Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Dictator of the British Empire

  1. #1

    Dictator of the British Empire

    When I tell the people in Britain that they´re ruled by dictator Queen Elizabeth, they think I’m insane. Arguably England is the only real colonial power left in the world.

    It is well-known that Queen Elizabeth has a weekly talk with the puppet she selected for Prime Minister. That the Royals talk with politicians to give them “advice” becomes clear when you read the letters Prince Charles sent to several members of cabinet.
    It is clear that when Charles advises ministers on politics, his mother does the same but with more authority. Here’s the story on these letters (including a link “You can read them in full here” where you can search with “prince of Wales”):
    I think the most interesting of these letters are to the (then) Prime Minister Tony Blair of September 8, 2004 and February 24, 2005 (and the replies from Blair) that address the topics British agriculture, investments in the military and the global warming problem (that´s depopulation Agenda21):

    Britain doesn’t even have a constitution, but a number of “Acts” that together can be considered the constitution. The Bill of Rights of 1689 has never been repealed, so you already know that Britain doesn’t respect human rights any better than was the standard in the 17th century. I did read Wikipedia (and some other websites) to get an idea on the “constitution” of Great Britain:
    According to Wikipedia these are some of the powers of Queen Elizabeth, she can: 1) dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister, 2) dismiss and appoint other ministers, 3) summon and prorogue Parliament, 4) grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law), 5) commission officers in the army, 6) command the army, 7) appoint members to the Privy Council, 8) issue and withdraw passports, 9) grant prerogative of mercy, 10) grant honours, 11) create corporations by Royal Charter, 12) appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, 13) ratify and make treaties, 14) declare war and peace, 15) recognise states, 16) accredit and receive diplomats, 17) fill vacancies in the Supreme Court.Only since 2011 the Queen doesn´t have the power to dissolve parliament anymore (in the Netherlands the King does have this power).
    The conclusion can only be that British Queen is nothing but a dictator. Please note that it’s Elizabeth that appointed Prime Minister Theresa May and dismissed the other ministers and secretaries over Brexit.
    The Queen can make new laws by “Orders in Council” that either come in effect immediately as sort of a decree (Royal Prerogatives), but can be repealed by the Parliament, or with an act of Parliament. There is only one other institute in Britain that can propose laws, this is not the democratically elected House of Commons, but the Queen’s Privy Council that can propose Orders of Council without the Queen´s approval. Although I doubt if this is possible for all types of laws (and still the Royal assent is required).
    To make things even less democratic than in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, there’s the House of Lords (peers) most of which get appointed by the Queen. There used to be more “hereditary peers” in the House of Lords, but this has been restricted to 92 (of a grand total of 798), to give the Queen even more freedom to choose whomever she wants. Formally the House of Lords since 1911 cannot prevent Bills from coming into effect (a veto), but in reality has done so regularly.
    According to the following story Elizabeth has a number of cartoonish powers (but I don’t think it’s funny). The Queen has her personal cash printing machine. She doesn’t have to pay taxes but does so voluntarily (does anybody believe this?). Elizabeth is immune from prosecution. In 1975 Queen Elizabeth ordered the Governor-General to fire the Prime Minister of Australia:
    In 2013 it was made public that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles in 39 occasions used their power to block bills (while we are made to believe that the last time the Royal assent was used to block a law was in 1708). In one occasion Elizabeth torpedoed the transfer of powers to authorise military intervention in Iraq from the Queen to the parliament:

    All the countries of the Commonwealth with a Governor-General are in effect colonies under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II (see the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister in 1975). The following colonies have a Governor-General (in between brackets the year they were established with Governor-General): Antigua and Barbuda (since 1981), Australia (1901), Bahamas (1973), Barbados (1966), Belize (1981), Canada (1867), Grenada (1974), Jamaica (1962), New Zealand (1917), Papua New Guinea (1975), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978).
    Canada was created by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain called the British North America Act, 1867 (the Constitution Act, 1867). This has never been repealed, so – by law – Canada is a colony of England. If you understand that words like “constitutional convention”, don´t mean that the Queen doesn´t use these powers you already know she is the ruling dictator of the British Empire; in the following is all the evidence you need to know that Canada is part of the dictatorship of Queen Elizabeth II:
    In Canada (and also in the other countries with a Governor-General) it’s the Governor-General (selected by the Queen) that proposes laws (bills); laws only come into effect if they are approved by the democratically elected House of Commons of Canada (1 for each of the 4 provinces), the senate and “assented” by the Queen. The Governor-General summons qualified Senators to the Senate (like the House of Lords). Also interesting to note is that only since 1949 Canada has its own Supreme Court (before that the English Courts ruled supreme over Canada).
    The following is from the Canada CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 (pay close attention to art. 54).
    24. The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.
    54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
    55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.
    If you want an example of a Royal family with only ceremonial powers, you could read the Japanese constitution, where the Emperor doesn’t have real (executive) power.

