Sebastian Kurz, 31, is now Austria’s new chancellor, and the world’s youngest elected leader. His right-wing People’s Party (OVP) won with around 30% of the vote, with the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) and the Social Democrats each taking around 26% of the vote.
Austria, a country battered by EU-sponsored migrant ‘re-population’ efforts, having taken in roughly 1% of its population in asylum seekers in 2015, one of the highest proportions on the continent, has finally bitten back in a historic, nationalist vote that will no doubt turn the geopolitical tide.
Sebastian Kurz’ main talking point was ending the toxic ‘Islamization’ of Austria and wider Europe, a focal point that has paid-off in getting him elected.
Kurz wants to slash Austria’s red tape and has repeatedly said during his campaign that the Austrian people are sick of ‘New World Order globalist policies by EU elites’ – which he says he will end when elected.
“As well as his pledge on payouts to migrants, Kurz wants to slash Austria’s red tape and keep the EU out of national affairs.” — Dailymail
Because the People’s Party does not have an absolute majority of the vote, the People’s Party will have to form a coalition with one of the other two. Sebastian Kurz had fallen out with Christian Kern, leader of the Social Democrats, so his coalition will be with the far-right party, which is led by a neo-Nazi, Heinz-Christian Strache…
Jordi Sanchez of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC) and Jordi Cuixart of Omnium Cultural, two organisers of the 1st October independence referendum, have been arrested on the order of the Spanish National Court on sedition charges.
They are currently in jail with no condition of bail being offered.
This comes as Madrid has expressed confusion over the nature of Catalan President Carles Puigdemont’s intentions to form an independent Catalan Republic.
Madrid continue to refuse negotiations, Puigdemont seeking the diplomatic approach.
Last week, Puigdemont officially signed a declaration of independence, but immediately thereafter delayed its ascension, thus practically making the document a statement of intent than a fully fledged declaration.
Puigdemont has called for dialogue over independence while Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy claims that Madrid will not discuss the matter in any way shape or form. Madrid has issued an ultimatum to Catalonia that unless Puigdemont rebukes any intention of independence by the 19th of October, Spain may suspend Catalonia’s parliament and invoke direct rule.
While the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and even the Spanish King intervened to state that the Catalan exercise in democracy had no legitimacy on constitutional grounds, one must realize that all constitutions, like all currencies not pegged to a metallic standard, are only valid if a consensus of peoples are willing to bestow them with legitimacy. The United States for example, violates its constitution on a daily basis and this is now accepted as a status quo. Just ask the detainees in Guantanamo Bay about the sanctity of the US constitution.
Spain knows a diplomatic, democratic approach will lose them Catalonia.
In this sense, the Catalonia referendum on independence was equally a referendum on the legitimacy and more specifically, the lack of legitimacy of Spain’s perennially controversial 1978 constitution.
Catalonia’s citizens take to the streets, rallying a cry for independence.
While the Catalans want a debate, Madrid answered with an anti-democratic campaign of police brutality in a country that is not anywhere near a war zone. There was no excuse for the violence and indeed, the violence was totally condemned by the Catalan President in his speech.
Thus far, Spain has rejected all offers of mediation, including one from Switzerland.
Ticking time bomb threatens to martyr grassroots nationalist movements in Europe and paint the EU as a bogeyman.
If Spain buries its head in the sand even further than it already has, whatever happens can only be blamed on Madrid. If the EU continues to exercise the same attitude as Madrid, Brussels too will share a substantial portion of the blame.
Carles Puigdemont retweeted this in an obvious reference to the EU’s silence on the crisis:
Hello Mr. @JunckerEU. Just for you to know that there are political prisoners in Catalonia again. And they are European political prisoners. https://t.co/uahrEcH7fc
While the dispute between Madrid and Barcelona cannot be compared to the Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Carles Puigdemont’s attitude to Madrid was rhetorically reminiscent of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s statement to the United Nations in 1974.
During his first address to the UN General Assembly, Arafat said,
“I come to you bearing an olive branch in one hand and a freedom fighter’s gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand”.
The EU has refused to condemn Spanish state violence against secessionist region, Catalonia.
MEPs have slammed the EU for its indifference towards the crisis, pointing out Spain’s status as a core member state likely granting it unfair preferential treatment.
Among MEPs, Nigel Farage has been a critical voice, blasting the EU’s on-the-fence attitude, and its reiteration of the Spanish government’s line that the referendum is ‘not valid’.
“A sincere dialogue is what the international community wants and what Catalonia expects, not confrontation and new threats.”
— Oriol Junqueras, Catalan Vice-President
The EU, supposedly a mediating body to prevent European conflict, has called the crisis a Spain-related ‘internal affair’ rather than a humanitarian crisis of state-imposed, anti-democratic tyranny — which it appears to be.
Despite Catalan calls for negotiation, Spain’s PM, Mariano Rajoy has flatly refused any working dialogue; instead threatening article 155 to forcibly seize Catalonia.
The Catalan President, Carles Puigdemont, described in a tweet how his push for peaceful negotiations with Spain have been futile:
“We ask for dialogue and the response is to put article 155 on the table.”
— Carles Puigdemont, Catalan President
In a shock move, the Spanish King, Felipe VI, who rarely talks politics, condemned the move for self-determination; with no mention of support for democracy:
“They (Catalan leaders) have infringed the system of legally approved rules with their decisions, showing an unacceptable disloyalty towards the powers of the state.”
— Felipe VI, King of Spain
It appears the Spanish state have jumped on the referendum’s apparent illegality, and are clinging to that narrative to downplay the idea a legitimate one will ever take place.
Spain is acting in its own best interests: not in the support of democracy.
Of course, it is in the best interests of a governing body to retain all of its regions, but if a civilized world is to be recognized; democracy must be acknowledged and upheld — and mediating bodies, such as the EU, instated to prevent conflict, must act accordingly, or cease to have relevance.
Mr. Rajoy stated that there could be no discussion of Spain’s national unity, as guaranteed by the country’s 1978 constitution; an anti-democratic ruling.
Despite Spain’s hardline position, Mr. Puigdemont’s stance is clear:
“We’re not criminals. We’re not mad. We’re not carrying out a coup… we’re normal people who want to be able to vote and who have been prepared to engage in whatever dialogue was necessary to do so in a mutually agreed way.”
Catalonia: not an isolated example of secession.
The ever-closer EU ‘federation of regions’ has caused a resurgence in national self-determination across the continent. Catalonia was fueled by anti neo-Francoist sentiments pooled in a liberty-leaning, wealthy Catalonia:
(The crisis) threatens “the spirit of European integration, even more than Brexit.”
— Philippe Lamberts, MEP
Referendum result is an under-representation rather than a misrepresentation.
Officials said that 90% of votes cast were for independence. The Catalan government’s spokesman said that an estimated 770,000 votes were lost as a result of 400 polling stations being raided by Spanish police which placed the official turnout below 50%.
In what is apparently a bid for self-determination, the Spanish government insist it is the opposite.
“This is not about independence, yes or no,” Mr. Rajoy said. “This is about a rebellion against the rule of law. And the rule of law is the foundation of coexistence, not only in Spain but in Europe.”
But Puigdemont’s appeal for mediation and negotiation paints a different picture than that of ‘rebellion’. Rather, Madrid’s court-sanctioned police brutality paints the picture of the real aggressor in this fracas.
Recent events show the Madrid administration for what it is, a self-interested entity that refuses to represent the regions of its dominion. The referendum is a natural result of that.
Newly elected French President, Emmanuel Macron is in office, even despite having stated in a bombshell admission that he believes “there is no such thing as French culture”.
It shows France as a country distancing itself from being a country – a definable nation state replete with its own values and traditions, France as a self-governing state is drifting into obsolescence, all by consent, albeit manufactured.
Macron does not serve the nation state, he serves Globalism, and to bring Globalism into reality, distinct cultures must be wiped away.
Macron has showed himself disinterested in French identity as a central, progressive force for constitutional Western values.
Instead, he has shown that he gives preferential treatment to ‘diversity’ and the multiculturalism that even Angela Merkel stated was not working.
The Globalist’s have absolutely no intention of ‘integration’ they have just opened the borders to a vastly incompatible group of people to come and live separate from Westerners, and eventually replace them through sheer numbers, such nonintellectual, politically apathetic people will be easy to control, and will work for much, much less – They will also allow trans-nationalism to take place unhindered, voting in socialist candidates that offer ‘free stuff’
I believe that the staging of various terrorist attacks is used to keep Westerners in fear of trying to change Islamic communities. It is used to separate us, keep Westerners blind and secluded from Islamic cultures. Media is then used to constantly reassure us that these people are innocent refugees, the paradigm is fear/acceptance, the result is a paralysis, a state of confusion that cannot act, the Islamic communities are left unintegrated, accepted, but subconsciously feared simultaneously.
Eventually, Islam will have a foothold so strong and be so populous in Western nations, it will not be challenged, and will easily shape the politics and society enough to irreversibly change Western society as a whole — to a Globalist-Marxist society.
This returns us to the French election. Macron has chosen to ignore the past few years of upheaval with the migrant crisis, the rape chaos in Sweden, the rapes in Germany, the numerous horrific terrorist attacks on French soil — and pursue the narrative that all cultures are ‘equal’ and ‘compatible’ with Western values. That is a dangerous illusion to hold, but Macron and his higher-ups are perfectly aware of this. They are using this knowledge to slowly remove a conservative culture that actually has national identity; Western culture.
