A call to arms to all anti-NWO activist: Resist royal cyber-bullying with all available means
Three days ago, the Rebel Site got taken offline by its hosting firm under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The offense: I had republished the 2011 British documentary “Unlawful Killing” produced by Allied Star, a London-based film company owned by Egyptian billionaire Mohamed Al-Fayed, the father of Dodi Al-Fayed. The documentary implicates – amongst other things – the British royal family in the murder of the couple and its cover-up.
Youtube and Vimeo had already deleted the video a few weeks earlier, forcing me to host it directly on the Rebel Site. Two emails sent to me shortly after by the lawyers of my hosting firm unfortunately got intercepted by the spam filter. In those emails they advised me that they had received a complaint by a London based law firm, claiming the hosting of the video was in breach of their client’s copyrights. Since I didn’t receive the emails I obviously couldn’t comply with their request, forcing my hosting company of 7.5 years to disable the site.
Grudgingly, I deleted the video as demanded to get the site back online as soon as possible. However, I sent a letter back to the lawyers, with a 10 days deadline to provide written evidence that the plaintiff’s law firm was acting on behalf of the copyright owner, Allied Star. I also sent an email to Mohamed Al-Fayed, asking for permission to publish the film. The reply of his office was swift. It confirmed that they had requested the London law firm to make me take down the video. The only reason they gave was that the film had been taken off the market.
It becomes clear, when watching the documentary, that Dodi’s father deeply loved his son and was shattered by his death. Why would he spend millions to produce and promote a documentary on the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and shortly later take it off the market without giving much reason? The only explanation that makes sense is that he has been put under enormous pressure to do so. Not only has he been bullied to take his film off the market, but the blackmailers made it his problem to prevent others from republishing it.
Personally, I don’t respond well to bullying. I hate bullies and fight them with all available means. Thankfully I’m not alone. In this case of cyber-bullying, resistance is not only civil duty, but easy. Be warned though! It would be illegal to locate a copy of the “Unlawful Killing” documentary via any BitTorrent site and distribute it to as many people as possible. It would be illegal to burn CDs and pass them to all your friends. It would be illegal to upload the video to video hosting sites under its own or slightly altered name. And it would be illegal to create a torrent of your own on BitTorrent sites and share it for other people to download. But it is not illegal, to publish this article, share, email and republish it on your blog, and that’s exactly what I’m asking all of my readers to do. Make it go viral.
The documentary the Windsors don’t want you to watch
So let’s go back to the “Unlawful Killing” documentary and see what all the fuss is about. The film starts by showing a letter from Diana, hand-written to her butler, predicting her own violent death. It says, “My husband is planning ‘an accident’ in my car. Brake failure & serious head injury.” Less than two years later her prediction came true.
The documentary next shows numerous people saying that her death was murder. Mohamed Al-Fayed, Dodi’s father, goes even further. He goes on record in the documentary saying that it was a slaughter by the ‘bloody racist’ royal family. He thinks the royal family got his son killed because they were too racist to accept a foreign, Muslim step-father or a Muslim half-brother or half-sister for the future king.
The film maker himself, Keith Allen, points out how “chillingly convenient” it was for the Windsors that the crash happened when it did. Mohamed Al-Fayed describes how Diana, in the two weeks she stayed for a holiday with her sons at his house, was worried that exactly that kind of accident would happened to her as it did shortly after. It would appear that she got warned.
The documentary mainly focuses on the massive inquest at the Royal Court of Justice, dismissed by several speakers in the film as a cover up. They criticise that Charles, in spite of being implicated by Diana’s letter as trying to kill her exactly the way she died, wasn’t required to appear as a witness. It talks about how the Royal Court of Justice first sought to conduct the inquest without a jury, an attempt that got only overturned because of public pressure. It questions the impartiality of an inquest conducted at the Royal Court of Justice led by a “coroner” who has sworn his allegiance to the Queen, in a case where members of the royal family are the prime suspects. Not very surprising then for the film maker that the coroner appeared at times to have already made up his mind about the outcome of the inquest, before it had even started.
The whole point of the inquest was to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding the car crash. Was it a pure coincidence that Diana had told many people that she had been warned by a confidential source in the palace, that Prince Philip had plans to deliberately kill her in a car crash, exactly the way she died? Why didn’t the CCTV cameras along the route of the crash car apparently record anything, a ‘coincidence’ the crash shares with the 7/7 London Tube attacks? Were the driver’s blood samples tampered with to make him appear wildly drunk while seeming to be sober? Why were Diana’s phone calls being bugged by the American NSA? Why were Diana’s seat belts jammed on the night of the accident, preventing her from – as she normally would – wearing a seat belt, which probably would have saved her life? Why didn’t the police identify the owners or driver of any of the five other vehicles involved in the crash? And why did it take ambulances 2 hours to transport Diana to the nearest hospital?
According to the film, the suspicious circumstances didn’t stop there. Even before the end of the medical examination of his body, the French press already published headlines according to which the driver was “as drunk as a pig”. That’s in spite of the fact that according to his hotel bill he had only had 2 Ricards, less than a quarter the amount of what French authorities claimed that he had drunk. Road sweepers were allowed by the Police to clean the site of the car crash, within hours of the accident. The film points out the similarity to the case of the Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto, where the site of his murder was hosed down by police almost immediately after the attack, obviously because it is easier to claim it was just an accident if the evidence is washed away.
At the end of the inquest, the jury had heard so much suspicious information that the coroner heading the inquest could not take any risk. In his three day instructions to the jury, he told the jury to ignore the eye-witness statements and forbid the jury to even consider the possibility of murder. The jury, however, ignored the coroners instructions and spent a whole week to carefully examine the evidence for themselves.
The film also examines the negative attitude of the media towards the inquest, obviously considering it to be a waste of time. It was quite common for the journalists observing the inquest to fall asleep or manicure their fingernails instead of paying attention to the witnesses. They were only interested in information confirming the “established consensus”, established before the start of the inquest, that drunk driving and harassment by paparazzi had caused the crash, and ignored all the witness statements contradicting it. Any different view was regarded as “odd” and “conspiracy theory”. Part of the problem, according to the film, was the fact that it was the royal correspondents, not legal journalists who were covering the inquest, in spite of the fact that Diana no longer had royal status at the time of her death. You cannot expect impartiality of journalists like the BBC’s royal correspondent, whose job it is solely to “suck up to the royal family” and portray it in the most favourable light possible. But even if they had wanted to, they wouldn’t have understood the detailed evidence or how the establishment was manipulating behind the scenes which and how much evidence they were allowed to see. That’s why they didn’t question, for example, why the Royal Court censored into incomprehensibility letters of Prince Philip written to Diana. The Royal Court went even as far as forbidding close friends of Diana to tell the inquest about deeply hostile letters of Princess Philip written to Diana not long before her death.
The accident itself
The movie then describes the accident itself based on the reports of several witness statements in the inquest. Diana’s powerful Mercedes Benz quickly left the following paparazzi behind. When they entered the tunnel, they were surrounded by 4 motorcycles and a white Fiat Uno. Suddenly a very bright flashlight blinded Diana’s driver, making him lose control and crash head first into a concrete pillar. None of the other vehicles got ever identified. It’s been verified by the French police that none of the vehicles was driven by any of the paparazzi waiting in front of the hotel that night. They have all been accounted for. That didn’t stop the British media though from misrepresenting the inquest’s verdict – in a massive world-wide misinformation campaign led by the BBC – as saying that it was the following paparazzi who caused the crash. What the inquest actually established was that the vehicles surrounding Diana’s car in the tunnel caused the accident.
The most bizarre circumstance of the accident was probably the behaviour of the ambulance. Several ambulances arrived soon at the scene of the accident. Given the time of the day, after midnight, the streets were virtually empty. And yet, it took the ambulance carrying Diana 81 minutes to drive her to the near-by hospital, without making radio contact with the headquarter. That’s on top of the 37 minutes it took the oddly behaving doctor in sole charge of treating Diana, Jean-Marc Martino, to move the still conscious from the undamaged back of her car into the ambulance. If she had received prompt hospital treatment, the expert witnesses at the inquest all agreed, Diana would have survived.
The role of the MI6
The film coughs at the claim by the head of MI6 towards the inquest that his agency has never killed anyone in the past 50 years. It shows former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson, an inquest witness, who has written a book titled “The Big Breach” describing how MI6 had planned to murder the Serbian leader exactly the same way how Diana, Dodi and her driver were killed: making his car crash in a narrow tunnel by flashing a very bright light into the driver’s eyes. The MI6 boss was obviously lying, a view supported in the film by another former senior MI6 agent, Baroness Daphne Park, who clearly states that she’s been involved in murders on behalf of the MI6.
Diana’s campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines
According to the film, MI6 and other secret services had more reason to want Diana dead than just her plan to get married to a Muslim: her highly effective support for the world-wide campaign to ban anti-personnel landmines. Her involvement caused huge anger amongst Western governments and the armament industry. It even caused the British defence minister Nicholas Soames to call Diana on the phone and tell her, “Don’t meddle in things you don’t know anything about. Accidents can happen.”
Diana’s murder happened just three weeks before the Oslo conference to ban anti-personnel mines. Without Diana as the most prominent ambassador of the conference, most of the world’s media no longer bothered to attend. Bill Clinton was the only government leader attending the conference who voted against a world-wide ban on landmines. If Diana had been still alive, he would have to do so while looking into Diana’s eyes. According to the film, many observers believe that’s the real reason why she got killed, but the coroner of the inquest wasn’t interested in that line of thought.
Dodgy autopsy results
The autopsy of the driver, which stated that he was highly drunk, in spite of having had only two Ricards that night and appearing completely sober on the hotel CCTV captured when leaving the hotel, was performed by Professor Dominique Lecomte, a doctor notorious for her involvement in French government cover-ups. Her autopsy was ripped apart by other medical experts as completely incompetent and having made several critical mistakes, as was Dr. Lepin’s result of the blood sample taken of the driver, which was found to have been highly likely tampered with. Professor Lecomte and Dr. Lepin both refused to attend the inquest, after being ordered by the French government to do so to protect the French state’s secrets and interests. When specialist later wanted to examine whether the DNA of the blood samples was identical with that of the driver, they were told by the French government that those samples no longer exist.
Diana had not only spoken to numerous friends about her ex-husband’s family planning to kill her in a car accident and mentioned it in a letter to her butler. She had also written a letter to her lawyer about it who passed it on to the police. In spite of her being later killed exactly in the way described in her letter, the chief of police kept the letter concealed for three years, knowingly breaking the law by concealing this devastating evidence. He was rewarded handsomely by the Queen by being made a ‘Lord’.
Not only did the autopsy report make false accusations about the driver’s alcohol level, it even suggested that he was a severe case of alcoholic. The English police tried to support this false claim by searching the driver’s apartment twice for alcohol. The first time they went there, they could only find a bottle of champagne and a ¾ empty bottle of Martini. Unsatisfied with the result they went in again, and this time they found enough alcohol to stock an entire bar.
In spite of no longer being ‘Royal’ at the time of her death, Diana was embalmed within hours of her death, according to the film, to make it impossible to perform a pregnancy test. Not only were her organs removed and destroyed, but so was the blood sample taken from her at her arrival at the Paris hospital. The film suggests that this was to avoid any suggestion that Muslim blood had entered the royal blood lines.
The Queen’s private secretary
Sir Robert Fellowes was the highest ranked representative of the Windsors appearing at the inquest. Under oath, he claimed to have been on holidays for the entire period before and after the accident. Yet, the diary of Tony Blairs’ press secretary Alastair Campbell clearly states that she met Mr Fellowes on several occasions through the period he claimed to have been on holidays. Diana had mentioned to friends before that he was one of the three people she was most afraid of. She believed that Mr Fellowes hated her with a passion and wanted her out of the Royal family. The film suggests that Mr Fellowes had a leading role in the arrangements for her death.
The Fiat Uno
The prime suspect to have caused the crash is the driver of the Fiat Uno which was seen by numerous witnesses. Neither the English nor the French police was apparently able to identify him, and yet one of the best known paparazzi, James Andanson, with connections to secret services, drove exactly that kind of car. Andandon who made a fortune selling pictures of British royalties and other celebrities to the media, lived in France and was known to have followed Diana and Dodi in their last holiday before the accident. He was not part of the paparazzi crowd waiting in front of the Ritz hotel owned by Dodi’s father. When interviewed by French police about his whereabouts, he made contradictory statements, as did his wife and son who served as his alibis. In spite of these circumstances, the investigation against him was dropped and the search for the Fiat Uno ended without result. The inquest made no further attempt to establish who was driving the implicated car.
In 2000, Andason was found dead in his blazing car on a Ministry of Defense owned field outside Montpellier. He had no car keys with him and the two firemen who found him had seen two bullet holes in his skull. The French police however decided that he had committed suicide. The film maker comments that you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to find it hard to believe that a man shot himself in the head twice and then set his car on fire.
The last third of the film goes in full attack on the Windsors. It criticises the huge cost to British tax payers, their racism towards non-Whites and their initial strong support for Hitler. It accuses the Queen mother, her husband, as well as Prince Philip and his sisters to have been highly supportive of Nazi Germany, at least initially. It goes on to ask why the British people still tolerates the monarchy. It accuses British officials of corruption because they were more loyal to the monarch than to the people and care more about earning a knighthood than obeying the law. The film goes even as far as calling the British royal family mafia-style gangsters.
Later in the film Prince Philip is quoted as saying that if reincarnation existed he would like to be reborn as a deadly virus, so he could do something about over-population. This quote must be seen in the context of Prince Philip being the highest ranked Scottish Rite Freemason, a secret society known to aim for a ‘big cull’ reducing mankind to a ‘sustainable level’ of 500 million, that is a reduction of 93%.
The most controversial part of the documentary is an interview with leading British clinical psychologist Oliver James, describing Prince Philip as someone without any internal sense of right or wrong. According to James, Prince Philip is completely selfish and does not care about anybody else. In his expert opinion, Prince Philip is on par with notorious psychopathic mass-murderers.
The main film very convincingly argues that – in the light of the long list of suspicious circumstances and cover-ups – it would be too much of a coincidence that Diana got killed exactly at a time when Western secret services and armament manufacturers were infuriated about her anti-personnel landmine campaign and the Windsors about the prospect of a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King.
My own first reaction, when I heard about Diana’s death, was to say that it was staged by the MI6. Like Mohamed al-Fayed and other people in the documentary, I suspected that the British royalties were too big bigots to let her get married to a Muslim man from the Middle-East. What I didn’t know back then was that Diana’s mother was a born Rothschild, making her and her children Jews according to Jewish law. I’m more inclined now to think that her murder was performed by Mossad, not so much to stop her anti-personnel mine campaigning or to avoid a Muslim step-father and Muslim siblings to the future British King, but to prevent Diana from converting to Islam, which she would have to get married to a Muslim man. This obviously would have spoiled the endless Jewish bragging over the future British King being a Jew.