Joe Quinn
Sott.net
The mystery surrounding the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed 19 years ago today was revived recently by the claims of a British SAS sniper whose testimony was part of the trial of another SAS soldier who was convicted of illegal weapons possession. The parents-in-law of the SAS sniper in question, known only as "Soldier N", claim that he boasted to his wife that the "SAS was behind Princess Diana's death".
Unsurprisingly, the media reaction to the story has been to dismiss it, citing, incorrectly, that the investigation into Diana and Dodi's deaths was conclusive, that it was an accident, and that there was "no evidence of conspiracy". In fact, this alleged "new evidence" has done little more than provide the media with an opportunity to, once again, ridicule any idea that there was anything strange about the events in Paris that night. It is also interesting to note that, in just a few weeks, a new film about Diana's life, entitled 'Diana', will be released.
The general consensus among the great British and world public seems to be that Diana and Dodi and their driver Henri Paul died as a result of a car crash caused by pursuing paparazzi. It's rather perplexing that this should be the case because the jury in the official 3-month-long inquiry into their deaths returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" and the paparazzi were exonerated. How does this happen? Well, how did it come to pass that 50% of American citizens believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact that no one, not one person, ever made such a statement publicly?
Answer: The mainstream media's real job is not to report the news but to 'catapult the propaganda' that the 'elite' hope will become the new 'reality' or historical record.
Two years ago, British film director Keith Allen made an attempt to release a documentary about the death of Diana and Dodi. Due to the content of the film however, Allen was legally prevented from making it widely available to the public. Attempts to upload it to video hosting sites like Youtube and Vimeo have also been thwarted. The documentary provides fairly damning evidence that Diana and Dodi were murdered by the British 'elite', with the support and connivance of their French counterparts.
Just some of the details revealed in the documentary include:
Nicholas Soames: a repellant excuse for a human being
If
there is a flaw in Keith Allen's excellent documentary investigation
into the murder of Diana and Dodi, it is the emphasis given to the role
of the British monarchy in the murder. It is unlikely that the British
royals had any significant role in the murder of Diana and Dodi because
the British royals do not wield significant power in the UK, and have
not done so for centuries. Since the de facto end of absolutist
monarchy in England at the turn of the 18th century, the role of
British royalty has been one of serving the interests of the established
lay authorities, a.k.a. 'the elite'.
Diana and Dodi were murdered to "protect the British monarchy" only insofar as the continued existence of the British monarchy is important to the civilian 'elite' because it lends legitimacy to their claim of 'natural' or 'divinely ordained' superiority over the inferior rabble. It is, after all, the Queen that appoints governments and bestows knighthoods, peerages and other 'honors' on the chosen, and thereby confers 'regal legitimacy' on those so honored and appointed. Of course, behind the scenes, it is 'her majesty's government' (i.e. the self-same civilian 'elite') that advises the sovereign on who gets what and when. Without this royal pomp and circumstance, the bestowing of titles by civilians on other civilians would look, for all the world, like a bunch of undeserving bureaucrats pumping themselves up far beyond their station. And the people may not be so eager to sanction it.
Diana's divorce from Charles, her impending marriage to Dodi al-Fayed (a Muslim) and the possibility that she might expose some of the less than regal goings-on inside Windsor Castle threatened the public image, reputation and very existence of the British Royal establishment, but the threat was felt most keenly among the high-level securocrats in Whitehall and assorted pedophile peers who jealously guard their immoderate privileges and lifestyles.
Dodi al-Fayed was a film-maker (he produced the multi-Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire). His father was a wealthy man. Had he and Diana been allowed to live, we can only imagine what kind of films or documentaries he may have turned his hand to with Diana as his wife and inspiration. Given Diana's outspoken and compassionate nature, combined with her world-wide public appeal, what might she have said or done, and what might she have achieved had she been allowed to live? With the world as her stage and having the ears of billions, might the last 16 years that have brought us the interminable 'war on terror', the invasions of other nations, the slaughter of so many innocents and the institution of a global police state, have been any different?
I suppose we'll never know.