Islamic people have a much weaker national identity, and are easier to control as a result; they are being allowed into Europe in their masses on purpose, it is cultural engineering at play, they are a socially ‘protected’ group because they are a group that have the correct thoughts, they must not be integrated at all costs.
But Macron insists on this multicultural narrative, branding anyone who dare question the agenda, “hateful” or “fascist”.
The thing is, the West is not even choosing diversity, it is choosing to erase itself, and replace Western identity with the uncivilised cultures of the mid-east and north Africa. Hence, “White guilt”
Macron is disconnected from the common people. He lives in extreme wealth and would not know a lower-class neighbourhood if he saw one. These are the communities that have been struck hardest by the migrant crisis; and incidentally, were the demographic that most voted for French nationalist, Marine Le Pen, those furthest from the front lines cannot possibly understand the true situation.
Western values will be suppressed and dwindle, while the untouched, unintegrated mid-east culture will thrive seperated; especially with such a prolific birth rate and hardline values compared to the low Western birthrate. Western values will be gone, or mortally weakened within a few decades.
Merkel Admits Multiculturalism Doesn’t Work.
Merkel has said in recent years the so-called “multikulti” concept – where people would “live side-by-side” happily – did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate – including learning German. Despite this, Merkel has done nothing to stem the tide, she perpetuates the crisis. The hidden political hand grips Merkel tightly, she is being forced to go against her personal convictions.
“And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.” — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, 2010
Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide. Whether the European people choose to go along with this is, naturally, another matter. When I say that Europe is in the process of killing itself, I do not mean that the burden of European Commission regulation has become overbearing or that the European Convention on Human Rights has not done enough to satisfy the demands of a particular community.
I mean that the civilisation we know as Europe is in the process of committing suicide and that neither Britain nor any other western European country can avoid that fate, because we all appear to suffer from the same symptoms and maladies.
As a result, by the end of the lifespans of most people currently alive, Europe will not be Europe and the peoples of Europe will have lost the only place in the world we had to call home.
Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument. Those in power seem persuaded that it would not matter if the people and culture of Europe were lost to the world.
There is no single cause of the present sickness. The culture produced by the tributaries of Judaeo-Christian culture, the ancient Greeks and Romans, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment has not been levelled by nothing. But the final act has come about because of two simultaneous concatenations — sets of linked events — from which it is now all but impossible to recover.
The first is the mass movement of peoples into Europe. In all western European countries this process began after the Second World War due to labour shortages. Soon Europe got hooked on the migration and could not stop the flow even if it had wanted to.
The result was that what had been Europe — the home of the European peoples — gradually became a home for the entire world. The places that had been European gradually became somewhere else.
All the time Europeans found ways to pretend this influx could work. By pretending, for instance, that such immigration was normal. Or that if integration did not happen with the first generation then it might happen with their children, grandchildren or another generation yet to come. Or that it didn’t matter whether people integrated or not.
All the time we waved away the greater likelihood that it just wouldn’t work. This is a conclusion that the migration crisis of recent years has simply accelerated.
Which brings me to the second concatenation. For even the mass movement of millions of people into Europe would not sound such a final note for the continent were it not for the fact that (coincidentally or otherwise) at the same time Europe lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy.
More than any other continent or culture in the world today, Europe is deeply weighed down with guilt for its past. Alongside this outgoing version of self-distrust runs a more introverted version of the same guilt. For there is also the problem in Europe of an existential tiredness and a feeling that perhaps for Europe the story has run out and a new story must be allowed to begin.
Mass immigration — the replacement of large parts of the European populations by other people — is one way in which this new story has been imagined: a change, we seemed to think, was as good as a rest. Such existential civilisational tiredness is not a uniquely modern European phenomenon, but the fact that a society should feel like it has run out of steam at precisely the moment when a new society has begun to move in cannot help but lead to vast, epochal changes.
Had it been possible to discuss these matters, some solution might have been possible. Looking back, it is remarkable how restricted we made our discussion, even while we opened our home to the world.
A thousand years ago the peoples of Genoa and Florence were not as intermingled as they now are, but today they are all recognisably Italian, and tribal differences have tended to lessen rather than grow with time.
The current thinking appears to be that at some stage in the years ahead the peoples of Eritrea and Afghanistan too will be intermingled within Europe as the Genoans and Florentines are now melded into Italy. The skin colour of individuals from Eritrea and Afghanistan may be different, their ethnic origins may be further afield, but Europe will still be Europe and its people will continue to mingle in the spirit of Voltaire and St Paul, Dante, Goethe and Bach.
As with so many popular delusions, there is something in this. The nature of Europe has always shifted and — as trading cities such as Venice show — has included a grand and uncommon receptiveness to foreign ideas and influence. From the ancient Greeks and Romans onwards, the peoples of Europe sent out ships to scour the world and report back on what they found. Rarely, if ever, did the rest of the world return their curiosity in kind, but nevertheless the ships went out and returned with tales and discoveries that melded into the air of Europe. The receptivity was prodigious: it was not, however, boundless.
The question of where the boundaries of the culture lay is endlessly argued over by anthropologists and cannot be solved. But there were boundaries. Europe was never, for instance, a continent of Islam. Yet the awareness that our culture is constantly, subtly changing has deep European roots. We know that the Greeks today are not the same people as the ancient Greeks. We know that the English are not the same today as they were a millennium ago, nor the French the French. And yet they are recognisably Greek, English and French and all are European.
In these and other identities we recognise a degree of cultural succession: a tradition that remains with certain qualities (positive as well as negative), customs and behaviours. We recognise the great movements of the Normans, Franks and Gauls brought about great changes. And we know from history that some movements affect a culture relatively little in the long term, whereas others can change it irrevocably.
Religion has retreated in Europe, replaced by ‘human rights’
The problem comes not with an acceptance of change, but with the knowledge that when those changes come too fast or are too different we become something else, including something we may never have wanted to be.
At the same time we are confused over how this is meant to work. While generally agreeing that it is possible for an individual to absorb a particular culture (given the right degree of enthusiasm both from the individual and the culture) whatever their skin colour, we know that we Europeans cannot become whatever we like. We cannot become Indian or Chinese, for instance. And yet we are expected to believe that anyone in the world can move to Europe and become European.
If being “European” is not about race, then it is even more imperative that it is about “values”. This is what makes the question “What are European values?” so important. Yet this is another debate about which we are wholly confused.
Are we, for instance, Christian? In the 2000s this debate had a focal point in the row over the wording of the new EU constitution and the absence of any mention of the continent’s Christian heritage. The debate not only divided Europe geographically and politically, it also pointed to a glaring aspiration.
For religion had not only retreated in western Europe. In its wake there arose a desire to demonstrate that in the 21st century Europe had a self-supporting structure of rights, laws and institutions that could exist even without the source that had arguably given them life.
In the place of religion came the ever-inflating language of “human rights” (itself a concept of Christian origin). We left unresolved the question of whether or not our acquired rights were reliant on beliefs that the continent had ceased to hold, or whether they existed of their own accord. This was, at the very least, an extremely big question to have left unresolved while vast new populations were being expected to “integrate”.
An equally significant question erupted at the time around the position and purpose of the nation state. From the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 up to the late 20th century the nation state in Europe had generally been regarded not only as the best guarantor of constitutional order and liberal rights but the ultimate guarantor of peace.
Yet this certainty also eroded. European figures such as Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany in 1996 insisted that “The nation state . . . cannot solve the great problems of the 21st century.” Disintegration of the nation states of Europe into one large integrated political union was so important, Kohl insisted, that it was in fact “a question of war and peace in the 21st century”.
Others disagreed, and 20 years later just over half of British people who voted in the EU referendum demonstrated that they were unpersuaded by Kohl’s argument. But, once again, whatever one’s views on the matter, this was a huge question to leave unresolved at a time of vast population change.
While unsure of ourselves at home, we made final efforts at extending our values abroad. Yet whenever our governments and armies got involved in anything in the name of these “human rights” — Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 — we seemed to make things worse and ended up in the wrong. When the Syrian civil war began, people cried for western nations to intervene in the name of the human rights that were undoubtedly being violated. But there was no appetite to protect such rights because whether or not we believed in them at home, we had certainly lost faith in an ability to advance them abroad.
At some stage it began to seem possible that what had been called “the last utopia” — the first universal system that divorced the rights of man from the say of gods or tyrants — might comprise a final failed European aspiration. If that is indeed the case, then it leaves Europeans in the 21st century without any unifying idea capable of ordering the present or approaching the future.
Europe has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument
At any time the loss of all unifying stories about our past or ideas about what to do with our present or future would be a serious conundrum. But during a time of momentous societal change and upheaval the results are proving fatal. The world is coming into Europe at precisely the moment that Europe has lost sight of what it is. And while the movement of millions of people from other cultures into a strong and assertive culture might have worked, the movement of millions of people into a guilty, jaded and dying culture cannot.
Even now Europe’s leaders talk of an invigorated effort to incorporate the millions of new arrivals. These efforts too will fail. If Europe is going to become a home for the world, it must search for a definition of itself that is wide enough to encompass the world. This means that in the period before this aspiration collapses our values become so wide as to become meaninglessly shallow.
So whereas European identity in the past could be attributed to highly specific, not to mention philosophically and historically deep foundations (the rule of law, the ethics derived from the continent’s history and philosophy), today the ethics and beliefs of Europe — indeed the identity and ideology of Europe — have become about “respect”, “tolerance” and (most self-abnegating of all) “diversity”.
Such shallow self-definitions may get us through a few more years, but they have no chance at all of being able to call on the deeper loyalties that societies must be able to reach if they are going to survive for long.
This is just one reason why it is likely that our European culture, which has lasted all these centuries and shared with the world such heights of human achievement, will not survive.
As recent elections in Austria and the rise of Alternative for Germany seem to prove, while the likelihood of cultural erosion remains irresistible, the options for cultural defence continue to be unacceptable. Even after the tumultuous years they have just had, the French electorate go to the polls next weekend to choose between more of a disastrous status quo or a member of the Le Pen family.
And all the time the flow into Europe continues. Over the Easter weekend alone European naval vessels collected more than 8,000 African migrants from the seas around Italy and brought them into Europe. Such a flow — which used to be unusual — is now routine, apparently unstoppable and also endless.
In The World of Yesterday, published in 1942, the Austrian writer Stefan Zweig wrote that in the years leading up to the Second World War, “I felt that Europe, in its state of derangement, had passed its own death sentence.” Only his timing was out. It would take several more decades before that death sentence was carried out — by ourselves on ourselves.
The ‘En Marche!’ Presidential candidate, billed ‘outsider’ and centrist Emmanuel Macron, a thorough insider establishment figurehead with strong ties to Rothschild banking and the Bilderberg group, has emerged victorious in the second, final round of the French elections.
Marine Le Pen, the nationalist candidate representing the ‘Front National’, lost the vote with a strong 40% to Macron’s majority of 60%.
Le Pen’s eastern support proves not enough this time around.
However, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has suggested that Le Pen is set for a 2022 victory as French nationalism is bound to be stoked enough by then, as a further five years under the boot of EU dominion will undoubtedly create an ever stronger appetite for nationalist politics.
One outlet stated before the outcome; “Europe signs its own death warrant”
“With the continent wrestling with mass immigration and losing faith in its traditions and beliefs, its civilisation faces collapse” — Douglas Murray, Sunday Times
Nigel Farage stated that:
“A giant deceit has been voted for today. Macron will be Juncker’s puppet.”
France sleepwalks into the abyss.
France has elected a man who has described Brexit as a “crime”; note that Brexit was a completely democratic vote of self-determination.
France has elected a man who calls people who choose to civilly vote for another candidate, “hateful” and “cowardly”.
France has elected a man who deems terrorism a ‘normal’ part of daily life.
France has elected a man endorsed by the Rothschilds and disastrous globalist political figures such as Obama, Hollande, and Juncker’s EU gang.
What does Macron really mean for France?
Macron has gone on record stating that terrorism is a ‘normal’ part of daily life. His open-doors policy approach will mean further Islamisation of France, leaving the doors wide open for further attacks to take place in an already deeply fractious & inflammatory nation.
Macron’s support for EU policies means further cultural Marxism will take place, pushing the already faded Western French identity further and further towards oblivion. This is compounded, as liberal stances continue to push ‘cultural equality’ as a social standard.
Macron’s allegiance to Rothschild & Bilderberger interests means globalism will be firmly on his agenda. His statement claiming his desire to ‘reform’ the EU is folly, and a platitude to snatch some right of centre voters at best, he is vested interest and will never abandon globalist plans to make the EU bloc-superstate a firm reality.
The Macron leaks, proven as legitimate by WikiLeaks, show Macron as a hedonist, tax evader working as a stooge to corporate interests. His sudden & unexpected appearance in politics to run as French President shows how Macron is not a self-made man, he has been catapulted onto the scene with the right backing at the right time to keep nationalism at bay following an extremely unpopular Hollande Presidency.
Macron has stated that “No religion is a problem in France today,” in a shocking demonstration of negligence towards the rise of radical Islamic fundamentalism that has claimed the lives of hundreds. He spouts a desire for secularism in government, but ignores the blatant threat of Islamic aggression in France.
Macron is a socialist, and socialism has historically never worked, wherever he implements socialism, France will wither and die. An example of poor socialist policies include his pledge to give each 18-year-old a £424 (£500) “culture pass” to spend on cinema visits, theatres and concert tickets.
Macron has virtue-signalled his way into power, his vague, centrist lovey-dovey image is a put-on to get into power. From the moment of his inauguration, Macron will backpedal everything and pursue a very different approach in political office.
Marine Le Pen does not appear to be giving up, she seems likely to rerun for election in 2022:
My dear Friends around the World. This battle is not over. Believe me. Stand with me for then next steps to liberate #France ! @MLP_officiel
Ultimately, the descent of western civilisation into ever-greater centralised EU federalism, a cesspool of cultural dilution and socialism will eventually prompt a nationalist movement in France — the question left to us is quite simply, when?
You’ve probably seen the bloated mass of complaints in YouTube comments sections slating modern music as ‘worse’ than the old days; well, it turns out they may have a point. Music is noticeably losing its substance, melodically, lyrically and characteristically, along with a bunch of scientific terms I will impart below.
Pop culture degrades our overall culture, it is cultural engineering.
Pop culture is not actually pop culture, because it is controlled through and through, corporations and their labels choose who is ‘popular’ and who will never gain recognition. The music industry is brainwashing us into liking terrible songs; and as a result, liking a terrible message, and therefore embracing a terrible culture.
The music industry has taken a frightful turn for the worse as mainstream artists have lost touch with theirown spark for creativity; creativity has sold out. Big names are bought and sold, algorithm driven, and ghost writers are rampant in the highest echelons; anyone that scrapes an honest morsel of popularity is rapidly bought off. This is a ‘pop culture’ totally dominated by corporate interest, and a grotesque hunger for moneymaking. Meaningful influence in music is suppressed and siphoned, the messages are always controlled and people will always listen to it because it is so accessible, and so widely disseminated.
Hopsin, a famous rapper who rose to fame in his feud with a label, he branched away and made his own label and has gained significant popularity.
Stephen Patrick Morrissey, ex Smiths frontman and solo artist has not landed a record deal for years, yet his music holds a meaningful message, is crafted to a phenomenal standard and has a healthy degree of variety. In the below quote he shares his view of pop music, and why you need to avoid it.
Morrissey (Singer, songwriter): I think the pop chart today is entirely market-driven. And it has nothing to do with public taste. And it has nothing to do with moving music forward. It’s simply a market chart. And people who’ve managed to grapple into the top five have done so because of an aggressive campaign, and nothing else. And so many sales are mysteriously automatic. Very often now we glance an eye at the chart and we can’t understand why a certain person is No1 or No2, why have they flown in at No3. It’s understandable to ask that question. But it’s simply market-driven. Nothing else. The quality of the music, the content – absolutely immaterial. As a direct result so many bands and so many artists have ongoing success with absolutely no songs.
Burn down the disco Hang the blessed DJ Because the music that they constantly play It says nothing to me about my life – Panic, the Smiths
Russell Brand on Katy Perry: ‘Vapid, vacuous and plastic’: labels ex-wife Katy Perry’s lifestyle the ‘very thing I detest’
Shia LaBeouf: In my parents’ generation, rebellion was pop culture. It’s not anymore.
Trevor Dunn: Pop culture is not about depth. It’s about marketing, supply and demand, consumerism.
Science says music is getting worse: homogeneity
Scientific studies have even highlighted that the vocabulary and variety of the collective music culture has taken a nosedive, subject material has veered towards an overtly materialistic and sexual stature, while any melodic variety has become an incomprehensible mush of sameness. Our musical diversity has become inbred, mainly headlined by pretentious artists that have largely inaccessible content, and sport a message that holds little to no substance in most cases – a product of the example set by pop music that has been branded and promoted as ‘popular’ but is really a facet in a game of big-money marketing and exposure.
Loudness comes at the expense of dynamic range—in very broad terms, when the whole song is loud, nothing within it stands out as being exclamatory or punchy. (This two-minute YouTube video does a great job of demonstrating how excessive loudness saps richness and depth from a recording.) Indeed, Serrà and his colleagues found that the loudness of recorded music is increasing by about one decibel every eight years.
So, what happened since 1955? Well, timbral variety went down. That means that songs are becoming more and more homogeneous. In other words, all pop music sounds the same now.
A catchy beat is the staple hook for most popular music, lyrics are engineered to be vague but ‘nice’ sounding, so not intellectually stimulating whatsoever. The result is a stupor of ‘cool beats’ that keep you on a high of raves and party lifestyle antics, while intellectualism is centralized to the elites behind the scenes, you are the stooge that learned to love the taste of the musical equivalent of faeces, because it was overwhelmingly branded ‘cool’ to do so.
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
― Adolf Hitler
Algorithms find the most profitable sound
Algorithm technology has exploded in recent years, along with this advancement has come the lucrative opportunity for discovering the most profitable melodies, tempos and a host of other musical attributes connected to popular artists.
Pop music automation is a field of study among musicians and computer scientists with a goal of producing successful pop music algorithmically. It is often based on the premise that pop music is especially formulaic, unchanging, and easy to compose.