    Another interesting story about the abuse of powers is that in 1966 the Queen’s Privy Council evicted the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65 islands of the Chagos Archipelago, so that the USA could station a military base on Diego Garcia. In 2000 in a judicial review claim by Olivier Bancoult the Court of Appeal ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful.
    In 2004 the Privy Council simply changed the procedure under which the eviction was ordered, by Order in Council to overturn the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice decided the 2004 order was unlawful. On October 22, 2008 the House of Lords decided to uphold the order of 2004 (let’s call it democracy):

    When a subject needs to be silenced the Royals have their legal or illegal ways.
    The murder of Lady Diana in 1997 got a lot of attention, how could anybody believe that the chauffeur of a multimillionaire would cause a fatal traffic accident? This was not some cheap car, that wouldn’t keep the people in the car safe. Diana and Dodi Al Fayed where clearly happy with all of the attention in the media, so why would they run from the paparazzi?
    I’ve seen a lot of rumours that the “accident” was caused by first blinding the driver with a bright flash of light and blocking the breaks of the car (see the book by former British agent Richard Tomlinson). The photos of the car after the crash indicate that the bodyguard that survived on the front seat would have been more injured than Diana and Al Fayed in the back seat.
    The following story seems too good to be true. In the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" Doctor Frederic Mailliez (that was coincidentally in the tunnel) testified that Diana was only slightly injured directly after the crash:
    The photographs on this site were removed from internet. When I put the following photograph, that shows Lady Di alive and well after the crash (with a photo of the crashed car), on, it was removed immediately from, it later mysteriously reappeared:

    This photograph was shown on the site above the text: “Dr. Mailliez supplies with oxygen Princess Diana, slightly injured, while CNN & Co. "seriously" set the stage for the murder, while allowing a glimpse at the horrible truth”.
    The story on the photograph is in the section “Why one of the photos of Diana in the car was published 2006 in Italy”.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    David Icke is corrupt

    Most people have never even heard of David Icke, but for millions he’s the number 1 conspiracy theorist. To illustrate Icke’s popularity his forum boasts: “Most users ever online was 30,561, 14-09-2012 at 06:27 PM”.
    There are a lot of easily impressionable people that believe conspiracy theories, just because Icke says so, for example: the earth is ruled by reptilians/ET’s and there is no moon.

    When I posted on the forum (of state network KRO) earlier in 2016, after several weeks I got an additional anti-spam filter for every post I made (after I had already logged in with username/password). After I put some less than flattering information about the Dutch and British Monarchies on, yesterday I got exactly the same filter (in Dutch for this American site!).
    This is evidence that David Icke is nothing but a puppet for the Dutch and British Royal families. See the screenprint of yesterday.

  4. #3
    O, if only Britain were still a monarchy, it would be much better governed.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  5. #4

    Canada – Duplessis´ orphans and genocide Native Americans

    I have some information on crimes against humanity against children in Canada, colony of England.
    These are the responsible Governor Generals from 1946 till 1974 (in between brackets the years in which they were appointed): The Viscount Alexander of Tunis (1946), Vincent Massey (1952), Georges Vanier (1959), and Roland Michener (1967-1974).

    Another scandal is the terrible story of the ten thousands Duplessis’ orphans, that were sentenced to mental diseases in Canada in the 1940s and 1950s. That were named after former Quebec Prime Minister Maurice Duplessis. Already in 1962 the Bedard Commission acknowledged that one-third of the 22,000 psychiatric patients were wrongly institutionalised:
    These children were simply told one day that they were retards, didn’t get any schooling and had to perform slave labour. As if this wasn’t enough they got corporal punishment, experimental anti-psychotics (like Chlorpromazine), ECT, lobotomies, and were sexually molested. Medical records were falsified to hide the evidence.
    The orphanages were stimulated to declare these children insane because the government paid only $1.25 a day for orphans, but $2.75 a day for psychiatric patients. In 1999, Léo-Paul Lauzon and Martin Poirier estimated that Christian groups received $70 million in subsidies (measured in 1999 dollars) by claiming children as "mentally deficient" while the government saved $37 million by changing one of its orphanages from educational institution to psychiatric hospital.
    In 2001 the Canadian government offered 10,000 dollar plus an additional 1000 dollar for each year spent in an asylum, only, to surviving orphans that got lobotomies (1,500 people qualified for compensation) and in 2006 they provided an additional $26 million compensation. To put this in perspective: this is less than the orphanages got in the first place, while 1000 dollar a year amounts to 2.76 dollar per day of torture.
    Not one of the psychiatrists and child care workers that participated in the torture of these children were charged in a criminal case.

    This is also indicative for the reason dictators want a Prime Minister. These orphans were named after Prime Minister Duplessis, when in reality the Governor General simply ordered the Prime Minister what to do in accordance with the wishes of the Queen, and the Prime Minister can be used for a scapegoat.

    The genocide on Native American children in Catholic residential schools in Canada from the end of the nineteenth century on is well-documented. It is estimated that some 50,000 children were killed, while also a lot of potential mothers were sterilised.
    Here you can read that the Canadian government (of Queen Elizabeth) together with the Catholic Church has been trying to exterminate all Native Americans (for a final solution):
    On April 12, 1910 D.C. Scott declared: “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem”.