But it is certainly a sad indictment on the nature and structure of our modern society that an open and loving heart coupled with a natural and widespread popularity is perceived as such a threat by our entrenched 'leaders' that their minds invariably turn to murder and cover-ups to 'solve the problem'. But that appears to be precisely what happened in the case of Diana, and she was certainly not the first victim. This particular story of the summary assassination of a popular hero is anything but new. Julius Caesar was one such hero, and there have been many others over the course of the last 2000 years. Unfortunately, their lives all seem to tell the same story of unfulfilled potential for themselves, the millions they could have inspired, and human society in general.
Watch the 'Unlawful Killing' documentary for yourself below:
Sott.net
The mystery surrounding the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi al-Fayed 19 years ago today was revived recently by the claims of a British SAS sniper whose testimony was part of the trial of another SAS soldier who was convicted of illegal weapons possession. The parents-in-law of the SAS sniper in question, known only as "Soldier N", claim that he boasted to his wife that the "SAS was behind Princess Diana's death".
Unsurprisingly, the media reaction to the story has been to dismiss it, citing, incorrectly, that the investigation into Diana and Dodi's deaths was conclusive, that it was an accident, and that there was "no evidence of conspiracy". In fact, this alleged "new evidence" has done little more than provide the media with an opportunity to, once again, ridicule any idea that there was anything strange about the events in Paris that night. It is also interesting to note that, in just a few weeks, a new film about Diana's life, entitled 'Diana', will be released.
The general consensus among the great British and world public seems to be that Diana and Dodi and their driver Henri Paul died as a result of a car crash caused by pursuing paparazzi. It's rather perplexing that this should be the case because the jury in the official 3-month-long inquiry into their deaths returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" and the paparazzi were exonerated. How does this happen? Well, how did it come to pass that 50% of American citizens believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite the fact that no one, not one person, ever made such a statement publicly?
Answer: The mainstream media's real job is not to report the news but to 'catapult the propaganda' that the 'elite' hope will become the new 'reality' or historical record.
Two years ago, British film director Keith Allen made an attempt to release a documentary about the death of Diana and Dodi. Due to the content of the film however, Allen was legally prevented from making it widely available to the public. Attempts to upload it to video hosting sites like Youtube and Vimeo have also been thwarted. The documentary provides fairly damning evidence that Diana and Dodi were murdered by the British 'elite', with the support and connivance of their French counterparts.
Just some of the details revealed in the documentary include:
- All CC TV cameras at the entrance to the Alma tunnel in Paris (alma means 'soul' in Spanish) were mysteriously switched off at the time of the 'crash'.
- The seat-belts in the back of the Mercedes in which Diana and Dodi were traveling may have been tampered with to make them inoperable.
- The paparazzi were left far behind Diana and Dodi's Mercedes by the time they entered the Alma tunnel. However, four motorbikes and a white Fiat Uno car surrounded the Mercedes in the tunnel. One of these vehicles (or one of the drivers) emitted an intensely bright flash of light (similar to a strobe light). The Fiat Uno then hit the Mercedes from the side, causing it to crash violently into one of the central pillars of the tunnel.
- French doctor Jean Marc Martino took immediate control of the crash scene and the victims. It took him 37 minutes, however, to extract the still conscious Diana from the back of the car, despite the fact that the back of the car was undamaged, so there should have been no significant delay in removing her.
- 81 minutes elapsed before the ambulance departed the scene of the crash for the nearest hospital.
- It was 103 minutes (a further 22 minutes) before the ambulance arrived at the nearby hospital (a journey that should have taken no more than 5 minutes).
- At the official inquest, experts agreed that Diana's life could have been saved if she had received normal and prompt medical attention.
- The doctors Dr. Pepin and Professor LeComte who conducted tests on the blood samples of the driver Henri Paul appear to have used someone else's blood to determine that Paul was drunk, when he was not. Both of these doctors were legally required to attend the inquest, but refused to appear. The French Ministry of Justice protected them, citing reasons of "public order" for their refusal to attend and officially the reason was "protection of state secrets and the essential interests of the nation." A government that withholds information in the interest of "national security" or to "protect state secrets" is essentially saying that they realise that if the information became publicly available, it could provoke mass public disturbances, or even revolution. In short, "protecting state secrets" and "national security" are euphemisms for protecting the 'elite' from the people, and what the people might do if they knew the truth.