What this means is that popular music is becoming homogenized (more samey) for the very sake of assuring profits for the organisations behind the big names. The patterns of music that receive the most hits are replicated by big names that are bought in a war of supply and demand; to make the most money is the objective, not the upholstery of individuality in music, the fundamental basis of art is dismissed.
People arguing against the notion that music is worsening will claim that artists are making their own choices in the collective trajectory of music trends, and that somehow this excuses the growing blandness of our music.
If you landed from another planet and wanted to make it big there, it would make sense you’d go for very generic and very loud and put an attractive person as your celebrity.
With the mass-exposed rise of monetized, corporate pop music, the influential trickle-down effect on artists at every level is unimaginable, the sheer numerical pull-factor of modern pop music’s popularity overshadowing anything in the 20th century by a considerable amount is enough to poison new musicianship at the entry level, and might be a reason new music is seeming so similarly unpalatable; people flock to what is perceived to be popular.
Black Lives Matter, a Soros funded psy-op designed to generate civil unrest, and to foment an atmosphere ripe for the gradual imposition of repackaged martial law, better called the police state, which is suggesting in part, by the militarization of police becoming more widespread. The recent staged killings of cops will only accentuate the ‘necessity’ to continue this – the Hegelian dialectic is back, people.
For those unaware, Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an inherently racist movement of segregationist proportions. Yes, there is corruption in the ranks of the police, as there is in every organisation involving human beings, but this gives no excuse to be disruptive, to kill police (in some cases) and advocate physical revolt (in some cases), and to cry out for special treatment because of your skin color.
The Washington Post even had the audacity to assimilate the civil rights movement with violence, when a larger portion of the demonstrations were guided by non-violent principles, does Martin Luther King Jr. come to mind whatsoever?
Anyway, here’s the headline:
Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too.
This attempted legitimization of the BLM movement headlined by the Washington Post bears the composition/division & tu quoque logical fallacies as defined by:
Composition/division: you assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts. In WP’s case, claiming that certain violent or provocative aspects of the original civil rights movement, i.e. Black Panthers, can authenticate the BLM movement.
Tu Quoque: you avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism. In the WP’s case,pointing out one less admirable part of the civil rights movement to avoid debate concerning the equally shameful behavior of another.
Mike Huckabee said the civil rights leader (MLK) would be “appalled” by BLM’s strategy: To address racial injustice, “you don’t do it by magnifying the problems,” he said.
Another pressing point can be inferred from lack of emphasis given to the shocking rates of Black-on-Black crime. According to FBI data, 4,906 black people killed other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is more than the total number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq over the last decade. More black Americans killed other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.
Prominent rapper and record producer Hopsin told the truth about ‘Black Lives Matter’ in a barrage of tweets that he was subsequently forced to delete, remarking that BLM activists can’t claim to care about black lives until they address the elephant in the room – black people killing each other in huge numbers.
Black lives don’t matter to a lot of blacks. So how come all of a sudden black lives matter when someone else kills us?
The message behind Hopsin’s tweet really unveils the widespread, heavily dysfunctional, ghettoized communities of blacks that run on a gross dependency towards criminal activity to stay afloat in a culture known as ‘hustling’ as a result of the un-vetted impoverishment of many black families that have a society of thugs, where contraception is lacking and black abortions are higher than black births.
This links into how proportionally, blacks are on average more criminal than their white counterparts, but I wouldn’t pin this criminality entirely to blacks, but to their often sorely deprived circumstances, and the exacerbating effects of a police-hating ‘gangster’ culture still shamelessly promulgated, and purveyed as ‘cool’ by mainstream media platforms, while racism does come into it partially, it is a relatively small issue that is not helped by the overwhelming image of blacks as barbarian thugs, an image that rings true in many cases, the 2015 ‘gangster’ movie, ‘Straight Outta Compton’ is a prime example of how the MSM are legitimizing and instilling criminal behavior as something to aspire to, the police killings and long-held gang-cop rivalries are being used by Soros as a societal weak-spot to blow out of proportion to trigger disruption and bring in greater federalization, this whole orchestration seems to be a malicious product of an elite think tank.
‘Straight Outta Compton’ and ‘GTA V’ romanticize the ‘ghetto’ life as the norm, they encourage dependency on material things, they advocate gang-based criminality and aggression over civility: they are ultimately divisive, as the propagandists intended – none of these lifestyles are intellectually beneficial, these lifestyles demonstrate distrust between people, not unification – yet Black Lives Matter can’t seem to see this fault, a fault present throughout the majority of the black community, as reflected in crime statistics.
Grand Theft Auto 5, the most expensive videogame of all time, another good example of how gangster-crime culture is being promoted in some ways via the media.
This idea of mistreatment can be re-evaluated with how Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray are not martyrs, and cannot be used to brand all cops as oppressive, especially when statistics show Blacks to be disproportionately more violent than other ethnicities.
On the day he died, Michael Brown was a burglary suspect. After a fistfight and a failed attempt to disarm Officer Darren Wilson, Michael Brown was shot dead before he could continue his attack. That he had his “hands up” in surrender is a pernicious lie.
Had Michael Brown not resisted arrest and simply complied with Officer Wilson, he’d still be alive today.
Repeat offender Freddie Gray was suspected of selling hard drugs when he was apprehended by Baltimore police. Gray died from a severe spinal cord injury while in police custody. He had a penchant for running from the police and a “history,” according to the Baltimore Sun, “of participating in ‘crash-for-cash’ schemes—injuring himself in law enforcement settings to collect settlements.”
Eric Garner was committing the “crime” of selling un-taxed cigarettes when he was apprehended by a half-dozen cops. Garner died after being placed in a chokehold by an arresting officer.
Ultimately, a Staten Island grand jury concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to bring a criminal indictment against the NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner. Reasonable people can debate whether or not the officer’s actions were excessive; however, it’s also worth noting that the medical examiner’s report said that Garner’s bad health, including obesity, contributed to his death.
Even Eric Garner’s daughter “doubts” that her father’s death was motivated by race. Garner’s mother said she would “agree.”
Anecdotal (logical fallacy)
Using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics.
The BLM movement has largely gone off of snippets of film clips likely taken out of context, in a few isolated events to justify the narrative that black people are somehow being oppressed, the Eric Garner death is a big campaign citation of the BLM movement. Yet while the arrest seemed harsh at the time; the statistical evidence suggests that crime among blacks is disproportionately rampant, therefore claiming that there is an ‘anti-black’ sentiment among police would be misleading, Garner’s defiance and large stature coupled with the stigma of black criminality likely motivated the choke hold. Garner’s death is certainly controversial, but an isolated case which doesn’t ever warrant anti-police rhetoric.
Around 93% of all black murders are committed by other blacks according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, despite the fact that blacks only make up around 13% of the population.
Yes, peacefully campaign if you think that racially motivated killings are taking place, despite no evidence whatsoever to assuredly back this – except the ‘martyrs’ that are cited by the BLM movement, which have been debunked.
Why don’t all lives matter? According to one leading BLM campaigner, saying that “all lives matter” is a racial slur. Why emphasize the police when there are so many other points of ‘oppression’ to counter. Maybe it is because the Soros organisation wants to provoke the police and legitimize heightened federalization?
Because if all lives mattered, there wouldn’t be a violent movement that advocated provocative behavior, if all lives mattered BLM would attempt to build bridges in light of MLK’s principle of love and non-aggression, not burn bridges. If all lives mattered, BLM wouldn’t be segregationist and discriminate whites in some cases.
It seems that the BLM is another wave of white-guilt programming that is prepping us into just accepting every minority regardless of their cultural defects; in the case of Blacks it is largely the ‘gangster’ crime-driven culture that is being ignored, in the case of near-eastern Muslims it is generally a culture of gender oppression and western intolerance that we seem to forget – both of these cultural disadvantages are being ignored, and the issues are being attributed instead to the color of a person’s skin as a matter of race, which achieves very little in dealing with the real problems behind the colors.
Black Lives Matter is a backwards movement of manufacturing ‘victimized’ black people, and painting cops as the ‘bad-cop’ oppressors. It is fundamentally divisive and purposefully approaches black ‘oppression’ via very few, irrational angles.
It is this antisocial culture that is being used as a trigger-point to reignite conflict between the police and the pushed ‘underdog’ identity in the minority black community; the fact that I’m saying ‘black community’ shows how black ‘gangster’ culture has criminalized some blacks, and estranged them from mainstream society, this has backfired and come to a manifested head in the BLM movement.
The government & media need to be challenged for criminalizing, impoverishing & alienating blacks, not the police that have to clean up the mess and deal with gangster infested ‘no-go’ zones; no wonder the black community has been so negatively stigmatized, their media-manufactured culture practically glorifies violence.
Man, why do black people gotta be the only ones who can’t evolve. ‘Cause you in the streets acting like Neanderthals – Hopsin, Rapper, Ill Mind 5
By externalizing the blame to the police for doing their jobs in suppressing crime, and not realizing that it is the government that needs to do more to introduce the insular black culture to the stable, middle class limelight & eliminate ‘gangster’ culture; we have a paradox fueled by emotional angst, and not rational solutions. Ghettoized blacks and the crime they generate to make ends meet are results of inequalities that need to be addressed by the government, not by blaming the cops for duly dealing with these catalysts for criminal activity.
