What do you think of when you hear the name Colonel Gaddafi? Tyrant? Dictator? Terrorist? Well, a national citizen of Libya living under his rule may disagree, but we want you to decide.
Muammar Gaddafi was certainly not killed for ‘humanitarian reasons’, as the western public have been led to believe.
Gaddafi talks about Reagan’s foreign policy being controlled by ‘hostile sources’.
Gaddafi’s autocratic populist leadership was hugely popular.
Muammar Gaddafi spearheaded an autocratic political, social, and economic revolution; transforming a desolate, third-world, poverty-stricken Libya into one of the most promising booming economies of Africa.
Gaddafi was not only the leader of Libya, he had ambitions to free Africa from the nefarious fangs of the west. Despite being called a dictator and despot by the west – they do that to anyone who doesn’t submit to Washington’s rules – he was very much liked by Libyans, by his people. He had a more than 80% approval rate by the Libyan people.
The Libyans never knew the meaning of poverty under Gaddafi.
For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans.
His enduring legacy proves that in the hands of a true ‘for-the-people’ populist, politics can work to make everyone prosperous and happy. It is a supreme model of government that we all must aspire to, and a model that is called ‘impossible’ by the tyrants in the shadows of Western governments.
Gaddafi set an example to counter globalism.
Unfortunately, Gaddafi was unpopular with international bankers because of this exceptional model for independent, nationalist prosperity. His planned gold-backed currency, the dinar, being the focal point of this. Gaddafi’s currency might have devastated the US dollar hegemony, as well as Europe’s control over the African economy. Gaddafi fought neo-colonization and the soft imperialism that still plagues the third world. Africa remains poor because powerful people behind western governments want to keep it that way.
Like Iran’s 2007 Tehran Oil Bourse to trade oil in any non-dollar currency, and Saddam Hussein’s promise to sell oil in euros, Gaddafi met the same fate of brutal suppression for his de-dollarization economic policies.
Gaddafi was struck down by the monopolistic globalist bullies.
He was demonized with a slew of fabrications and propaganda, a kangaroo court ruling permitted Western sanctions and military intervention, and a false Libyan ‘people’s revolution’ was funded. Gaddafi was finally captured and assassinated in October 2011 as a result.
When Gaddafi moved to harm the US petrodollar, the economic imperialists moved to kill Gaddafi.
Anybody, to this day, who threatens the dollar hegemony will have to die. That means anybody other than China and Russia (who have the influence to defend themselves), because they have already a few years ago largely detached their economy from the dollar, by implementing hydrocarbons as well as other international contracts in gold or the respective local currencies. That alone has already helped reducing dollar holdings in international reserve coffers from almost 90% some 20 years ago to a rate fluctuating between 50% and 60% today.
The Washington / CIA induced “Arab Spring” was to turn the entire Middle East into one huge chaos zone – which today of course, it is. And there are no plans to secure it and to return it to normalcy, to what it was before. To the contrary, chaos allows to divide and conquer – to ‘Balkanize’, as is the plan for Syria and Iraq.
One of the Washington led western goals of this chaos of constant conflict is to eventually install a system of private central banks in the Middle Eastern / North African countries controlled by Washington – privately owned central banks, à la Federal Reserve (FED), where the neocons, the Rothschilds and freemasonry would call the shots. That is expected to help stabilize the US dollar hegemony, as the hydrocarbons produced in this region generate trillions of dollars in trading per year.
Here’s some big factors that point to why Gaddafi was unpopular with the Globalist ‘hidden hand’ established powers-that-be:
Gaddafi wanted to detach his oil sales from the dollar, i.e. no longer trading hydrocarbons in US dollars, as was the US / OPEC imposed rule since the early 1970s.
Gaddafi wanted to introduce, or had already started introducing into Africa a wireless telephone system that would do away with the US / European monopolies, with the Alcatels and AT and T’s of this world, which dominate and usurp the African market without scruples.
Gaddafi promoted a successful independent autocratic political model. It was a viable way for a resource-rich nation to gain massive prosperity outside of the dollar, and was an example that threatened the globalist’s imperial ambitions.
Gaddafi’s plan for Africa meant a new banking system for Africa, away from the now western (mainly France and UK) central banks dominated African currencies. It could have meant the collapse of the US dollar – or at least an enormous blow to this fake dollar based monetary system.
Gaddafi banished all Western influences from Libya, he disallowed Western corporate influences from gaining a financial foothold in the nation.