  6. #5

    Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel

    Here’s the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007):
    This documentary is more about the paparazzi than about the murder of Diana (it implies that the photographers were unjustly blamed for the death). Several photographers testify that they were harassed by the French police to give up their pictures of the car wreck with Diana in it.

    The most interesting parts of the documentary are the following 2 statements of Doctor Frederic Mailliez - that provided Diana with first aid in the tunnel (you can go to the time stamps if you don't care to watch the whole documentary).
    11:04 – 11:20: “she [Diana] didn’t have any blood on her face, but she was unconscious and her head was down like that and she had difficulty to breathe, so she needed some assistance very quickly
    15:56 – 16:06: “I thought this beautiful woman had a good chance to live because I thought it was just a head injury
    This is nothing less than the testimony from a medical doctor that inspected Diana personally, and concluded that she was not that badly injured to die (from these injuries).

  7. #6

    Carbon Monoxide, Flash of light

    So far I’ve found evidence that:
    1) Doctor Frederic Mailliez’ medical opinion was that Diana would survive.
    2) A photograph that shows that Diana wasn’t visibly hurt after the crash.
    3) The photographers at the scene were harassed and had their pictures confiscated (so the French police were part of the cover-up of the murder).
    4) Internet is censored, the pictures were removed from

    Interestingly Doctor Frederic Mailliez (with his friend Mark Butt) wasn’t the first to help Diana. The photographer Romuald Rat with his driver Stephane Darmon arrived at the scene before Mailliez; Rat opened the door where he saw Diana laying on the floor of the car, took her pulse and spoke some soothing words to her. The following site also includes a short video of an interview with Rat (in French):

    Now look at the following photograph that shows “Diana” horribly injured, and then look again at the picture above that shows that Diana didn’t have visible injuries.

    Here’s a photograph with blood on the outside of the car (in the blue squares). They are freeing bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones on the front passenger seat. The back door of the car opens just fine, Diana has already been removed, so why would it take 1 and a half hours to get her to the hospital. I remember that the state media told that it took so long because Diana had to be freed from the car.
    After the car crash at 0:25 A.M. at 0:32 A.M. the fire men and ambulance arrive. Only on 1:25 A.M. the ambulance left to arrive at the Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital at 2:06 A.M.!

    Here in a later picture there’s no blood on the outside of the car. So was the blood in the earlier picture animated (that they should have painted on the inside of the car) or had they wiped the car to destroy evidence?

    In October, 1993 Lady Diana was already afraid she would be murdered in a car crash by Prince Charles. She sent a letter to her butler Paul Burrell in which she writes that she will be murdered by Charles, who is “planning “an accident” in my car (...) to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy” (Tiggy Legge-Bourke, former nanny of Princes William and Harry).

    It has been said that both Dodi and Diana would have survived the crash if they had worn their seatbelts (Trevor Rees-Jones reportedly survived the crash because he put it on shortly before the crash). If Diana would be afraid to be murdered in a car crash, surely she would have worn it. Diana was known to wear a seatbelt, see the photos.

    First the official story was that Diana and Dodi were running from the paparazzi, but the paparazzi weren’t close to the car when it crashed. There have been some witnesses that saw a number of motorcycles close to the Mercedes and a slow car, but no paparazzi (photographers would have surely stuck around if they witnessed the crash). If Lady Diana was still afraid of being murdered, she would have thought that the media attention was her best protection.
    Then they invented the story that the driver Henri Paul was drunk and presented autopsy results that confirmed that he had 3 times the legal limit (comparable to 2 bottles of wine). They also found several psychiatric drugs in his blood (including Prozac), which would make the effects of the alcohol even stronger. Why would Dodi and Diana let a drunken chauffeur drive them?
    There have been several testimonies that confirm that Paul didn’t look drunk. There have also been testimonies that Paul wasn’t a heavy drinker (or an alcoholic). There is no evidence that Henri Paul had bought psychiatric drugs. There was even alcohol planted in Henri Paul’s apartment after the police had already investigated there:
    High levels of carbon monoxide (20.7%) were found in Henri Paul’s blood (enough to make it impossible to walk). This is evidence they took blood from another body (possible of a death by suicide with carbon monoxide poisoning, that drank alcohol and committed suicide for being depressed as a result of using Prozac). The blood was kept for 24 hours in an unguarded refrigerator to make this possible:
    Bar owner Josiane Le Tellier (Josy) of the Le Champmesle, knew Henri Paul well, and saw him at 9:45 P.M., and he didn’t look drunk:
    Interestingly Paul was called on his mobile phone (that he had with him) at 9:45 P.M. to come to work, so it is ridiculous that it’s claimed that nobody knew where he was between 7 and 10 P.M.; surely the police could have investigated the data from the phone.
    Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones has stated that Paul appeared “perfectly normal”: “In the bar, we ordered dinner and were joined by Henri Paul. He had a drink, I do not know what it was, but it was yellow-coloured. While we had dinner, Paul came and went about the hotel, he was perfectly normal. I did not sense him being on edge, he was just as he usually was in my dealings with him. After a while, Paul had another drink”. Rees-Jones didn’t know if the yellow drink contained alcohol or not.