BLM will militarize the Police
BLM is the perfectly divisive psy-op to militarize the cops and create federalized police states governed by fear and division, a ‘race war’ of sorts will markedly divide and conquer the masses into accepting heightened federal control. Because the largely financially comfortable whites won’t ever riot – the elites will target the disadvantaged ghetto/gangster communities that have a bone to pick with the cops for often lawfully killing their compatriots in self-defense and in struggles to apprehend members of a maladjusted community forced and cajoled into crime as the norm.
If you can federalize all of the states’ police departments, you can engineer a safeguarded collapse, one without completely losing control, and set the stage for bringing order out of chaos; federalized, militarized police that have an expectation to treat people as hostile will be much more likely to follow a federal agenda, and not work in the best interests of protecting the people, they will no longer see people as civil and orderly – people will be dehumanized.
Executive Order – United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force.
Obama has even passed an executive order regarding pre and post strike civilian casualties – link – what does the white house know that we do not? And why has this executive order been passed in the midst of a period of unrest surrounding BLM? Is there significant civil conflict anticipated?
The truth is that the overwhelmingly white elites want riots, BLM is funded by them and for them, it favors divide and conquer, and feeds from the ugly impulsion of anger.
The elites hope to harness the violence of ghetto black culture and collide this with the police as their ‘oppressors’ versus the underdogs.
This is the ‘black and white’ logical fallacy pushed by Black Lives Matter, where the police get the blame for racial discrimination as the cause of blacks being the social underdogs, whereas in reality it is a combination of black’s behavior by choice or by circumstance, and the US government not doing enough to shut down this crime inclined behavior, and the deprived circumstance at the grass roots, in many cases the government even supports it.
Where two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
These ‘other possibilities’ being that the US government hasn’t done enough to tackle ghettoized neighborhoods, no-go zones, to educate blacks in civil behavior, to discourage gangster culture in the media, and on the streets. Maybe then the police won’t be forced to treat ghetto neighborhoods in such a hard-handed demeanor. The BLM movement should be marching at the white house, not blindly striking out at one branch of the tree.
‘Be faithful to your roots’ is the liberal version of ‘Stay in your ghetto.’
BLM doesn’t aim to change the roots of black culture, only strike out and blame those who have to deal with its flaws.
In fact, cops have not been called to stabilize various provocative demonstrations of the Black Lives Matter movement. This movement is a movement of hate that is being intentionally allowed to grow; one that ignores the faults of black culture, and ascertains that fighting law enforcement will somehow create amicable unification, solve all the problems of police brutality, and render blacks in a positive light, none of which it will ever solve.
If the Negro in the ghetto must eternally be fed by the hand that pushes him into the ghetto, he will never become strong enough to get out of the ghetto. Carter G. Woodson
BLM doesn’t want to stop the ghetto, it wants to attack the cops that deal with the ghetto and then complain when these cops act with extreme caution, a paradox ensues; BLM simply has no investment in challenging the real oppressors; government that benefits from black dependency on them, and the degradation of the middle class, and the principle of divide and conquer.
Ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe. Beginning with the invasion of Poland during World War II, the regime of Nazi Germany set up ghettos across occupied Europe in order to segregate and confine Jews, and sometimes Gypsies, into small sections of towns and cities furthering their exploitation (and limiting their capacity to be free).
The ghetto is about survival and little else, this means questioning an authority figure beyond the police becomes unlikely, the powers that be would love for it to remain that way.
What is really needed is an overhaul of the black image; because when it is statistically proven that blacks are more prone to committing crime, a movement for blacks against the police is not going to help dismantle the crime stigma that is still attached to the black community, it will only ever worsen it.
Mainstream Media champions ‘Black’ culture as synonymous with hood culture.
The more mainstream media celebrates ‘black’ ghetto culture, the more people will see it as populist to ignore its flaws, and defend it as acceptable. ‘Black Lives Matter’ is the end product of this romanticizing brainwashing for hood culture roots as something to be proud of.
Beyoncé is seen at Superbowl 50 promoting ‘black’ nationalism, the idea that blacks are somehow socially exclusive, and oppressed by the police and whites, the ideology of ‘Black Lives Matter’ resonates strongly with the ‘black pride’ sentiment disseminated by the media.
The expression ‘Us and them’ comes to mind, Beyoncé is an establishment pawn used to foment a black supremacist mindset that engages blind pride, and dismisses the ‘elephant in the room’ flaws of black ghetto culture and its criminal abundance.
The performance was a political statement, and a throwback to times when racism was predominant, but racism is not nearly as widespread now as it was in the 60s. Therefore, funding this kind of message only intends to guilt-silence whites concerned over the surge of radicalized black pride, and enable liberals to inanely consider this ‘black pride’ sentiment ‘justice’ for the actions of white people’s predecessors; this has gotten out of control and BLM is its culmination.
What could have been simply a harmless celebration of culture, has been hijacked by the elites, and turned into something that divides us. The elites, such as George Soros, have packaged a divisive movement as a liberal one, and used the racist card to stop anyone who questions it.
Beyoncé, Black Panthers themed Superbowl 50 performance.
Next year will mark the twentieth anniversary of Diana Princess of Wales’ unfortunate assassination at the Pont d’Alma underpass in Paris, the thirteenth pillar of that underpass being the collision point in a fatal car crash that would tragically take three lives, and severely threaten another.
This year marks twenty years since a divorce that would brand Diana a focal point of the royal household’s upheaval, an infamously loose cannon of the establishment that held values in direct contravention to the murky aspirations devised behind the gold plated gateways and marble lined palatial estates.
The Queen of Hearts
Diana’s track record in royalty was somewhat of a rocky road, her relationship, marriage and divorce with Prince Charles coupled with her outspoken critique of ‘the establishment’ she’d been born into, proved her daring, realistic audacity was of no shortage. Being privy to sensitive, esoteric information, the entrusted stature of Diana’s ‘role’ as a Royal was expectantly tough, her very life rested on this ‘role’ and the faithful upholding of its secrets and image.
Which leads me on to say how the dandy image of the royal establishment can be disassembled in light of the Diana and Charles relationship, as a family of showy colours, pearly whites and paparazzi magnets that have painted established authority in the mindless conception of television personalities emblazoned on a facade of deceptive, theatrical grandeur – Diana offered us reality, she showed up the Royals for what they were, two-faced actors that put it on for glitzy smiles and virtuous gestures, while simultaneously concealing the ugly underbelly of the whole ruse.
See the following full interview for an in-depth insight into Diana’s thought process going into (and out of) marital royalty, and her difficulties managing the internal & external tensions and ramifications of holding royal reputation, that she expressively claims to be ‘isolating’ and disingenuous to the individual – she admits that she was given a ‘role’ as a puppet.
Diana mingled in occult circles throughout her royal career, in the above picture you can see her alongside CFR/Bilderberg front man Henry Kissinger. The Royal family, as one of the 13 bloodlines (Windsor) has always held strong ties to Illuminati circles. Diana’s induction into this treacherous world must have come with certain revelations and oaths that prompted her conscience, i.e. knowledge of the terrors of the New World Order – fortunately every man/woman comes with a free spirit, it is choice that defines our spiritual allegiance – Diana chose truth, but her attachments and affiliations with evil claimed her life when she tried to escape it by divorce and remarriage, an amicable way to separate.
The Motive to Kill Diana
Diana was killed because she was almost certainly pregnant with Dodi’s child, and the British Royal Family didn’t want an Arab in their ‘sacred’ bloodline. Diana was also becoming politically involved in the Middle East and the elite saw her as a loose cannon that could rally popular support around anything, the same applied to JFK, John Lennon, Bob Marley etc. Diana herself remarked to reporters that there would be ‘a big surprise’ from her a few days before her death. It would be seen as a sham against the establishment for an unplanned marriage to go ahead, or for an incriminating exposé from someone in their own ranks with the publicity Diana had, and of course, the risk for Diana to impart the secrets of House Windsor to the Al-Fayed’s who had significant financial and social leverage for protecting Diana, so she had to die before she could cause any long-lasting damages.
And he (Mohamed Al-Fayed ) is convinced that some of the paparazzi, including the driver of the white Fiat Uno, were MI6 agents whose mission was to stop the announcement of the couple’s engagement – and Diana’s pregnancy.
Her contact with the dark inner-circles of secretive organisations linked to the Windsors, coupled with her ‘free-spirited’ refusal to obey orders and conventions made her a huge threat to revealing the twisted plans and purposes of these people, plans she knew were intended to harm, not help, the common man.
Body Language, when watching take body language into consideration, because Diana – wittingly or unwittingly gives a lot away with her eye, face and head movements.
Many psychologists believe that when a person looks up to their right they are likely to be telling a lie. Glancing up to the left, on the other hand, is said to indicate honesty.
Looking down and to the left can indicate that they are talking to themselves (look for slight movement of the lips). Looking down and to the right can indicate that they are attending to internal emotions.
Looking down can be a signal of submission. It can also indicate that the person is feeling guilty, in Diana’s case for not revealing all there is to reveal.
High relevancy Time stamps
28:57 and onwards
and 33:08 onwards
Interviewer: “Do you really believe that a campaign was being waged against you?”
Diana: “Yes, I did, absolutely yeah.”
Interviewer: “Why?”
Diana: “I was the separated wife of the Prince of Wales, I was a problem, full stop, never happened before, what do we do with her?”