Gaddafi’s progressive social policies eliminated radical ideologies. His modernization efforts would have brought Africa out of the dark ages, and into the global arena as the next superpower. This would not have benefited the Globalist imperialist agenda that actively exploits a weak, divided, and illiterate Africa. Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women’s rights and standards of living.
Deception: Western media demonized Gaddafi to gain public support for their military ‘intervention’.
Gaddafi’s policies were against the leading banking family’s best interests, he threatened to popularize an independent, anti-globalist, and anti-usury model of government, and get Africa off its knees.
“If Gaddafi had intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accepts something else as a currency or maybe launches a gold dinar currency. Any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.
Post-intervention Libya lies in smoldering ruins, and is festering with Islamic extremism and economic stagnation.
Ever since Gaddafi’s downfall, Libya has fallen back into destitution. Western-backed and trained ISIS and other warring Jihadist factions keep the region divided and ripe for economic exploitation. Today, Libya is a burning, hollow wasteland, a shadow of its former self.
1. In Libya a home is considered a natural human right
In Gaddafi’s Green Book it states: ”The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family, therefore it should not be owned by others”. Gaddafi’s Green Book is the formal leader’s political philosophy, it was first published in 1975 and was intended reading for all Libyans even being included in the national curriculum.
2. Education and medical treatment were all free
Under Gaddafi, Libya could boast one of the best healthcare services in the Middle East and Africa. Also if a Libyan citizen could not access the desired educational course or correct medical treatment in Libya they were funded to go abroad.
3. Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project
The largest irrigation system in the world also known as the great manmade river was designed to make water readily available to all Libyan’s across the entire country. It was funded by the Gaddafi government and it said that Gaddafi himself called it ”the eighth wonder of the world”.
4. It was free to start a farming business
If any Libyan wanted to start a farm they were given a house, farm land and live stock and seeds all free of charge.
5. A bursary was given to mothers with newborn babies
When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given 5000 (US dollars) for herself and the child.
6. Electricity was free
Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!
7. Cheap petrol
During Gaddafi’s reign the price of petrol in Libya was as low as 0.14 (US dollars) per litre.
8. Gaddafi raised the level of education
Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.
9. Libya had It’s own state bank
Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.
10. The gold dinar
Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gaddafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos.
The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.
The concept of ‘cultural Marxism‘ is a persistent and important term in the world of political activism. It is a term of the utmost pertinence in understanding the globalist spurred motives for the engineered happenings of the past, present, and future. It represents an ideology that seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behaviour, and is therefore totalitarian in nature.
“A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries (the elite).” — Georg Lukacs, Marxist philosopher
If we break it down, the term denotes the gradual denigration and neutralisation of Western ideals through the application of ‘critical theory’ this is essentially destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism.
At its core, this is a satanic agenda in disguise. It only takes a quick look into Biblical history to see that Cain, the smith, embodies the socialist-communist icon. Karl Marx was inspired by darkness, as detailed in ‘Marx and Satan’ by Richard Wurmbrand.
“Bilderberg pulls the strings of every government and intelligence agency in the Western world.” ― James Morcan, The Ninth Orphan
The reality will be enslavement, a state of absolute control over the domain of the human body; which is the ‘last frontier’ of autocratic self-determination. It will be a world without the liberties we enjoy today. A climate without the freedoms and natural rights we are presently accustomed to — and take for granted.
“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” – Samuel Adams, Essay in the Public Advertiser, 1749
Our Gods will be our overlords (government, from govern: control, and ment: mind), our indoctrinated customs and values will rally under their dominion, our very existence spent in a state of perpetual serfdom and servitude, we will give up our liberty for security and find ourselves chained in a cell.
“The very definition of tyranny is when all powers are gathered under one place.” – James Madison, The Federalist No. 47
It only takes a glance at the godless, communist stronghold, North Korea, to see this system in action. It will be a state of suppressed consciousness, no volume of media shall dissent their supreme narrative, no inkling of doubt shall sway their absolutism. We will be programmed to adore it, and the great teachings of old will be ashes lost in the wind, their peculiar brand of ‘progress’ is the free man’s nightmare.
Dictator Kim Jong Un addresses his footmen.
Cultural Marxism is fundamentally a socialist idea, it shifts what empowers the people to the state level and calls it equality, but in practise it has only ever failed miserably. The natural state of the world isinequality. It is a vain effort to concentrate the burden of inequality in the hands of a few, as this does not escape the self-evident corruptibility of our human condition, we will always be liable to corruption, so why try to fix our imperfections with more imperfection?
