Jewish Bolsheviks Slaughtered the Tsar's Family in Cold Blood 100 Years Ago - a Look Back

Mike Walsh
Russian Insider

 "There were 53 Romanovs living in Russia when Tsar Nicholas II abdicated on March 15, 1917. Eighteen were slaughtered in the most heart-wrenching circumstances; 35 made their way to safety."

This year marks the centennial of the massacre of Imperial Russia’s Tsar Nicholas II and his family. In July 1918 their Bolshevik captors herded the doomed family into a basement in Yekaterinburg under the pretext that their photograph was to be taken.

*  *  *

The Tsar and Tsarina Alexandra, their daughters Olga (22) Tatiana (21), Maria (19), Anastasia (17) and Alexei (13) fell under a hail of bullets. The family’s corpses and those of three loyal servants and family doctor were hurled down a mine and later burned.



From Kaliningrad to the Bering Straits, a distance about 5,700 miles, the Russian people this year lament their loss. Monuments and museums, art galleries, movies, television documentary and drama, church services, it is hard to forget the tragedy – except in the West.

Read more

Forced child prostitution case: Netherlands elite, royalty under microscope

NL Times

A number of important Dutch people were named in the Amsterdam court on Monday, where witnesses are being questioned in a case surrounding an extensive network of child sexual abuse and child prostitution in Amsterdam in the 1980’s. According to the first witness, former mayor Ed van Thijn, former Minister Onno Rudding and Prince Claus were all involved in pedophile-prostitution to some extent.

Koos van Woudenberg is the first of nine witnesses that will testify under oath this week. According to Van Woudenberg, he was abused in an Amsterdam apartment while he was still in primary school, according to AD reporter Koen Voskuil tweeting live from within the courtroom.

In that Amsterdam apartment, which belonged to now deceased professor Ger van Roon, sexual acts were committed with young boys, Van Woudenberg told the court. The witness stated that he saw former mayor Ed van Thijn, top Justice official Joris Demmink and former Minister Onno Rudding in the apartment, performing sexual acts with boys.

Demmink was there almost every time, Van Thijn at least twice. Van Woudenberg had oral sex with Rudding. He also claims that he saw Prince Claus at a bar “in relation with young boys.” Prince Claus was also in Van Roon’s apartment.

The second witness to be questioned was Raphael Beth, a former employee of public health service GGD, back then GG&GD, in Amsterdam. The now 70 year old Beth worked as a field employee for the service from the late 80’s. He had a good overview of the boys involved because they came to him with their problems. He also visited visited the six or seven youth-brothels in the city at least once a week, to talk to the owners and check on the boys.

Read More

Thousands Stage Anti-Monarchy Protests Across Spain

Anti-monarchy demo held in Madrid, Spain on Saturday, June 7, 2014. Thousands of protesters in Spain urge the abolition of monarchy following the king's recent abdication.

Common Dreams

Anti-monarchy demonstrations were held in over 50 cities across Spain Saturday in protest actions called by leftist groups. In Madrid over 15,000 people marched. Similar demonstrations were held in Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, Oviedo and many other Spanish cities.

Five days after Spanish King Juan Carlos announced his intention to abdicate the throne, the demonstrators demanded a referendum on whether Spain should continue as a monarchy or become a republic.

Monday, shortly after the abdication, a spontaneous outpouring of 20,000 people poured onto Madrid’s streets in a protest led by the 15-M anti-austerity movement. “Spain, tomorrow, will be Republican,” protesters chanted.

An El Pais poll, published Sunday, shows that nearly two thirds, about 62 percent, of Spaniards believe a referendum is necessary to decide whether Spain should continue to have a monarchy.

Read more

Unlawful Killing - Documentary by Keith Allen

Comment: After a lot of legal wrangling, looks like Keith Allen's film is finally available - at least, if you don't live in the UK.  If you're in any doubt that Diana and Dodi were murdered...I suggest watching this. Oh, and of course, the inquest was ignored.

------------------

The Duck Shoot

Watch this explosive documentary by Keith Allen that gets as close to the truth of the murder of Princess Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed as is possible considering the lengths that the establishment have taken to cover it up. To date it has never been shown publicly in the United Kingdom; it is banned by default.

The unlawful killing verdict decided by a jury at the longest inquest in British legal history was ignored and perverted by the corporate media before the legal presses had published a single word. The British establishment did not, despite its efforts, get the result they wanted, so led by the ever obedient BBC a story was cooked up that twisted the official version decided by the jury. You can read the jury’s decision on the Nation Archives website.

The full verdict is thus: “The verdict is unlawful killing, grossly negligent driving of the following vehicles and of the Mercedes”. There is nothing about Paparazzi who, as confirmed by French police, were nowhere near the scene until after the crash. 

There was a white Uno that collided with the Mercedes and unknown motorcycle outriders surrounded Diana and Dodi’s car that night. Eyewitnesses confirm that these vehicles were chasing the Mercedes. All those drivers witnessed the crash and yet left the scene and have never been traced. White paint on the Mercedes is almost certainly from the Fiat Uno. These vehicles were not driven by Paparazzi.

Unlawful killing means it was MURDER or MANSLAUGHTER. It was not an accident and it was not caused by the Paparazzi. Mohamed Al-Fayed is right; the establishment murdered his son and his son’s girlfriend Lady Diana Spencer on 31st August 1997. 

Keith Allen in the Guardian

Spanish royalty in the dock: Princess Cristina fraud case opens

Comment: I dread to think what goes on with the British royalty and civil list ... If ever a stratum of folks lived in a different reality to most of us, its these people.  But they are all at it at one time or another. Money laundering and corruption is part and parcel of the socio-economic power structure they inhabit. So, I suspect there is a vendetta or some kind of example/warning being made perhaps. 

---------------------

The Independent

For more than six hours in Palma de Mallorca yesterday, Princess Cristina, daughter of King Juan Carlos and seventh in line to the throne, had the dubious honour of becoming the first direct member of the modern-day Spanish royal family to be questioned in court. 

Facing a summons over allegations of being complicit in her husband's alleged tax fraud and money laundering, the princess avoided a full 40-metre "perp walk" to the five-storey stone court house in central Palma in front of dozens of television crews. She and her husband refute all allegations and deny any wrongdoings.

For security reasons, she was driven to the court's back door then very briefly faced the cameras before entering, her black jacket and dark trousers as low-key as her arrival. Once inside, as she sat in a high-backed chair opposite investigating judge Jose Castro, remaining incommunicado was a less easy option. For weeks, Spain's media had speculated about every detail of the king's daughter's court appearance. In a display of the intensity of interest, one television company measured the distance between Cristina's chair and Judge Castro – 2m, 20cms.

In the closed hearing, Cristina was expected to explain how and why she and her husband Iñaki Urdangarin racked up considerable personal expenses on a company credit card. The company in question, Aizoon, may have acted as a "shell" for laundering around ¤6m (£5m) of public money, allegedly acquired by Mr Urdangarin and his former business partner, Diego Torres, through a non-for-profit institute, Noos, in a separate case where Urdangarin faces possible accusations of tax evasion, falsification of documents and embezzlement. Princess Cristina has been cleared in the "Noos case".

Co-owned by Cristina and her husband, Aizoon outlays allegedly ranged from renovation of the family home in Barcelona – seized by the courts after her husband failed to post a bond for ¤6m in the Noos case – to a cocktail party costing ¤4,591, salsa classes and Harry Potter books. "She is acting very calmly, she's well-prepared," one lawyer at the hearing was reported as saying. That she had to make her declaration below a portrait of her father King Juan Carlos – present in all Spanish courts – was a reminder of the effects of the case for Spain's monarchy.