Interviewer: “Can’t we back her off quietly instead of campaign against her?”
Diana: “She won’t go quietly, that’s the problem. I’ll fight ’till the end, as I believe that I have a role to fulfill (Not their role?), and I’ve got two children to bring up (putting your ‘disapproved’ ideas into their heads?).”
…
35:11
Diana: “I always got more publicity, uhh (thinking of a filtered way to express), my work was discussed much more than him (So Charles had something to conceal/hide?), and you know, from that point of view I understand it, but I was doing good things (And Charles/affiliates were not?), and I wanted to do good things, I was never going to hurt anyone. Was never going to let anyone down (Again, does that set you apart from the intentions of the royal circle? Apparently so).”
“but I was doing good things, and I wanted to do good things, I was never going to hurt anyone. Was never going to let anyone down.”
…
Diana: “But, I am a free spirit, unfortunately for some.” (looks down, laughs)
Diana: “I think that the British people need someone in public life to give affection, to make them feel important, to support them, to give them light in their dark tunnels.”
They see me as a threat of some kind. And I’m here to do good, I’m not a destructive person.
Interviewer: “Why do they see you as a threat?”
Diana: (Hesitant) “I think every strong woman in history has had to walk down a similar path, and I think it’s the strength that causes the confusion and the fear. Why is she strong, where does she get it from, where is she taking it, where is she going to use it, why do the public still support her?”
Diana: “When I say public, you go into an engagement, and there’s a great many people there.” (She rallies people’s support)
Interviewer: “Do you think the Prince of Wales will ever be King?”
Diana: “Uhm, I don’t think any of us know the answer to that. And obviously it’s a question that’s in everybody’s head. But who knows, who knows what fate will produce, who knows what circumstances will provoke?”
Interviewer: “But you would know him better than most people?”
Diana: “Hm”
Interviewer: “Do you think he would wish to be King?”
Diana: “There was always conflict on that subject, with him – when we discussed it. And I understood that conflict, because it’s a very demanding role, being Prince of Wales – but it is an equally more demanding role being King. And being Prince of Wales produces more freedom now, and being King would be a little bit more suffocating.
Diana: “…And because I know the character, I would think that the ‘top job’ as I call it, would bring enormous limitations to him, and I don’t know whether he could adapt to that.” (Saying Charles is not fit to be King, based on character that is hidden from public eye)
The (Basic) Timeline of Events
Diana’s murder/assassination took place in the early hours of the 31st of August 1997 in Paris, France. Here is the basic timeline sourced from the BBC.
30th August (Day prior)
1300 hours: (Diana and Dodi) board a private jet at Olbia airport, Sardinia, to take them to Paris. Where they plan to stay 1 night, Diana plans to return to London the next morning.
1520: Mr Al Fayed and the princess arrive at Le Bourget airfield, Paris, and are met by Henri Paul, deputy head of security at the Ritz Hotel. French paparazzi, tipped off by their Sardinian colleagues, also await the couple. Mr Al Fayed is stressed by their presence and tells their driver to lose them.
1635: The couple enter the Ritz.
1800: Mr Al Fayed, accompanied by bodyguards, picks up a ring he has ordered from Repossi’s jewellers just outside the Ritz.
1900: The princess and Mr Al Fayed go back to his apartment just off the Champs Elysées. They take the back exit to escape the paparazzi.
1905: Mr Paul leaves the Ritz, telling his colleagues to call him if the couple return to the hotel.
2130: Mr Al Fayed’s plans to take the princess for a romantic dinner are ruined as the couple are followed by paparazzi. Mr Al Fayed decides they should return to the Ritz. They are followed by some 30 photographers.
2155: Security at the Ritz call Mr Paul and tell him the couple have returned.
2200: The couple enter the hotel restaurant to dine, but leave after 10 minutes. Princess Diana is reportedly visibly upset over the stress of the day. The couple dine in the Imperial Suite instead.
2201: Mr Paul arrives back at the Ritz in his Austin Cooper. He then joins bodyguards Kez Wingfield and Trever Rees-Jones in the Vendome bar at the Ritz. The three make small talk whilst they wait for Princess Diana and Mr Al Fayed to finish their meal in the Imperial Suite.
2300: Mr Paul is seen speaking to paparazzi outside the hotel. Telling the press that the couple will soon depart.
2337: Mr Paul speaks with Mr Al Fayed and Princess Diana in the Imperial Suite. The couple are going to return to Mr Al Fayed’s apartment off of the Champs Elysées. Mr Paul exits and tells bodyguards Mr Wingfield and Mr Rees-Jones that a decoy plan has been hatched to escape the paparazzi. The two cars the couple had been using that day, a Mercedes and a Range Rover, are to leave from the front of the hotel with the bodyguards. Princess Diana and Mr Al Fayed will leave from the back in an unmarked car, driven by Mr Paul. Mr Wingfield and Mr Rees-Jones express concern that under this plan there is no protection for the couple. Mr Al Fayed agrees to allow one bodyguard to travel with him and the Princess.
31 August, 1997
0019: Mr Paul and the couple chat as they wait for their car to be driven to the rear of the Ritz.
0020: The car now ready, Mr Rees-Jones escorts Princess Diana to the waiting Mercedes. She sits on the rear passenger side. Mr Al Fayed joins her on the rear driver’s side. Paparazzi take photos of the couple as they enter the car. They depart abruptly, heading toward Place de la Concorde.
The 1997 crash killed Diana, Dodi and their driver
0025: The Mercedes crashes into the 13th pillar of the Alma tunnel, killing Mr Paul and Mr Al Fayed. Mr Rees-Jones and the princess are seriously injured. Photographer Romuald Rat arrives within seconds – he is the first on the scene.
0026: First call to the authorities. Emergency doctor Frédéric Mailliez is driving by when he sees the crashed Mercedes. He is the first doctor on the scene and calls for help.
0028 – 0030: First two police officers arrive. They have difficulty cordoning off the accident from gathering paparazzi.
0032: Fire engine and ambulance arrive. Eight paparazzi are arrested at the accident scene and taken in for questioning.
0125: After nearly an hour, Princess Diana’s ambulance leaves for hospital. She has already suffered a cardiac arrest.
0130: Mr Al Fayed is pronounced dead.
0155: Princess Diana’s ambulance stops for five minutes to inject adrenaline into her body.
0206: The ambulance arrives at Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital. Doctors note that she has torn her pulmonary vein, a rare condition that begs little chance of survival. She receives open heart massage for nearly two hours.
0400: Princess Diana is declared dead.
0800: Mr Paul’s autopsy begins at l’Institut Médico-Légal, carried out by Professor Dominique Lecomte.
Hidden Evidence
1. The on-board computer chip.
The car Diana was in at the time of the crash – a black Mercedes S280 – was the only available car that night.
The car had previously been stolen, and only recently found by the rental company, who owned the car.
When it was recovered, the only thing missing from the car was an on-board computer chip; this chip controlled the cars navigation, acceleration, steering, and braking – it is likely that the car was sabotaged, and the original computer chip had been replaced with a tampered one, this allowed remote control of the car’s maneuverability.
2. Diana’s belt was not working properly.
Post-analysis of the vehicle proved that Diana’s belt was not in good condition, all the other belts were in good condition, is this indicative of tampering? Obviously the crash might have caused damages, but considering the front belts were still intact, where the brunt of the crash occurred – yet the rear seat with Diana’s belt was broken, any suspicions are valid – by observed patterns of courtesy, Dodi would usually allow Diana into the vehicle first, this made tampering with Diana’s belt at the rear right seat an easy choice for her covert adversaries.
3. The Alma Tunnel was sterilized the next day, and also re-opened to the public within 5 hours of the crash, any potential forensic analysis of the scene was therefore rendered useless.
Potential blood spillages were wiped clean, tire skids giving crucial insights into how the car moved etc, were wiped away. No legible investigation would allow this to happen, ever.
All sensitive forensic materials would have been trampled by traffic first, and than sterilized/swept away in the dubious clean up that occurred within days of the crash.
4. Diana even stated that a car crash plan was imminent.
In one ominous, private letter, Diana hauntingly stated, “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry.”
5. Secret Service were at the scene fastest.
The Pont de L’Alma tunnel was crawling with secret service personnel from French and British intelligence. The driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul is now confirmed as having worked for the French secret service.
It is likely that Diana’s ‘chauffeur’ Henri Paul had orders from people other than Dodi Al-Fayed, orders to move away from Dodi’s flat and take an odd, isolated, and unscheduled route (professional chauffeurs always schedule routes, in this case the bustling avenue road of the Champs-Élysées was the scheduled route) but instead Henri Paul went into a dark tunnel where a staged crash was easy, with minimal eye-witnesses. The fact a backup vehicle, which was standard protocol, was not present, also suggests the whole event was engineered.
6. Other damning points
Just before the car entered the tunnel every security camera in the tunnel mysteriously died, preventing us from ever seeing footage of what caused the crash. There was strangely no CCTV accessed along the route of the Mercedes whatsoever; meaning somebody flipped the switch.
Eyewitnesses reported snipers and gunfire within the tunnel. (I don’t believe this is probable, however it might have occurred to rupture frontal tires, but possible bullet residue still makes me believe this idea is less probable than others – bullets are just too risky, and could easily give everything away.)