- In 2006, a team of scientists offered to conduct tests on the samples to determine who they belonged to. The French government declared, however, that the blood samples in question "no longer existed". There is also clear evidence that French police planted alcohol in Paul's apartment to support the claim that he was an alcoholic.
- British intelligence had developed a plan to assassinate a Serbian politician by causing his car to crash in a tunnel by flashing a strobe light at the driver.
- Many members of the British establishment, including the judiciary, police force and politicians, conspired to cover up the truth about the crash and the fact that Diana suspected she was going to be killed.
- British MP Nicholas Soames appears to be a psychopathic misogynist (one among many in the British establishment) who hated Diana. Soames was British Defence Minister under Conservative Prime Minister John Major (1994-97). Soames threatened Diana that she should back off from her high-profile campaign to end the use of land mines in third world countries and warned her that "accidents can happen". Soames is the Chairman of Aegis Defence Services, a British private mercenary company with overseas offices in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Kenya, Nepal and the United States. As evidenced by video footage released in 2005, Aegis mercenaries were involved in the indiscriminate shooting and murder of Iraqi civilians during 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
- According to the book Women in Parliament published in 2005, Soames has been named as the 'most sexist' MP, with several female MPs stating that he has made vulgar comments to them. In other accusations of sexual harassment, it has been alleged that Soames makes repeated cupping gestures with his hands, suggestive of female breasts, when women are trying to speak in parliament, in order to distract them.
Nicholas Soames: a repellant excuse for a human being
Diana and Dodi were murdered to "protect the British monarchy" only insofar as the continued existence of the British monarchy is important to the civilian 'elite' because it lends legitimacy to their claim of 'natural' or 'divinely ordained' superiority over the inferior rabble. It is, after all, the Queen that appoints governments and bestows knighthoods, peerages and other 'honors' on the chosen, and thereby confers 'regal legitimacy' on those so honored and appointed. Of course, behind the scenes, it is 'her majesty's government' (i.e. the self-same civilian 'elite') that advises the sovereign on who gets what and when. Without this royal pomp and circumstance, the bestowing of titles by civilians on other civilians would look, for all the world, like a bunch of undeserving bureaucrats pumping themselves up far beyond their station. And the people may not be so eager to sanction it.
Diana's divorce from Charles, her impending marriage to Dodi al-Fayed (a Muslim) and the possibility that she might expose some of the less than regal goings-on inside Windsor Castle threatened the public image, reputation and very existence of the British Royal establishment, but the threat was felt most keenly among the high-level securocrats in Whitehall and assorted pedophile peers who jealously guard their immoderate privileges and lifestyles.
Dodi al-Fayed was a film-maker (he produced the multi-Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire). His father was a wealthy man. Had he and Diana been allowed to live, we can only imagine what kind of films or documentaries he may have turned his hand to with Diana as his wife and inspiration. Given Diana's outspoken and compassionate nature, combined with her world-wide public appeal, what might she have said or done, and what might she have achieved had she been allowed to live? With the world as her stage and having the ears of billions, might the last 16 years that have brought us the interminable 'war on terror', the invasions of other nations, the slaughter of so many innocents and the institution of a global police state, have been any different?
I suppose we'll never know.
But it is certainly a sad indictment on the nature and structure of our modern society that an open and loving heart coupled with a natural and widespread popularity is perceived as such a threat by our entrenched 'leaders' that their minds invariably turn to murder and cover-ups to 'solve the problem'. But that appears to be precisely what happened in the case of Diana, and she was certainly not the first victim. This particular story of the summary assassination of a popular hero is anything but new. Julius Caesar was one such hero, and there have been many others over the course of the last 2000 years. Unfortunately, their lives all seem to tell the same story of unfulfilled potential for themselves, the millions they could have inspired, and human society in general.
Watch the 'Unlawful Killing' documentary for yourself below:
No comments:
Post a Comment