The Marxist idea is flawed because of this, it seeks to replace individual morality by addressing morality and justice through state intervention, the truth is these things will never be fixed; it must be left between the deep consultation of the individual and a Bible.
Free will cannot be tamed.
Our free-will means both good and bad, Marxism cannot seem to accept this, so it attempts to tear down what makes us human in order to ‘fix’ us. The truth is, we fix ourselves under the scriptures, self-discipline and following the long-held values we see in Western society; which is largely based on biblical scriptures. Even then, there will still be those who choose to sin.
Socialism is destructive, Capitalism is progressive.
“Socialism is not in the least what is pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilisation have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created . . . Each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.” — Ludvig Von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis
More commonly it is known as “multiculturalism”, ‘globalisation’ or, less formally, ‘political correctness’. From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.” These deceptive monikers mask the ideological root, and have served to dissuade criticism, and show the face of ‘multiculturalism’ as a progressive, virtuous effort. It is quite the contrary.
Churchill addressed the socialist issue astutely, the equal sharing of miseries;
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” — Winston Churchill
Cultural Marxism/Socialism has an end goal, destroying Western culture and Biblical faith, the value system that upholds individual liberty, and prevents tyranny from taking hold.
“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.”— Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ancient roots of socialism.
This pursuit for global governance has been evident since the first stirrings of human civilisation, as noted by scriptures in the Babylonian efforts to build a great tower to the heavens, the iconic tower of Babel.
By placing the Tower of Babel incident just prior to the stories of Abram and his descendants, the biblical writer is suggesting, in the first place, that post-flood humanity is as wicked as pre-flood humanity. Rather than sending something as devastating as a flood to annihilate mankind, however, God now places His hope in a covenant with Abraham as a powerful solution to humanity’s sinfulness. This tells us that force from a higher power (Communism-Socialism) will never save mankind, but mankind must save itself on an individual basis, through the Holy covenant.
This leads right into the Tower of Babel account in 11:1-9. In 11:1, Moses writes, “Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words.” After the flood, the whole earth spoke the same language. But man’s habitual sin brought about the language barrier.
In 11:2, we read these fateful words: “It came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.” The word “east” is intentionally alluded to in the Scriptures, to let us know that a person or group is moving contrary to God’s will. In the Genesis narratives, when man goes “east,” he leaves the land of blessing (Eden and the Promised Land) and goes to a land where the greatest of his hopes will turn to ruin (Babylon and Sodom).19
A classical Freemason term of acknowledgement is “I’m travelling in the East“. The East symbolises where the sun rises, and is the icon of rebellion against God.
Please also notice that they “settled” in Shinar. In 9:1, God clearly commanded Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (cf. 8:17). There is no reason to suspect that Noah’s descendants did not understand what God wanted. God wanted them to move throughout all the earth but they banded together in order to defy God’s command. They selected the best land that they could find; they staked their claim in the land of Shinar, a place that becomes associated with evil.
They said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.’” The motivation for building a city was to make the builders a name (cf. Ps 14:1). The object of this endeavor was to establish a center by which they might maintain their unity.21 Now God desired unity for humankind, but one that He created, not one founded on a social state. They wanted to “empower” themselves. Both motive and object were ungodly. God had instructed man to fill the earth (1:28), to spread over the whole planet. The builders of the “tower” seem to have intended that it serve as a memorial or landmark among other things.
Socialism attempts to fix humankind with more humankind.
What we have learned here is that looking to society (people)/socialism for the big answers, and not God, is undoubtedly a big mistake. Looking towards self-determination without the values posed by God will bring only chaos, ruin, and anguish. Capitalism leaves us to choose our path relative to the natural laws posed by the Bible, our government fully representative of us, and we representative of our government — socialist governments seldom represent the average man.
“Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean – power over people, power to the State.” — Margaret Thatcher, speech to Conservative Central Council, March 15, 1986
Socialism/communism (Without religion) puts the authority in the hands of the few people that rule. When will we accept that the human condition is terribly flawed? Human masters are still human, imperfect, and liable to exude these imperfections as we all do, hence the classical term; ‘human error’. We can’t escape that, not even in Marx’s Utopian vision.
The truth is that all of the divisions of the whole world are a result of sin and the righteous judgement of God. Socialism aims to fix this by introducing an eternally ongoing political campaign to pretend that we, as humans, can ever hope to fix sin as a community; it’s simply empty platitude, and a poor disguise to try and make the Bible seem redundant.
Mikhail Bakunin, the infamous Russian anarchist and for a while co-warrior of Marx: “The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognise each other by the words, ‘In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done.’” (He is speaking of Satan)
Are the Jews to blame?
Is the Globalist push for a NWO/Marxist-Socialist word order a Jewish plan? No.
Judaism is the true faith, by assuming the identity of Judaism the culprits are able to be hidden in plain sight.
By getting theorists and activists to turn against, and lambaste Judaism, they win in suppressing the Biblical values and practices that are their undoing.
As for Christianity, it is partially true, but overall it is false. ‘Churchianity’ as coined by Michael Rood, is at its roots, a misleading, pagan-influenced cult order that links to sun worship; one of the many names for Satanism. It outright ignores vast amounts of scripture, and does not teach the true practices of the Torah, it is more a weak gesture than a true practice of faith.
In the case of Catholicism, the Papal system is heavily imbued in Satanic practices, Christianity is an imitation of Judaism founded during the Council of Nicaea to conflate pagan deities with Jewish scriptures for the sake of collectivist religion, this made ruling easier for the Roman empire.
All in all, for the hope that we seek, the unity which man cannot find on his own, will only be revealed when we get to God’s covenant promises made to Abram.
I will end on this powerful quote by a former Marxist advocate;
“I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree.” — Karl R. Popper, Unended Quest
The monetary system in place enslaves us. It manipulates prices, inflates, contorts, contrives; it creates the illusion of sparsity where there is abundance, bottlenecks fruitfulness and pushes upon us austerity without due cause, except the elitist notion that a proletariat populace can be controlled.
Globalist Economics
This monetary system is based on fractional reserve currency, it is based on creating money where there is none, a constantly raised debt-ceiling that cannot ever be paid back. The passive populace consents to this, materialistic complacency satisfies the suppressed average man, we think our basic needs are enough, we are told we live in the lap of luxury; that we should not dare look beyond our white picket fences, to not think outside the box that is played to us on repeat.
Manufactured consent through heavy indoctrination allows the big government to play God, while we aimlessly wallow in our material possessions, submissive, dumb, valueless, and utterly swindled.
The artificial debt bubble is ever-growing, upheld by a dependency on the US petrodollar via the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference, which firmly established the U.S. Dollar as the global reserve currency, after the 1971 Nixon Shock when the United States abandoned the international gold standard. This arrogant, superlative status as reserve currency is enforced by a US-NATO combined military unimaginably powerful (Budget of around USD 600 billion). This is all reinforced through the back-channels of sanctions and deals that pull the global strings. However, the controllers know this debt bubble will have to burst eventually, as a boom-bust system must be fulfilled, unless…
“The collapse of the petrodollar system, which I believe will occur sometime within this decade, will make the 1971 Nixon Shock look like a dress rehearsal.” — Jerry Robinson @FTMDaily
According to radio show host and political activist, Bill Cooper, in order to avoid a complete financial collapse that would end the possibility of world government, they must bring about cashless currency, a single, centralised point of monetary control. Either that, or initiate a cataclysmic world war to mask the collapse.
This cashless system will prevent or mask the system from collapsing, this is because digits typed onto a screen constitutes the ultimate form of money-manipulation. This is because it shifts from the untraceable status of hard, cold cash to something completely controllable.
To reach this point, they must masterfully manufacture consent, they seek to wage this war on the people without firing a single bullet. According to Bill Cooper, they work in the shadows devising plans decades in advance, so to always be many steps ahead of the people they seek to deceive.
Manufactured Consent:
In order to get their own way, the Globalist elite must eradicate the sacrosanct, foundation-stone, unalienable rights and values held by the majority of people in the West. Once constitutionalism is broken, the ability for the globalists to do what they want will be a reality.
The U.S. Constitution, an inherently libertarian doctrine, details natural law as sovereign, this is the law of God, Biblical scripture is at its very basis, proposing that the rulers of man are subject to the laws of God, i.e. the right to bear arms.
These values are held relatively strongly in the West, which is arguably the last bastion of constitutional freedom and liberty – in order for the Socialist-Marxist Globalists to overturn this, they must gradually and tactfully employ numerous, underhanded methods, including;
Mass-importation, integration, and acceptance of people that have never known liberty, and thus will not defend said liberty/constitutional values. This is being actively seen with the current migrant crisis in Europe, an effort by cultural Marxists to eradicate Western values and lower the bar enough for them to seize control over the world’s sovereign nations, this is because these people will vote for socialist-establishment candidates and work for next to nothing, pushing down wage standards, living standards and also the standards of everything else, including the standards the people hold the governing body accountable to. With western men feminised (read on for more), the still-masculine third world people will quickly out-breed the remaining bloodlines that still hold onto constitutional values, cultural and social replacement in action.