Once Europe's most beloved royal family, a series of public relations blunders and the drip-feed of lurid headlines surrounding the Urdangarin case have damaged their popularity. In 1998, El País reported yesterday, 78 per cent of Spaniards were in favour of the monarchy and 11 per cent preferred a republic. By 2012, 53 per cent remained pro-royal, while the pro-republican vote had more than tripled – to 37 per cent.

Yesterday, a noisy anti-royal demonstration was kept well away from the court, behind barriers. The closest streets to the court were closed and some 200 police officers had been drafted in. Not everybody was complaining, though. Enterprising flat owners had rented balconies overlooking the court at up to ¤1,500 a day. "A case like this may not sink the monarchy, but it's damaged their prestige," said Patricia Felix Navarro, a teacher, before the hearing. "Cristina is just another citizen and if I pay my taxes and obey the law, then so should she and her husband."

Read more

Spain's Princess Cristina Charged With Tax Fraud And Money-Laundering

Reuters

MADRID (Reuters) - A Spanish judge charged Princess Cristina - younger daughter of King Juan Carlos - with tax fraud and money laundering, possibly paving the way to an unprecedented trial of a member of the royal family, the Superior Justice Tribunal of the Balearic Islands said on Tuesday.

After a lengthy investigation, Palma de Mallorca Examining Magistrate Jose Castro said in a 200-page ruling there was evidence that Cristina, 48, had committed crimes and summoned her to appear in court on March 8.

The princess's husband, former Olympic handball player Inaki Urdangarin, has been charged with fraud, tax evasion, falsifying documents and embezzlement of 6 million euros ($8 million) in public funds through his charitable foundation which put on sports business conferences in Mallorca and elsewhere in Spain.

The princess and Urdangarin both deny wrongdoing.

The case is one of many high-level corruption scandals in Spain that have undermined Spanish faith in public institutions at a time of severe economic crisis marked by deep cuts in public spending.

Opinion of the royal family in particular has sunk to its lowest level ever. A Sigma Dos poll published on January 5 showed more than 83 percent of Spaniards think the royal family has mishandled the Urdangarin case and an unprecedented 62 percent want the once-popular King Juan Carlos to abdicate.

Judge Castro, who opened his investigation into the royal couple three years ago, has struggled to make charges stick against Princess Cristina.

In April last year he ruled there was evidence that she had aided and abetted Urdangarin. A higher court threw out those charges in May, saying the evidence was not sufficient, but gave Castro more time to investigate an accusation of tax fraud.

In bringing the new charges, Castro went against the recommendations of the anti-corruption prosecutor on the case who in December argued there was no evidence she committed crimes.

In Spain the prosecutor and the judge on a case carry out separate investigations and may disagree on proceedings. The princess is expected to appeal the charges and they could be thrown out again, or the judge may be given a period of several months to build his case ahead of trial.

While they have been under investigation, the princess and her husband have ceased to participate in public appearances. She and the couple's four children moved last year to Geneva where she works for a Spanish bank's charity. Urdangarin remains in Spain.

The case is centered on Urdangarin's non-profit Noos Foundation. He is accused of using his powerful connections to win public contracts to put on events in Mallorca and elsewhere in Spain. 

The judge has said there is evidence that the foundation overcharged for organizing conferences and then hid the proceeds abroad.

Monarchist myths

Republic

Three key myths help sustain support for the monarchy, none of them are true.

“It’s good for tourism”

This claim is not only untrue, it’s irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can’t find any evidence for it. Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history – not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.

But, even if the claim were true, do we really want the whims of foreign tourists to determine what kind of political system we have?

“It has no power – it’s just for decoration”

The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It’s true that most of these “royal prerogative powers” are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don’t need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

Then there’s the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn’t changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy. 

“It unites the country”

You only have to look around to realise that Britain is no more unified than many republics – in fact, it’s probably less so. It’s often said that the royal wedding and the jubilee brought the country together, but the vast majority don’t participate in royal events, which have no lasting impact other than a bill for the taxpayer.