The crime scene was completely cleaned within hours of the crash, a policy totally anathema to standard preservation of any crime scene. Tire marks/blood and whatever physical indications of the causes of the crash were removed.
Diana was still alive after the crash. But unexplained delays in getting her to the hospital, caused by the unnecessarily slow speed of the ambulance and the fact that it passed several nearer hospitals before reaching its destination, ensured Diana was dead/guaranteed to die upon arrival. A faster response could have saved her life. The blood pressure argument is flawed, as various paramedics have come forward to say that a slowdown is not required.
The Mercedes used to transport Dodi and Diana from the Ritz was mysteriously swapped for a car that had been stolen only weeks earlier (this ties into the electronic chip replacement that I’ve explained above.)
Multiple eyewitnesses reported a mysterious flash of light immediately before the crash. Many insist that this was a laser directed at the driver to cause temporary blindness leading to the crash.
7. The ‘Mysterious’ Fiat Uno
A white fiat uno did clip the rear right end of the Mercedes that Diana was in, inside the tunnel, this key factor has been largely suppressed by the authorities with the story that ex-special services ‘chauffeur’ Henri Paul was drink driving, disproved by CCTV footage at the Ritz showing him to bend down to tie his laces comfortably with good balance.
The car was ‘incidentally’ repainted shortly after the Alma tunnel crash, and was sold by owner, James Andanson in October 1997.
James Andanson was notoriously egotistical, allegedly bragging to friends in 2000 of his involvement in the Diana crash, claiming he was present at the scene, and had ‘explosive’ photos that he was planning to release.
James Andanson who is alleged to have been driving the Fiat Uno that night was found dead in 2000, shot in the head, his corpse left in a burnt out car. His body, found in thick woodland near Montpellier, was so badly charred that it took police nearly a month before DNA and dental records confirmed his identity. It was ruled as a suicide, even though suicide by self-immolation is greatly uncommon; a simple gunshot would have sufficed.
A matter of weeks after Andanson’s death, masked men raided the SIPA photography firm, the company that Andanson had been employed with, it is logical to assume this was to destroy the last strings of Andanson’s photographed evidence that may prove an assassination took place.
The fireman who discovered the body (of Andanson), Christophe Pelat, has said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head, twice.”
Notice the wheel angled outwards, the fiat pushed the car into the pillars, in the frenzy of the moment Henri Paul tried to steer back out.
8. The odd behavior of the French Police
The initial French investigation into the crash went to every length to ignore key evidence, intimidate eyewitnesses into silence and outright fabricate evidence.
9. A Bright Light
While less convincing than other speculative inquests, the bright light claims are nonetheless relevant in the disorientation of the driver, and give another explanation for the crash.
10. Mercedes refused to inspect the wreckage.
Many believe this refusal to commit a Mercedes employed professional to inspect the wreckage is insinuative of how easily it would be to find evidence of tampering with the vehicle.
Whatever the reason for this denial of investigative service, the reality is that this is a very, very odd incident among many others.
How it all happened.
James Andanson, or whoever drove the Fiat Uno resembling Andanson’s car, described as a ‘Mediterranean man’ with ‘wiry hair’ by one witness, likely purposefully rammed the right side of the bumper at the front of the Mercedes at speeds around 65 mph, this would have instantly caused a crash that killed Diana as at such speeds, any viable opportunity for realigning the car by steering would be unlikely, we do know that Henri Paul did attempt to regain control by steering full lock right, as shown in the wreckage with a right turned wheel, we can see he partially did so too, the indentation where the car struck the pillar is offset slightly left from the center of the front of the vehicle, explaining how Henri Paul died so quickly being the driver on the left side; the shock waves would have been distributed to the left side due to the last ditch attempt to turn the car away from the pillar, explaining why both Henri Paul and Dodi Fayed died instantly, and Diana and Trevor Reese did not suffer as severe injuries (Diana would have lived if she was transported to hospital faster, she did not die immediately) and Trevor Reese survived.
One said that paint scratches from the Fiat, found on the side-view mirror and bumper of the Mercedes, were identical to samples from the matching spot on Andanson’s Fiat.
I believe that the controller/device that was replaced in the tampered Mercedes was used to temporarily de-activate Henri Paul’s brakes and mess with the traction system, preventing him from averting the crash by using the brake pedal and also to steer Henri Paul’s car completely leftwards into the pillar to create the head on collision by making the wheel slack and unresponsive due to the tampering, as a mere shunt against an experienced chauffeur would not be enough to create a head on crash of this severity against Henri Paul, a professional driver – thus, another factor was inexplicably at play.
I also believe that Andanson’s car was taken and used as a way of covering the tracks of the perpetrator(s), who could blend into the Paparazzi crowd in the Fiat as they followed Diana around that day. This gave time and foresight for the logistical demands of killing Diana, while not looking suspicious in another more suspect vehicle, or suspicious following Diana in an isolated manner – Andanson was a well known Paparazzi member; but he also had MI6 connections and was known to be around certain individuals before the times of their deaths, and to take the last photos of certain people – making him very wealthy, his role in the crowd of the Paparazzi was therefore crucial, as he could be bought and trusted in special services to take certain important photos/film.
The Alma tunnel in the early hours of the morning was abandoned, a perfect circumstance for an ‘accident’ to take place.
It is likely that two people (Andanson and a driver) were in the Fiat Uno that pushed Diana’s car into the 13th pillar by shunting leftwards at the front bumper of the Mercedes. Meanwhile, Andanson was employed to get photographed/filmed evidence of the whole event for whatever reason, perhaps to prove that Diana’s death definitively occurred, while an unknown accomplice drove the Fiat and performed the critical maneuvers; some eyewitnesses reported seeing another person hiding under a ‘tartan’ rug as the Fiat emerged from the Alma Tunnel.
However another witness claims seeing 2 vehicles leave the tunnel,
He returned to his bed briefly but then heard more sounds, returning to the window “to see that a small dark vehicle had completed its turn into Rue Jean Goujon immediately followed by a larger white vehicle (the Fiat Uno)”.
This photo is assumed to have been taken in the Alma tunnel, the Mercedes has obviously sped away from the Paparazzi only to find another vehicle in front, the bright light could be Andanson’s flash as he takes a last picture, just before a driver will perform the shunt maneuver. Remember from the Ritz to the tunnel, it took about 5 minutes. This photo is critical in our understanding of what happened.
The fact Diana is looking out of the rear window suggests in itself that they have made some distance between them and their Paparazzi pursuers, who’d followed them from the Ritz – this indicates isolation or separation; which is funny because what is immediately in front of them is shining a light of some description, a flash from a camera perhaps? The Paparazzi; James Andanson and his white Fiat Uno fits rather well into that criteria, a distraction perhaps – a second dark vehicle was also seen to be present, and may have done the maneuver.
Diana’s bodyguard, Trevor Rees-Jones, the only survivor, also said he thought the car was being followed by a motorbike and two cars, one of which was a white hatchback.
Diana looking out the rear seems to see a single source of light; could this be the light of a motorbike’s single headlamp? Concurring with part of Trevor Rees-Jones’ testimony concerning a motorbike?
Former senior detective John Macnamara explains the subject in this way:
“You have a Mercedes that’s done a 180 degree turn, having crashed into the thirteenth pillar and yet the Fiat Uno survives everything (with minor damages at the point of collision only), which suggests to me that that was a very professional driver. I can well believe, as a detective with 24 years experience, why Mr Al Fayed believes that his son Dodi and Princess Diana were murdered.”
I believe that the Fiat attempted a first shunt maneuver that failed, followed by a second one that succeeded, this explains the lack of tire skids at the crash sight, as the cars had slowed down significantly between the first crash and the second, but not enough to avert the crash – this would have all happened in a matter of seconds.
At 12.25am I heard the noise of an almighty crash followed immediately by the sound of skidding tyres and then immediately a further very loud crash
London solicitor Gary Hunter
The professional nature of the Fiat driver may have included training to not leave obvious tire skids, thus, the skidding sounds that Mr. Hunter heard were almost definitely the Mercedes’ trying to regain control.
The car’s final resting place, this is the vehicle after emergency services cut off the roof/doors to rescue the passengers.
Here’s another car crash at 60 mph for comparison:
…I believe this to be true, because they could have used any car/person to ram the Mercedes but wisely chose Andanson’s vehicle, an (insider, MI6 connected) member of the Paparazzi who could easily be connected to an accidental collision provided eyewitnesses called out the presence of the Fiat, and if Henri Paul could not be successfully framed for drink driving. Fortunately for the plotters, there weren’t any known eyewitness accounts inside the tunnel, not even CCTV, the Fiat Uno story could be easily covered up/ignored, any of the few eyewitnesses were probably ignored by the authorities.
If Andanson spoke out concerning the use of his car, he would implicate himself – threats from the top would keep him in line, in 2000 Andanson apparently claimed he would come forward to discuss the event, having boasted to friends to have ‘explosive’ photos of the crash scene, in May of that year he was found dead in an alleged suicide – but his family disagree that it was suicide; claiming he was in good spirits, having recently received a new job – a suicide is very out of character for a man basking in affluence and success from his photography.
Millionaire photographer James Andanson had been threatening to write an explosive book.
“We just don’t know whether it s a case of a man consigning himself to a bizarre and painful death or whether in fact some violence had been meted out to him first.”
— Mr Al Fayed’s barrister Michael Mansfield QC
“We have always believed this man was part of the team that was behind the assassination, and he was killed to shut him up.”
Witnesses said they saw a white Fiat Uno speed out of the tunnel seconds after the crash.
Before Andanson’s death he’d boasted that he was the driver of a Fiat that hit the back of Diana’s Mercedes (according to one source) which is a remarkable thing to admit.
Less than six hours after the fatal crash in Paris, and for reasons that have never been revealed, Andanson boarded a flight at Paris’s Orly airport, bound for Corsica.
He claimed he had been nowhere near the center of the French capital when the crash happened, but could not provide any real evidence to support this claim.
The sense of urgency that led Henri Paul and co. to the Alma Tunnel:
The Paparazzi had been intentionally tipped off concerning Diana and Dodi’s location throughout that night, prompting Dodi to cancel a romantic meal with Diana due to the harassment of photographers; I believe this constant, unusually high level of harassment gave a staged reason to take the ‘alternative’ route pre-planned by special service personnel, it also gave the reason for Henri Paul ( an ex-French special service member, who was stitched-up and used as a pawn) to speed to get away from the Paparazzi and isolate himself and his clients in the Alma underpass, by the command of his higher ups.
The reason the fireman, Christophe Pelat, who discovered Andanson’s burnt body with two bullet holes in the skull, is reluctant to talk is for the very same reason Trevor Rees claims he cannot remember the crash; both men want to continue living.
It’s very plausible Andanson was shot elsewhere and his body then driven to the field of a military training centre where he was doused with petrol and set alight. The keys of the car he was discovered in have never been found.
Andanson’s true involvement might never be realized, but what we do know was that he had to die, and obviously knew something tellingly critical.
Henri Paul’s carbon monoxide poisoning
The Henri Paul blood samples at the very heart of the Diana controversy reveal something else quite bizarre – that he had breathed in a very high quantity of carbon monoxide before his death: the same amount as a person committing suicide by putting a rubber hose from the exhaust through the window of his car.
One of the last photos taken, this one was allegedly taken in the Alma Tunnel itself, just moments before the crash. Diana anxiously looks behind her, as if to suggest they were being tailed/trying to escape the Paparazzi (which is true). While chauffeur Paul, and Bodyguard Reese seem to be captivated by something bright ahead of them – could this be the ‘dazzling light’ employed to distract them as the Fiat Uno moves in to push them to their fates?
Such a level would have left Paul visibly disorientated and almost certainly comatose. Yet at the Ritz that evening, minutes before he drove Diana, the CCTV cameras show him walking normally and even kneeling down to retie his shoe laces and gracefully standing up again.
Proposed possibility:
Somebody switched Henri Paul’s blood sample with another blood sample in the forensic process; likely of someone who committed suicide by car exhaust. This would frame Paul as culpable for being intoxicated in a way that caused the crash, the media claims a ‘heavy smoking session’ was to blame, but this would not be enough to disorientate Paul, who by CCTV footage seemed able-bodied upon leaving the Ritz.
Carbon monoxide leaks from the wreckage found their way into Henri Paul’s blood supply, in the time between the crash and the point of the recovery of his corpse.
June 1992: Andrew Morton Book.
August 1992: June 1992: Andrew Morton Book.
August 1992: Squidygate tapes.
Consequence : Ostracised by the Royal family, travel and other restrictions , enforced formal separation. WAG is set up and holds first meeting.
November 1995: Panorama interview.
Consequence : Removal from Royal family, Loss of HRH Title ; formal divorce.
January to August 1997: Anti-Landmine Campaigne.
July to August 1997 : Mohammed Holy day St. Tropez, plans for Muhammed – Diana joint Hospice Venture, relationship with Dodi.
Consequence:
Crash in the Alma Tunnel.
Following the 1996 Charles – Diana divorce the Elites had run out of legal options in dealing with Princess Diana’s behaviour.
MI6 carried out the assassinations in conjunction with the CIA and French intelligence agencies. There was a major coverup at the Inquest around the nature of the WAG – Hunt Davis and Fellowes ( the son of a bitch), the only royal witnesses heard, both lied about this. Robert Fellowes was present in Paris on 30 august 1997.
Globalism is promoted as the good guy’s movement for unity, strength and some sort of Utopian, liberal ‘paragon of virtue’ that is exempt from any flaw or impediment.
It disregards the default nature of man, a natural basis that is liable to human error, corruption and subordination of duty – power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely
– the same principle applies to Globalism, or just about anything man influences; directly or indirectly.
Mankind ruling from a national level is bad enough, why escalate such burdens to a global scale?
Tower of Babel, Nimrod’s dream of controlling the world and playing God – Babel Tower was his access to heaven that could never work.
The fact is, anything we do is always susceptible to the sinful tendencies of our bodies, that reality runs throughout every echelon of society to the leaders, who, believe it or not, are human – leaders that portray themselves as some sort of unimpeachable deity are hugely misunderstood – Juncker is on that fateful trajectory.
The EUSSR holds strong ties to internationalized Nazism.
Hitler wanted the EU
Hitler was a great example of a ‘leader’ who attempted, with extensive success, to deify himself in the eyes of his people. His distorted approval rating was manipulated to 99%, he even subverted the Church to sanctify his image as superlative, his inflated ego wrought ruin unto Europe, his deluded dream for a singular European and eventual world state under his arbitrary rule cost countless lives, and set a crash course for a feudal cold war that hasn’t ended yet – this desire for a global state caused major divisions, and not a morsel of ‘unity’ was attained.
The lack of any nations’ intervention towards Hitler’s provocations in the late 1930s period known as appeasement served to legitimize Hitler’s Aryan dream to surpass simply just the modest reclaiming of lost German lands from the confiscations of WW1 through the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. While the EU might masquerade as the solution to this fallacy, it defeats its entire purpose by disenfranchising independent states and their democratic rights, and merging them into itself as a tumorous, horrendous superstate that has overextended itself – The EU is the human ego projected onto excessive statehood, it is never satisfied just being a trade union, it anoints itself as a unilateral political union, this saddening direction is a natural course for the seeds of corruption, and without limitation, will only worsen.
Power in the hands of a few: Centralization
The more that superstates like the EU are buttered up, and craftily sold to the masses as safeguards for our liberty – the more we will be sucked into relinquishing our voting rights in hope of finding a ‘safe haven’ from the oft broadcast terrors of the past century which have all incidentally emerged from false centralization promises; but that ‘safe haven’ is not acquirable in this world, so long as men commit sin – we can only hope to mitigate it, and strive for unity as individuals: not strive to an individual for unity.
We need many nation states to counteract any outburst of centralization, the more divided our capacity to sin through statehood, the more unified we ultimately are. I’m not claiming that we cannot work alongside eachother, I’m saying that we need to limit government to as it was intended; being simply a tool for people to live as freethinking individuals in nations that are self-governed; to dilute and counteract against the threat of ego-driven centralization efforts. We need counter-balancing, healthy competition in the market of politics, as do we need competition to humble big corporations that lose sight of their modesty – to restrain power-hunger.
Ego<Centralization<Ambition<Despotism<Division
We must reinforce grounded humanity to ruling, that comes with an understanding that rule should be limited at every opportunity, a world of self-governed, constitutional, natural law oriented, bottom-up, democratic states that can work alongside one another by treaties, will serve to keep tyranny thinned-out, always challenged & constantly suppressed, and the individuals’ right to self-determination always venerated.
That does not, and cannot equal a one world government.
It cannot equal:
Socialism or Communism, which empowers big government (basically Globalism).
Anarchy, that does not protect the individual, because the basis of anarchy is no law; survival of the fittest, the disadvantaged will die – Anarchy gives way to tribalism, as humans naturally group together so is fundamentally flawed.
Authoritarianism/Statism (basically Globalism).
The sweet spot falls in an area where constitutional values are upheld, Libertarianism with the Bible, and their ‘Live and let live’ mindset works rather well at protecting the individual and championing meritocracy, and stemming the tides of flesh induced sin, the seeds of all divisiveness.
We are to be unified by love and respect of the individuals that reflect in nations: their cultural distinctions, values and traditions; so long as they do not oppress others, we must see that volatility in the name of ‘culture’ is not culture, but malice. That is a mantra I think anyone can agree with, and live by.
That sounds liberal, and I do support classical liberalism, but mainstream ‘liberalism’ has been illiberally tainted to accept volatile cultures that don’t respect other cultures (radical, conservative Islam) in the name of accepting ‘diversity’, vote in superstates (EU) because they seem to ‘unify’ countries (but actually centralize them under one head), vote for a candidate because they are black, or a woman which seems trendy to do to support absolute equality for the sake of seeming open-minded, supporting black lives matter when all lives matter, supporting socialism because it seems to create ‘equality’ and challenge the establishment (but it generates bigger government, makes everyone poorer, and discourages meritocracy), and then begin hating on Donald Trump because he exposes the truth concerning all of the above.
na offered us reality, she showed up the Royals for what they were, two-faced actors that put it on for glitzy smiles and virtuous gestures, while simultaneously concealing the ugly underbelly of the whole ruse.
two bullet holes in the skull, is reluctant to talk is for the very same reason Trevor Rees claims he cannot remember the crash; both men want to continue living.
The Spearhead Journal 