Cultural engineering to uplift anti-liberty trends and customs as popular, the use of all levels of media production to push the agenda of socialist-Marxist Globalism is rife, and used to inculcate and indoctrinate people to lean towards socialist-Marxist policies, these are policies that whittle away national sovereignty and encourage passiveness, servitude and apathy.
Pushing for race division to portray ‘whiteness’ (liberty) as regressive and oppressive, this silences the dissenting voices from the predominantly white demographic, an ethnic group that on the whole, holds the most progressive values. If you shut down the native holders of constitutional values into a corner while piling in millions of regressive, third-world Islamic people, you can culturally overwrite & thus destroy the values, history and status (success/opulence) that ‘whiteness’ (which is really just the success of good values, race has nothing to do with it) has historically exuded and sought to share with everybody else. You’ll notice bans on confederate flags, a section of white culture branded as ‘racist’ yet the truth is that all cultures have had turbulent pasts, the socialist-Marxist objective is to target and eradicate cultures with Biblical and constitutional adherence.
Pushing an ostensibly ‘innocent’ and virtuous looking brand of politics that underhandedly brings socialistic, soft-imperialist politics to the forefront. The sheer lack of transparency in politics today is signified by the example of the idea that the EU will benefit the constituents ostensibly, the case is actually the opposite, member states are forced to cede their sovereign control, resources and influence to the Brussels-ruled bloc. The result is a socialist-inclined superstate ruled by the unelected few. A smaller version of what world government will eventually look like.
Acceptance of women as dominant, and men as submissive, in a charade that is marketed to appear progressive and liberal, the globalist efforts to ‘break the stereotypes’ of women as the submissive sex/vice versa for men, is undoubtedly a charlatan effort to undermine the sacred masculine energy (action and pursuit), an energy that threatens the globalist plans to seize control over the world. Remove the rebellious man from the equation, and you can take/do anything you want. The spreading of harmful chemicals through food/water influences bodily chemistry to turn men and women gay, in order to mask this noticeable change the Globalists have launched pro-gay campaigns to make it look like this mass ‘coming-out’ is due to a social movement, and not their sly chemical warfare. Popular culture also leans towards this contrived notion, the new starwars portrays Rey as a ‘strong female’ lead, there is even a scene where she openly rejects a male characters’ chivalrous advance.
Overturning the distinction of gender, in order to oust the secure concept of a masculine sex and a feminine sex, which something essential to a stable, natural world, the globalists have pushed a widespread campaign of LGBT. They seek to reinforce a broad, obscure spectrum of gender rather than the idea of two clear-cut genders. This will ruin the family structure, which is something that will damage a child’s biological development, without a clear mother/father the child will biologically turn to the state for parenting, in an appeal for a stronger role model. If you can make something as absolute as gender transient and vague, then you can overturn something as absolute as the constitution.
Feminising everything to overload the world with feminine energy. If this is achieved, people will be more inclined to emotional decision-making (feminine trait) rather than logical decision-making (a masculine trait). If people become too caring and non-pragmatic, the inclination is to vote socialist. It is asserted by Stefan Molyneux that women lean towards socialist politics. This is simply because they are naturally drawn to a figure that provides for them, in this case the government. Women love safety nets, it is a biological default, a predilection for security in the upbringing of a prospective child, when you overtly emphasise femininity, you very quickly get socialist politics to emerge.
Pushing a culture of giving in to temptation and our animal impulses. To concede to your animal nature is to give up on higher consciousness, and as a result become little more than an animal to be herded, regulated and controlled. Rudimentary impulses are predictable and easy to manipulate, for example, with the animal reaction of fear; the ‘fight and flight‘ reaction was utilised in the 9/11 event, a staged terrorist attack that rallied public support behind the consecutive wars in the middle-east. When your reptilian brain is constantly activated (the constant sensationalism of the mainstream media keeps our fear consistently piqued) we are in a state of low-functioning, panicked, reactionary decision-making, it suppresses our capacity for original, critical thought and favours the survival instinct, an instinct that overrides our ability to process the situation accurately, we naturally lash out in fear without really understanding the situation. This case of human nature is being constantly used against us, to great effect for the globalists.
An obsession with racial classification, the mainstream media’s obsession with classifying race is repugnant, constantly portraying blacks as underdogs being persecuted by whites (yet black-on-black crime is the real oppressor), having an obsession with racism and not ‘offending’ somebody else’s cultural roots, even if their culture is by fact, morally inferior. This media narrative favours and protects decadent cultures, it classifies and divides while spitting on ‘white’ western culture by cherry-picking, and magnifying eras of oppression, and ignoring the great advantages of constitutionalism. Simply by repeatedly outlining racial differences, the media fuels racial tension, a classic divide & conquer scheme.
The straight and narrow, the term in itself is oft used. It means we must renounce the world and all who are a part of it – unfortunately for our flesh embodiment this means undergoing a deal of pain in being born ‘again’ – as childbirth is a painful affair, to give life to the seed of the spirit we must undergo asceticism, it is the inevitable suffering of the flesh, so that life may spring forth from within.
“You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.” —Song of Solomon 4:12
“And they will spring up among the grass Like poplars by streams of water.” —Isaiah 44:4
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.“
—Psalm 69:8
“Nevertheless, when the Son of Man cometh, will he find faith on the earth?”
—Luke 18:8
“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.”
—Luke 21:17
Know this; the narrow road is a solitary one. As it is narrow in nature, you cannot walk alongside another. It is your path to take, yours alone.
Ask yourself. Are you walking in the spirit, or walking in the ways of the world?
The true path is not comfortable. We must be born into new form, as metal is forged by fire, and hardened by water.
“You made men ride over our heads; We went through fire and through water, Yet You brought us out into a place of abundance.” — Psalm 66:12
The road for the true believer is many times a lonely one. The hard road to the cross is one that is seldom congested or busy. The narrow road is most often a solitary way which the popular crowd is unwilling to tread.
Especially in the times in which we now live.
Particularly for those who warn of the danger of the broad way. The world and many who name themselves diligent in the faith want an easier rite of passage.
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.“ — Matthew 7:13-14
The true believer in YHWH is a man or woman set apart. Friends, family and acquaintances will often pull away and return to the world. Some are seduced by the glitter of the world’s shininess; some hear the world’s siren song whispered in their ear; others are drawn by lying promises, whatever they may be.
Many will leave the person of YHWH to continue his walk without human companionship, so is the nature of the world – it is written that it shall be this way, think not unkindly of yourself, you must become detached – it is the Way.
We are never alone. He is watchful over us, guiding our steps, inculcating our spiritual ruach as we are washed in, and purified by the Holy Word.
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is YHWH Elohim who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”— Deuteronomy 31:6
The loneliness of the faithful man results from his walk in light in a world of darkness, a walk that must often take him away from the fellowship of fellow men of Spirit as well as from that of the unregenerate world. His bodily instincts cry out for companionship with others of his kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his absorption in the love of Yahusha; and because within his circle of friends there are so few who share his inner experiences, he is forced to walk alone.
The man [or woman] who has passed on into the divine Presence in actual inner experience will not find many who understand him. He finds few who care to talk about that which is the supreme object of his interest, so he is often silent and preoccupied in the midst of noisy religious shoptalk. For this he earns the reputation of being dull and over-serious, so he is avoided and the gulf between him and society widens.
It is this very loneliness that throws him back upon God. His inability to find human companionship drives him to seek in God what he can find nowhere else.
It is this loneliness that brings us closer to YHWH, it is this dividing line that was meant to be – for us to leave behind this world and embrace Him in the perfect image, Yahusha, the innocent, blameless Son of Man.
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” — John 14:6
“Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.”
— Psalm 23:4
Yahusha says that narrow gate leads to a “hard” road, one that will take us through hardships and difficult decisions. Following Yahusha requires crucifying our flesh (Galatians 2:20; 5:24;Romans 6:2), living by faith (Romans 1:17; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Hebrews 10:38), enduring trials with Yahusha-like patience (James 1:2–3, 12; 1 Peter 1:6), and living a lifestyle separate from the world (James 1:27; Romans 12:1–2). When faced with the choice between a narrow, bumpy road and a wide, paved highway, most of us choose the easier road. Human nature gravitates toward comfort and pleasure. When faced with the reality of denying themselves to follow Yahusha, most people turn away (John 6:66). Yahusha never sugar-coated the truth, and the truth is that not many people are willing to pay the price to follow Him.
Most revealing of all is the sight of that One of whom Moses and all the prophets did write treading His lonely way to His execution, His deep loneliness unrelieved by the presence of the multitudes.
‘Tis midnight, and on Olive’s brow
The star is dimmed that lately shone;
‘Tis midnight; in the garden now,
The suffering Saviour prays alone.
‘Tis midnight, and from all removed
The Saviour wrestles lone with fears,
E’en the disciple whom He loved
Heeds not his Master’s grief and tears.
-WILLIAM B. TAPPAN
He died alone in the darkness hidden from the sight of mortal man and no one saw Him when He arose triumphant and walked out of the tomb, though many saw Him afterward and bore witness to what they saw.
“So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.“
—Luke 14:33
Born as the Son of the Father.
“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.”
—Matthew 19:29
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.
The following text is taken from an article on Theresa May removed by the Telegraph.
“After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.
People find this hard to credit because she exudes determination and strength. Compared to many of her bland, flabby cabinet colleagues, she has real gravitas. And few who follow British politics would deny that she is a deadly political infighter. Indeed Theresa May is to Westminster what Cersei Lannister is to Westeros in Game of Thrones: no one who challenges her survives undamaged, while the welfare of the realm is of secondary concern.
Theresa May: British police to be deployed to EurosPlay! 00:53
Take the demoralised, underfunded UK Border Force. As the public discovered after a people-smugglers’ vessel ran aground in May, it has has only three cutters protecting 7,700 miles of coastline. Italy by contrast has 600 boats patrolling its 4722 miles.
Considering the impression Mrs May gives of being serious about security, it’s all the more astonishing that she has also allowed the UK’s small airfields to go unpatrolled – despite the vastly increased terrorist threat of the last few years, the onset of the migration crisis, and the emergence of smuggling networks that traffic people, drugs and arms.
Then there is the failure to establish exit checks at all the country’s airports and ports. These were supposed to be in place by March 2015.
Border checks ‘suspended regularly’ since 2007Play! 02:18
Unfortunately the Border Force isn’t the only organisation under Mrs May’s control that is manifestly unfit for purpose. Recent years have seen a cavalcade of Home Office decisions about visas and deportations that suggest a department with a bizarre sense of the national interest.
The most infamous was the refusal of visas to Afghan interpreters who served with the British forces in Afghanistan – as Lord Guthrie said, a national shame.
Mrs May has kept so quiet about this and other scandals – such as the collapse of the eBorders IT system, at cost of almost a billion pounds – that you might imagine someone else was in charge the Home Office.
[It’s not just a matter of the odd error. Yvette Cooper pointed out in 2013 that despite Coalition rhetoric, the number of people refused entry to the UK had dropped by 50 per cent, the backlog of finding failed asylum seekers had gone up and the number of illegal immigrants deported had gone down.]
The reputation for effectiveness that Mrs May nevertheless enjoys derives from a single, endlessly cited event: the occasion in 2014 when she delivered some harsh truths to a conference of the Police Federation.
Cameron: Relaxation of border checks is ‘unacceptable’Play! 00:46
Unfortunately this was an isolated incident that, given the lack of any subsequent (or previous) effort at police reform, seems to have been intended mainly for public consumption.
In general Mrs May has avoided taking on the most serious institutional problems that afflict British policing. These include a disturbing willingness by some forces to let public relations concerns determine policing priorities, widespread overreliance on CCTV, the widespread propensity to massage crime numbers, the extreme risk aversion manifested during the London riots, and the preference for diverting police resources to patrol social media rather than the country’s streets.
There is also little evidence that Mrs May has paid much attention to the failure of several forces to protect vulnerable girls from the ethnically-motivated sexual predation seen in Rotherham and elsewhere. Nor, despite her supposed feminism, has Mrs May’s done much to ensure that girls from certain ethnic groups are protected from forced marriage and genital mutilation. But again, Mrs May has managed to evade criticism for this.
When considering her suitability for party leadership, it’s also worth remembering Mrs May’s notorious “lack of collegiality”.
David Laws’ memoirs paint a vivid picture of a secretive, rigid, controlling, even vengeful minister, so unpleasant to colleagues that a dread of meetings with her was something that cabinet members from both parties could bond over.
Unsurprisingly, Mrs May’s overwhelming concern with taking credit and deflecting blame made for a difficult working relationship with her department, just as her propensity for briefing the press against cabinet colleagues made her its most disliked member in two successive governments.
It is possible that Mrs May’s intimidating ruthlessness could make her the right person to negotiate with EU leaders. However, there’s little in her record to suggest she possesses either strong negotiation skills or the ability to win allies among other leaders, unlike Michael Gove, of whom David Laws wrote “it was possible to disagree with him but impossible to dislike him,”
It’s surely about time – and not too late – for conservatives to look behind Mrs May’s carefully-wrought image and consider if she really is the right person to lead the party and the country.
There’s a vast gulf between being effective in office, and being effective at promoting yourself; it’s not one that Theresa May has yet crossed.”
Theresa May, a remain campaigner who is playing to the ears of the Brexit majority by espousing appeasement politics; yet her real agenda will be to subtly maintain EU policies, especially the out of hand free movement of people, keeping the UK technically bound to the EU; falsely claiming that it will be ‘non-negotiable’ to access the single market any other way, and swing the UK back into the superstate EU in the long run, likely with another referendum a few years down the line – after a good tirade of media conditioning, and the continued mass importation of third world, EU loving migrants to swing the vote.
May is the EU’s saboteur insider.
Order out of chaos, the establishment once again feigns the illusion of chaos, and offers a ‘solution’ in Theresa, their chosen candidate. A classical Hegelian Dialectic.
The truth is, that the new leadership for the Tory government is fundamentally undemocratic, the voters aren’t getting a say, and those within the largely remain inclined Tory party are making all the big decisions on who gets to be in the hot seat – which by the looks of things; with Theresa May’s growing support within the Tory circle, will not reflect the recent vote to leave the EU at all.
You can get a tailored deal outside of free movement
Switzerland had successfully dodged the free movement bullet, but in recent times the antidemocratic clutches of the EU bureaucracy has clawed back with another vote to get the ‘right result’ – despite Swiss voters already unanimously having voted against free movement, proving once again its a game of bullying that the EU employs to get its way:
Swiss told to vote again on free movement – except this time the stakes are higher
This proves that it is possible to avoid free movement, but Theresa May will undoubtedly seek to bury this reality if she gets into power, and play us all back into the hands of the EU by not completely severing the ties that bind. We’ll be trapped in limbo between the EU and our national independence.
But the plot thickens, as in recent days it has been revealed that the Telegraph has dubiously removed an article of theirs that had criticized Theresa May: the propagandist censorship intensifies…
“After all, Mrs May’s tenure as Home Secretary has been little better than disastrous – a succession of derelictions that has left Britain’s borders and coastline at least as insecure as they were in 2010, and which mean that British governments still rely on guesswork to estimate how many people enter and leave the country.”
“Remain supporter Theresa May, who seems to be getting carried along on an undeserved reputation for ‘toughness’ despite the fact that she has presided over the greatest increases in immigration of any Home Secretary in history and happily slashed away at our Border Force and Coast Guard to appease George Osborne, is manifestly not that person (to lead the UK as the new PM).”
Backtracking: As of July 1st 2016 Theresa May has revoked her plans to take Britain out of European Convention of Human Rights, a controversial set of legislation that has prevented us deporting extremists. Theresa can’t seem to hold any reliability to her statements.
Theresa lacks the backbone, mindset and conviction to lead a government that will uphold the democratic decision of the people to leave the EU, she will pander to both sides and ultimately deliver a half-baked solution that will gradually lead the UK back into the EU.
Why it must be Andrea Leadsom
Andrea Leadsom, a Brexit supporter, someone who has kept out of the media limelight with calmness, modesty and composure, seems to be the ideal candidate to definitively lead the UK away from the EU.
She has taken a refreshingly realistic, down-to-earth position on the EU, setting her miles above Theresa May who has spouted cliche platitudes and virtue-signaled her way through candidacy speeches.
Leadsom, a modest candidate that seems to be fully committed to Brexit, unlike most running candidates, she has class & compliments her opponents.
It’s absolutely clear that whoever takes the helm, they must be fully committed to Brexit, and really believe that leaving the failing EU represents the best course of action for the United Kingdom.
The truth comes down to whether you want an anti-democratic, supranational entity and its delegated cronies to guide our future, or a collection of independent, interacting, co-operating, democratic and friendly national bodies that counterbalance eachother in a healthy way.
In no fathomable way can waywardly centralized power ever spell success for us, man is simply too vulnerable to temptation to be given a throne over the world and call it ‘unity’ – and that’s why I endorse true, free market capitalist nationalism with limited government that works for the people, instead of vice versa, Andrea Leadsom seems to be the right candidate to recognize this reality.
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 