    Not only did Richard Tomlinson declare that Diana was murdered by crashing the car by blinding the driver with a flash of light, but multiple witnesses - Francois Levistre and Brian Anderson - have seen a bright white flash just ahead of the Mercedes after it entered the tunnel.
    Francois Levistre said he saw a flash of white light coming from the passenger seat of a motorcycle. The motorcycle passenger got off after the crash, looked inside the vehicle and makes a hand gesture to the bike's driver before they sped off:
    The American tourist Brian Anderson also said that there was a flash of light before the crash:
    I don’t know how to verify the next, but if it’s real, it is very important. It claims that days before the “accident” the Mercedes was stolen, in which time they could have tampered with the brakes or even could have installed technology to take over the car by remote control. The onboard computer chip was stolen and then could have been replaced with a new “special” one: http://princess-diana-life-n-death.b...of-stolen.html
    The most informative site I found on the murder of Diana Frances Spencer is this:

    And of course Diana didn’t get an autopsy to find out what caused her death, at the request of the British Royal family (the prime suspects).
    Maybe it’s not really important if Diana was pregnant at the time, but the following photograph with Prince William on holiday in France 14 days earlier, shows an unmistakable bump around her waistline.
    Last edited by Firestarter; 11-29-2016 at 05:18 AM.

  8. #7

    Premeditated Mirror, the new “Mailliez”

    Now for the truly jaw dropping stuff on the murder of Lady Di (and that’s a promise).
    I will first start with some interesting information, and will end with a really shocking exclusive...

    I watched another documentary “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014):
    I don’t rate this documentary very high except for the interview with John Macnamara (from 27:12 - 28:14), director security of Harrods, who did his own investigation for “Mohamed Al-Fayed”.
    Macnamara tells that the news that the speedometer was stuck at 192 km/h (120 miles per hour), was a lie. Mercedes immediately had this “news” refuted: a speedometer goes to 0 after a crash.
    John Macnamara also tells that the headline that Henri Paul had 3 times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood came out before the blood had even been analysed. See the front page of the Mirror with the headline “121 MILES PER HOUR / 3 TIMES DRINK DRIVE LIMIT”.

    Also interesting in this video is that from 36:53 – 37:03 the voice over tells that the Mercedes had been stolen 3 months earlier and had the electronics ripped out and replaced (possibly with electronics for remote takeover of the car). I add that the seatbelts in the car could have been sabotaged.
    I’ve tried to find more information (text or video) of John Macnamara on the murder of Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed, but haven’t found much. The best I’ve found is this transcript from CNN of Macnamara and attorney Mark Zaid (this could be censored) “In fact, within 36 hours it was proclaimed that Henri Paul was as drunk as a pig, three times over the drink-drive limit, driving at 192 kilometers, 120 miles an hour. Now, that was a statement that was categorically put out in the French and British press. We now know -- in fact, we knew within hours that the speedometer in the Mercedes reverts to zero on impact, so their allegation that it was stuck at 192 kilometers an hour was false -- it was a deliberate false statement”:
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Here’s the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007):
    This documentary is more about the paparazzi than about the murder of Diana (it implies that the photographers were unjustly blamed for the death). Several photographers testify that they were harassed by the French police to give up their pictures of the car wreck with Diana in it.

    The most interesting parts of the documentary are the following 2 statements of Doctor Frederic Mailliez - that provided Diana with first aid in the tunnel (you can go to the time stamps if you don't care to watch the whole documentary).
    11:04 – 11:20: “she [Diana] didn’t have any blood on her face, but she was unconscious and her head was down like that and she had difficulty to breathe, so she needed some assistance very quickly
    15:56 – 16:06: “I thought this beautiful woman had a good chance to live because I thought it was just a head injury
    So now for the shocking stuff; the English fashion of silencing witnesses, and easy to see. In the documentary “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014) also a “Frederic Mailliez” appears, this time telling not that he didn’t see only a head injury and no blood, but this time saying that he saw only a little blood on Diana. If you don’t study them carefully they look the same.

    I made 2 screenshots, that you can see below, on the left is Doctor Frédéric Mailliez from "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007), on the right is the “Doctor Mailliez” from the video from “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014).
    First look at the colour of their eyes: Mailliez had dark brown eyes; the replacement actor has blue eyes.
    Left of the mouth of the blue eyed actor is a noticeable crack that the real Mailliez didn’t have.
    Another noticeable difference is that the eyebrows of the blue eyed replacement are lighter and have a different shape. The blue eyed actor looks younger, while this video is from a later date (7 years?). They also have a different skin colour, which isn’t only a sun tan. I’ve written down some more differences below the picture.

    If you really want to find all the difference, you should watch (and hear) the “real” Mailliez in “Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" and the blue eyed fake actor in “WHO KILLED DIANA?” from 6:42 – 6:52 and 9:16 – 9:27.
    The video of the fake blue eyed “Mailliez” intentionally shows the other side of his face (ironically this makes the crack left of his mouth easier to see) and is taken in too much of a close-up.
    The real Mailliez uses a lot of hand gestures and a lot of facial expression, including frowning with his eyebrows. The fake blue eyed actor imitates this not very well.
    Also noticeable is that the real (French) Mailliez has difficulties with English, but the fake blue eyed actor doesn’t imitate this good (he reminds me of the comedy series ‘Allo ‘Allo (1982 - 1995), where English actors speak with a French accent).
    Last edited by Firestarter; 04-14-2018 at 11:00 AM. Reason: changed URLs

  9. #8
    I’ve really tried to find more interesting information on the murder of Diana.
    The best addition I found is a better photograph (and a second one) of Diana alive and not looking injured after the crash, which you can see directly below (the man in white is Doctor Frederic Mailliez).

    A possible motive for the murder of Diana is that she had kept a Diary of the secrets of the British Royal family, including the adultery of Charles.
    Diana also kept a video of George Anthony Smith, that claimed he was raped by Michael Fawcett, a close friend/servant of Charles, who pressed charges with the police (that refused to investigate). He also saw Prince Charles and Fawcett in bed together. George Smith died suddenly in 2005 of an unknown disease:

    There is also a rumour (started by Richard Tomlinson) that Henri Paul was an informer for the British secret intelligence agency MI6. There appears to be hard evidence that Henri Paul was in fact a paid informer for the French Intelligence agency Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) and possibly also Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE). Maybe Henri Paul was instructed by the DST to take the route to Dodi’s apartment through the Alma tunnel, and use the sabotaged Mercedes car:

    I appears that Dodi Al-Fayed wasn’t the only Muslim that was courting Diana. If Diana was indeed pregnant at the time of her death, the baby would probably have been of Hasnat Khan (instead of Dodi). Khan and Diana had a (sexual) relationship from 1995 to 1997 and even had wedding plans. From the looks of it this was more serious than the 6 weeks fling of Diana and Dodi:

    I haven’t been able to reach the site of Mohamed Al-Fayed (father of Dodi) Here is some information archived (but I cannot open the Inquest page):

  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Britain – Eton, Bullingdon

    Who runs the world?
    Look no further than Eton and the Bullingdon club.

    Just a few of the power brokers that went to Eton.
    Prince Harry, Prince William, Nathaniel Philip (Nat) Rothschild, Baron Jacob Rothschild, David Cameron (former PM), Boris Johnson (Mayor of London), Earl Spencer (Princess Diana's brother), Abhisit Vejjajiv (Thailand's PM), Prince Zara Yacog of Ethiopia:
    Actor Rob James-Collier, explained that those with a “comfort blanket” of money to fall back on had a better chance of success. The Etonian Dominic West explained that these rich boys have it really difficult and that Etonian is a stigma slightly above paedophile in the media:
    There’s even a direct link to the Goldman Sachs that controls the US presidency: Boris Johnson became partner there. There is also a direct link to the Dutch Royal family: the late Prince Friso was director Investment banking at Goldman Sachs for a couple of years:
    Even some world famous authors went to Eton: Ian Fleming, George Orwell (Eric Blair), Aldous Huxley (also teacher at Eton) and Julian Huxley.
    Don’t expect that for a mere £15,000 a year to go to Eton you can buy your little boy a career.

    More controversial than Eton is the Bullingdon Dining Club (only students of Oxford) where we see a lot of Etonians return. They are known for their wild parties that includes vandalism, hookers, blood and lots of alcohol:
    Just a few of the ex-members of Bullingdon: Baron Jacob Rothschild, Nat Rothschild, David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Jo Johnson, George Osborne, Lord David John Ogilvy (heir of the 13th Earl of Airlie), Philip Astor (brother of Lord Astor).
    Here’s a picture from the 1987 Bullingdon Club with 2) David Cameron and 8) Boris Johnson.

    In this Bullingdon photo from 1992, we can see: (1) George Osborne (Shadow Chancellor, (2) Harry Mount (Cameron’s cousin) and (7) Nat Rothschild. The photo has been tampered with: 5) is leaning on thin air and in front of Rothschild is a white shirt without body.

    It’s real democratic that the Brits electorate can elect really independent politicians like - David Cameron.
    David Cameron not only was part of Eton and Bullingdon; he descended from King James I, which makes him a fifth cousin, twice removed, from Queen Elizabeth. His wife Samantha Sheffield Cameron is the current heiress to the Astor family-fortune. Samantha is the great-grandaughter of King Charles II; which makes David and Samantha 11th cousins twice removed:

    Elizabeth will receive £45.6 million this year. The Queen gets a £2.8 million raise this year. The amount would represent a 57% increase for the monarch since 2012, when she received a mere £29.1 million:
    Sir Evelyn Rothschild serves as the personal financial advisor to Queen Elizabeth. She knighted him in 1989.

    Nat Rothschild was once romantically involved with Ivanka Trump, daughter of the elected US president Donald.
    Nat Rothschild is also very close to the Putin administration by his good friends Roman Abramovich and Oleg Deripaska:
    Why would a woman that looks like Loretta Basey marry a man that looks like Nat Rothschild?

    Maybe the reason is similar to the reason why Maxima married crown prince (now King) Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. Queen Maxima has said that she fell for Willem-Alexander because of his great sense of humour. To illustrate how funny these Royals can be: Queen Maxima visited Neurenberg in a dress decorated with Swastikas.

  12. #10
    Dictator of the British Empire
    Isn't that J. K. Rowling currently?

  13. #11
    Aren't you the one that fooled me into reading about an ant-hill?
    Maybe some people appreciate your sense of humour, but the truth is sometimes more horrible than fiction.
    Have you ever heard of the first doctor on the scene after the car crash of Lady Di and Dodi - Doctor Frédéric Mailliez?

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    I made 2 screenshots, that you can see below, on the left is Doctor Frédéric Mailliez from "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007), on the right is the “Doctor Mailliez” from the video from “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014).
    First look at the colour of their eyes: Mailliez had dark brown eyes; the replacement actor has blue eyes.
    Left of the mouth of the blue eyed actor is a noticeable crack that the real Mailliez didn’t have.
    Another noticeable difference is that the eyebrows of the blue eyed replacement are lighter and have a different shape. The blue eyed actor looks younger, while this video is from a later date (7 years?). They also have a different skin colour, which isn’t only a sun tan. I’ve written down some more differences below the picture.

    If you really want to find all the difference, you should watch (and hear) the “real” Mailliez in “Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" and the blue eyed fake actor in “WHO KILLED DIANA?” from 6:42 – 6:52 and 9:16 – 9:27.
    Last edited by Firestarter; 01-17-2017 at 11:42 AM.

  14. #12

    More on the murder of Diana

    Almost 20 years after Lady Diana was murdered in Paris, she is rarely out of the news.

    In tapes first aired on US television in 2004, captured by her speech coach Peter Settelen in 1992, Princess Diana talks about her failing marriage and how she “was only happy” with a particular man. Diana admits she was "playing with fire" and "got burned".
    Following her death in 1997, the tapes were in the home of her butler Paul Burrell. Diana’s family insisted the tapes should be returned to them, but in 2004 they were returned to Settelen, who reportedly sold them for £500,000.
    In 2007, the BBC bought the rights to keep the tapes on the shelves. Recently (parts of) this tape was broadcast in Britain.

    When I was 24, 25, I fell deeply in love with somebody who worked in this environment.
    I just, you know, wore my heart on my sleeve. I was only happy when he was around. I was like a little girl in front of him the whole time, desperate for praise, desperate.
    I was quite happy to give it all up [her royal life], just to go off and live with him. Can you believe it? And he kept saying he thought it was a good idea, too.

    It was all found out and he was chucked out. Then he was killed. I think he was bumped off. But, um, there we are . . . we’ll never know.
    Starting at 44:55.

    It is believed Diana was talking about her bodyguard in 1985, 1986 - Barry Mannakee.
    Mannakee was married with two children. Mannakee reportedly flirted openly with Diana in front of servants. But there is no evidence that they engaged in a sexual relationship.
    The night before Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson’s wedding in July 1986, Diana was caught in her drawing room in Kensington Palace with Mannakee. A member of Charles’s staff popped his head around the door, and “found the Princess and her detective in a compromising situation”.
    Mannakee was accused of being “over-familiar” with the Princess, and transferred.

    On the night of 15 May 1987, Mannakee was invited for a ride home on the motorbike of fellow cop Steven Peat. Later that night, the fatal crash with the Ford Siesta driven by Nicola Chopp occurred in Woodford, north-east London.
    Mannakee died almost instantly after breaking his spine in two places. Peat and Chopp both survived. An inquest into the death concluded it was an accident.

    When they were on their way to the Cannes Film Festival, Prince Charles told Diana of the fatal crash. Diana, then 25, froze in horror, wept uncontrollably, tore her clothes and scratched her arms and legs.
    When they arrived in Cannes, Diana’s gown had to be adjusted to cover the wounds on her body:

    Here are bodyguard Barry Mannakee and Princess Diana

    Mannakee's brother-in-law Richard Emmins reportedly said:
    First, he had this accident, then Diana dies in a Paris car crash...however getting to the truth will probably be impossible. We are up against the Establishment. They only let you know as much as they want you to know.
    In 2004, Lord Brocket, 53, claimed that there was a secret file of a forensic examination of the Suzuki motorcycle on which Mannakee died. This showed the bike had been tampered with.
    Lord Brocket said this was told to him, by a cop he met in Springhill Open Prison where both served time for fraud:

    The 85-year-old father of driver Henri Paul, Jean, has claimed that UK police told him Diana had been murdered: “Inside Scotland Yard, some believe there was a secret plot to kill Diana.
    He also said that Henri was not an alcoholic or a drug addict.
    The self-confessed lover of Diana, James Hewitt, told an inquiry into her death that he was “warned off” and received threatening phone calls to end their affair in 1989, 1990.

    It is obviously dangerous to your health to know what has happened.
    After Henri Paul was killed, also 2 of his brothers died, Jean-Luc of a “heart attack” and his youngest brother Sylvan very suddenly of an “aneurysm” aged 51:
    Last edited by Firestarter; 09-29-2017 at 09:24 AM. Reason: Reposted removed video
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:

  15. #13

    Committee 300, Bilderberg, 13th Amendment US

    Kingdoms like the Netherlands and the gigantic British Empire are dictatorships by law.
    Theoretically speaking the US is more “democratic”, but in practice?

    By chance, I stumbled upon a list of the members of the Committee of 300 of Queen Elizabeth, and was shocked to see so many of the most influential (and rich) people in our Brave new world, including several Nobel Prize winners.

    There are of course lots of Royals, Rothschilds and Rockefellers in the list…
    Andrew Duke of York; Camilla Duchess of Cornwall, Charles Prince of Wales; Philip Duke of Edinburgh; William Prince of Wales.
    Princess Beatrix; Prince Constantijn; Mabel (widow of Prince Friso); King Willem-Alexander.
    Prince Albert II of Belgium.
    King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
    King Harald V of Norway.
    Prince Juan Carlos of Spain.

    Benjamin de Rothschild; David Rene de Rothschild; Evelyn de Rothschild; Leopold de Rothschild; Baron Jacob Rothschild.
    David Rockefeller Jr.; Nicholas Rockefeller.

    Oligarchs from the former Soveit Union…
    Roman Abramovich - of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, wife is friends with the Kushners, worth $12 billion.
    Pyotr Aven – director of the Alfa Group.
    Leonard Blavatnik – worth $10 billion.
    Patokh Chodiev – Uzbek, one the Kazakh trio in business with Tevfik Arif, worth $3 billion.
    Oleg Deripaska – CEO of RUSAL, married step-granddaughter of Boris Yeltsin, worth $17 billion.
    Mikhail Fridman – CEO Alfa Group, worth $15 billion.
    Lev Leviev – Bukharian-Israeli, of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, associate of Sapir and Kushner, in busness with Prevezon, worth $12 billion
    Alexander Mashkevitch – Kazakh-Israeli, one the Kazakh trio in business with Tevfik Arif.

    A huge amount of politicians and business executives in the US…
    George HW Bush – ex-US President.
    Lloyd Blankfein – CEO Goldman-Sachs.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski – former NSA.
    Warren Buffett – worth $83 billion.
    Wesley Clark – Rhodes Scholar.
    Bill Clinton – ex-US President.
    Gary Cohn – President and COO of Goldman Sachs.
    Bill Gates – ex-CEO Microsoft, worth $61 billion.
    Al Gore – ex-US Vice President.
    Henry Kissinger – ex-US Secretary of State.
    Stephen A. Schwarzman – CEO Blackstone Group, worth $4.7 billion.
    George Soros – worth $20 billion.
    Joseph Stiglitz – former Chief Economist of World Bank (supposed whistleblower).
    James Jr. Woolsey – ex-Director of CIA, Rhodes Scholar, advisor to Flynn Intel, former senior adviser to Trump, his wife Nancye is Nowruz Ambassador, member of Henry Jackson Society.

    Compared to the US, a relatively small amount of politicians, business executives from Britain…
    Tony Blair – ex British PM.
    David Cameron – ex British PM.
    Peter Mandelson –ex-European Commissioner for Trade.
    George Osborne – ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer of UK.
    David and Simon Reuben – owners Trans-World Metals, associates of the the Kazakh trio in business with Tevfik Arif, worth $9 billion.
    Peter Sutherland – chairman of Goldman Sachs International, steering committee of Bilderberg, Honorary Chairman of Trilateral Commission, financial adviser to the Vatican.

    Some other “interesting” members…
    Silvio Berlusconi – former Italian PM, former owner of AC Milan, media mogul, member of P2.
    Charles Bronfman – Canadian Jew, worth $2 billion.
    Edgar Bronfman Jr. – ex-CEO of Warner Music Group.
    Stefano Delle Chiaie – connected to Operation Condor.
    Vittorio Emanuele Prince of Naples – member of P2 masonic lodge.
    Etienne Davignon – chairman of Bilderberg.
    Mikhail Gorbachev – Ex-Chairman of Soviet Union.
    Lakshmi Mittal – Indian steel magnate, in business with Chodiev, CEO of ArcelorMittal, second man at ArcelorMittal was Johannes Sittard who was in business with Arif.
    Rupert Murdoch – US-Australian media mogul, close to Kushner, Director of NewsCorp.
    Shimon Peres – ex-PM of Israel.
    Joseph Alois Ratzinger – deposed Pope Benedict XVI
    Nicolas Sarkozy – former President of France:

    The Committee of 300 appears to be connected to the Bilderberg Group.
    The “independent” Wikipedia presents the following list of participants of the annual Bilderberg meeting:

    Names are missing from this list, including:

    Yasser Arafat attended the 1999 Bilderberg meeting in Portugal.

    The Dutch former finance minister, top executive of DSB bank and CEO of ABN AMRO bank Gerrit Zalm was present at several Bilderberg meetings (not easy to find details).

    Jaap W. Winter, partner at the Dutch law firm De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, attended the 2011 Bilderberg meeting.
    At that time De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek represented “me” at the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), where they pleaded against me in my lawsuit against ABN AMRO that’s affiliated with the Dutch Royal family and Rothschild.

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    In January 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of Nobility" 13th Amendment to the US Constitution. On 27 April 1810, the Senate passed the 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3.
    This would effectively prohibit US citizens from being knighted by any Royal head of state or become part of secretive societies like: the Committee of 300, B’nai B’rith RIIA or the Bilderberg Group; read the 13th Amendment:
    If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
    Then it was sent to the States for ratification: By 10 December 1812, 12 twelve of the required 13 States (out of 17) had ratified it: Maryland (Dec. 1810); Kentucky, Ohio (Jan. 1811); Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (Feb. 1811); Vermont (Oct. 1811); Tennessee (Nov. 1811); Georgia, North Carolina (Dec. 1811); Massachusetts (Feb. 1812); New Hampshire (10 Dec. 1812).

    In 1812, before a thirteenth State could ratify, England went to war with the USA. Probably just another coincidence...
    When the war ended in 1814, the British had burned down the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government.

    On 6 February 1818, President Monroe wrote to the House that Secretary of State Adams had informed the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut that the proposed 13th Amendment had been ratified by 12 States and rejected by 2 (New York and Rhode Island),
    Then on 10 March 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280, by which the required thirteenth state had ratified the 13th Amendment. See a copy of an 1819 Virginia Civil Code (including the 13th Amendment).

    In 1849, Virginia revised the 1810 'Civil Code of Virginia' (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). One of the Code's Revisers asked the Secretary of the Navy, Williams B. Preston, if the 13th Amendment had been ratified. Preston wrote to Secretary of State J.M. Clayton, who lied that it wasn’t ratified by sufficient States, ignoring Virginia's ratification in 1819.

    In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
    Later in 1861, President Lincoln signed another 13th amendment (before the Civil War broke out):
    No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
    Lincoln signed a law that condoned slavery, while trying to get rid of the (original) 13th amendment…

    In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was unlawfully deleted from the US Constitution, when the “new” 13th Amendment was ratified that prohibits slavery and ended the States' Rights to the federal government:
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:

  16. #14
    In Kingdoms like Britain or the Netherlands, the head of state King/Queen holds the executive power. In colonies like Canada or Australia the Queen appointed Governor-General decides what happens.
    In these type of dictatorships, parliament can only vote against the bills of the King/Queen...

    It is more democratic to have an elected president (like in the US) to get the “executive power” from the people. But I can imagine lots of more democratic systems where the “executive power” is more equally divided between elected politicians.

    The big benefit for the elite is that in this way, “they” only have to make sure that their puppets are selected for president. It’s easy to hide this practice...
    There are lots of stories that all (or most) US Presidents are interrelated.

    The 12-year-old BridgeAnne d’Avignon traced the lineage of 42 of all 43 US Presidents to King John of England.
    Only President Martin van Buren wasn’t related to King John.

    Prior to d’Avignon’s discovery, genealogists were only able to link 22 families of US presidents:

    George Washington was of royal blood.
    John F. Kennedy was tied to the Kings of Ireland, like Ronald Reagan.

    According to Brooks-Baker, George Bush is closely related to every European Monarch both on and off the throne, including Queen Elizabeth II, Duchess Sarah "Fergy" Ferguson and the late Princess Diana. His ancestry traces back to England's King Charles II.

    Bill Clinton’s mother’s ancestry can be traced back to King Henry III who ruled England from 1227 to 1272. Bill Clinton's family is blood related to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
    Ford was also related to Richard Nixon and George Bush.

    A group called Burke's Peerage has researched royal bloodlines since 1826. They predicted the outcome of every presidential election correctly in almost two centuries:
    (archived here:

    See the chart with 25 closely related US Presidents.
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:

  17. #15
    The following video exposes the British Royal family, the topics include.
    Concealing their wealth of trillions (while their wealth is publicly stated to be in the hundreds of millions).
    Queen Elizabeth owns large amounts of “Crown land” in the British Empire in particular her colony of Canada (90% of the land). Just their real estate is worth 17 trillion (pound or dollar?).
    Much of their wealth comes from growing opium poppies in India and exporting it to China. After China destroyed a large quantity of opium, Britain started the opium wars.

    The media help Royal families cover up their scandals.
    Notorious paedophile Jimmy Savile was very close to the Royals, he was knighted in 1990. Hundreds of people must have known.
    David Icke tells that a close friend of Princess Diana told him in 1998 that Savile was a paedophile and necrophiliac.
    Prince Andrew sexually abused the underage Virginia Roberts (arranged by Clinton and Trump’s buddy Jeffrey Epstein).

    The Royal family (originally from Germany) was affiliated with the German Nazis.
    They murdered Princess Diana.
    Inbreeding causes degeneration. Insane family members were pronounced dead and locked up in mental institutions.

    Ten Native American children were taken by Elizabeth and husband Philip in Canada and were never seen again. Witness William Combes was murdered before he could testify.
    Elizabeth was initiated in a Druidic ceremony (at a site were children were sacrificed) shortly before she was crowned Queen.

    Information on “Crown land” in Canada:

    On 6 August 1946, Princess Elizabeth (now Queen) was initiated as a Druid (Gorsedd) at the national Eisteddfod, Mountain Ash, Glamorgan, Wales:
    Do NOT ever read my posts.
    Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts