|
by James
Corbett
...few are aware of just how
dark the
history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles' vision
for the future of the United Kingdom - and, indeed the world - really
is...
It's hard to be a human being living on planet Earth in May of 2023 and not be hearing about, reading about or listening to discussions about the pending coronation of King Charles.
Yes, Charles' big day is dominating news headlines at the moment, and it seems that the glitz and glamour of the upcoming coronation are infecting people around the globe with a case of royal fever.
...Well, maybe not everyone.
Image sent by NM
No, not everyone is happy about King Charles stepping into his mother's shoes... or diamond-encrusted loafers, or gold-plated clodhoppers, or whatever it is that monarchs wear to prevent their poor, delicate royal feet from touching the earth.
But while most of the public's attention is falling on the obvious issues
...few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles' vision for the future of the United Kingdom - and, indeed the world - really is.
I'm James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and today we're going to look beyond the headlines and talking points so that,
Chapter 1 - King Charles
For those who do not consider themselves "royal watchers" and only know the new King of England as that buffoon who spent his entire life waiting for his mother to die, the first sign of what Charles is really like came in a viral video moment captured during the typically pompous ceremony in which he was proclaimed king.
There, in the manic, sausage-fingered, tooth-gritted flailing of the new king, is the perfect encapsulation of,
His life has been an endless series of carefully arranged photo opportunities and ribbon-cutting ceremonies that serve no actual function other than to punctuate the dreary luxury of his royal existence.
But it is in moments such as these where we see through the veil of PR and propaganda to the real Charles:
And demands there are...
His royal highness's daily demands begin with the pressing of his royal shoelaces and the requirement that his royal bath plug be placed in precisely the right position and the royal bathtub be exactly half full of precisely tepid water.
Charles' valet must then squeeze precisely one inch of toothpaste onto his royal toothbrush while the royal chefs prepare a series of boiled eggs, which are numbered according to how long they were boiled so that:
In fact, wherever Charles travels, he not only takes along a large contingent of his 124 member staff - including his butler, two valets, a private secretary, a typist, a chef, and a handful of bodyguards - he also makes sure to take his own personal food supply, consisting solely of fresh, organic ingredients grown on his own organic farm.
Yes, King Charles is more than happy to put his John Hancock on The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023, which (as its supporters will be happy to explain),
But don't expect him to put those gene-edited frankenfoods anywhere near his lips!
They are not fit for the royal gullet, don't you know!
Chapter 2 - The Royal Sickness
In a sense, the royals aren't wrong when they assert that the blood that flows through their veins is different from the blood that flows through us commoners' veins.
As many know, the royal families of Europe do indeed suffer from a genetic blood disorder, hemophilia, one of the many defects that has resulted from centuries of inbreeding.
But, strangely, they do not see their so-called "blue blood" as a problem.
In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning.
No, we have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself...
You see,
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 pervade the royal bloodlines (congenital hemophilia 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 swaths 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.
You know, that story...
To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the "British" royal family isn't very British at all.
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.
These royals - connected, as we remember, through inbreeding - had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles (but I repeat myself), than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.
With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors' well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis.
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 the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII's hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles' lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry's predilection for Nazi cosplaying.
More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip's infamous desire to be reincarnated as "a particularly deadly virus" in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact-checked by Snopes, so you know it's true!).
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?!" 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.
Chapter 3 - Royal False Flags
There's something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some nice old man who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, King Charles is actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world's populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources.
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 perfidy 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 specialty:
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:
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 that,
In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but, rather, a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king's opponents.
Go figure...
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 "should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board."
Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk, and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for US entry into the war on Britain's side.
Coincidence, surely.
Good question.
Maybe some intrepid reporter will put the question of the million-pound donation he received from the bin Laden family to the new king?
Or maybe they could ask about Princess Diana's remarkable clairvoyance in warning of her own death at the hands of... [name redacted]
Given the royal family's participation in false flag events in the past, perhaps it is no surprise that World Economic Forum chairman Klaus Schwab invited His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to inaugurate The Great Reset, the grand global attempt to use the generated crisis of the scamdemic to completely transform the world and institute new paradigms of governance and social control.
Yes, it is no surprise to find this royal mouthpiece popping up in the defining false flag event of our times, advocating a complete re-envisioning of our economy, our way of life and even the social contract between people and their government on the back of a synthetic and constructed "crisis."
But if only his involvement in false flag events were the greatest of King Charles' worries...
Chapter 4 - The Windsors' