|
by James Corbett
Yes, for those lucky
souls who are so blissfully detached from the 24/7 newsfeeds that
you haven't heard yet, I bring you the news that the
longest-reigning monarch in British history, Queen Elizabeth II,
is
dead.
If anything, the reign of King Charles will doubtless be even more ignoble than that of his mother...
Whatever the future may hold for the loyal subjects of His Royal Highness,
So, even though I am going to drop an 18,000 word, two-hour documentary conclusion in the next 24 hours(!!!), I have taken time out of my schedule to bring you this.
"Enjoy" is the wrong word, but you get the idea...
The Unofficial History of the Royals
There's a story that's told about Queen Elizabeth.
According to this story, when asked about her ideology, she is said to have replied:
The story is almost certainly apocryphal.
But, like many such made-up anecdotes, it does have a ring of truth to it.
In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning.
And, to the surprise of absolutely none of my readers, we will discover that the royal ideology was a forerunner to what we know today as eugenics.
As I wrote in 2016:
Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods.
The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people.
But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners', then that blood must be kept in the family.
And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervades the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples).
Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swathes of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.
With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy.
...all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world.
You know, that story.
To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story:
The House of "Windsor" only became the House of "Windsor" in 1917, after all.
But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so "Windsor" it became.
Noting the true origins of the House of "Windsor" is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental.
Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all?
Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.
The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler's eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented.
The covert ties are even more intriguing.
(Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary...)
But it isn't just,
More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip's infamous desire,
You see, the royals' blue blood pomposity wouldn't be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a "What, you groom your own stool? My heavens!" kind of way.
Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners.
As it turns out, the royal family doesn't just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.
Royal False Flags
There's something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some cute little old lady who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, Queen Elizabeth II was actually,
The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world.
(Just wait until these dear, trusting masses learn about the British East India company and the opium wars and the Bengal genocide and the Boer concentration camps and the Amritsar Massacre, etc., etc., etc...)
But for a prime example of the perfidity with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the "Perfidious Albion" moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.
Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals' use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries.
For one prime example of that, we will have to "Remember, remember the fifth of November."
Outside of Britain, the "gunpowder plot" is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous.
Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story - the one compiled in the so-called "King's Book" written by King James I himself.
According to that official account, on the evening of November 4th, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building.
After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king's agents to the other conspirators in the plot.
As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics.
King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.
Of course, this story - like so much of the history written by the winners - is total hogwash.
Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence... and at least one book has!
It's called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952. Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson's account.
Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known - buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy - we can say with certainty,
In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely,
But the British monarchy's false flag hits don't stop there.
Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called "Triple Entente" between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the "Great" War against the Huns.
You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House's own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII's successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915.
As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two,
Even more "coincidentally," House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns,
Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for the eventual entry of the US into the war on the side of the British.
Coincidence, surely...
As for the false flag attacks of recent decades, not only has the British crown long played with the fire of Muslim extremism - alternately supporting it or opposing it as geopolitical circumstance necessitates - as I have demonstrated in Part 1 of The Secret History of Al Qaeda - but, as I shall demonstrate in Part 3 of The Secret History of Al Qaeda, the royals presided over a UK government that was an active collaborationist with the neocons in the creation and forwarding of the war of terror agenda. (Stay tuned!...)
But I'll bet the new king wishes that an uncomfortable million-pound donation from the bin Laden family were the biggest of his political problems...
The Windsors' Pedophile Problem
Oh, if only the new king's greatest fault was to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.
Unfortunately for all of us,
The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family's closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago.
If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of tinfoil conspiracy lunacy.
You might also recall that the royal family's relationship to Savile was certainly "problematic" (to use the kids' lingo).
But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career.
Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles.
Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way.
In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.
But over the years the "who could have known?" routine used by the Windsors' defenders has become increasingly insupportable.
Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports.
No presstitute who wants to keep his job was ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile's crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the "plausible deniability" that they didn't know what Sir Jimmy was up to.
They didn't even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood.
But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts.
That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019.
And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?
That's right, Prince Andrew...
I mean,
After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny.
As we've seen, the royals didn't even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.
As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn.
And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory.
So here's a rhetorical question for you:
In conclusion
Writing this article feels like I'm telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn't real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.
But, in reality, it's worse than that.
This isn't my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:
And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland.
After all the royals have put us through, it's flabbergasting that they're still held in such high regard.
It's even more disheartening that there are still vast swathes of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a "commonwealth").
Here's to the day when this type of article is unnecessary and the death of a ninety-six-year-old in her home is of no political significance whatsoever...
|
