles – who by the way arrived later than the French – with a team of embalmers! The whole thing was obviously coordinated and double-checked, and it will be difficult to deny Prince Charles’ knowledge and thus participation. The folder is taken to Balmoral, the royal family’s Scottish summer residence. But Jon King does not make direct accusations against Prince Charles in his book, he merely presents evidence, as the title says.

If you want more details but do not have time to read a book, there is the opportunity to hear a 1:38 hour interview with Jon King and Theo Chalmers on Edge Media TV:
… but of course, the video has been taken down by YouTube, as they do these days. Fortunately the Daily Wire has preserved it.

PS! Here is omitted an entire parallel story of a deeply ritualized murder, an esoteric piece of human sacrifice conceived and performed by the henchmen of an elite deeply lost in occultism. If you are into that sort of thing, then there are plenty of analytics to be found online. And they can in no way be flatly rejected when one knows how these types are screwed together.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *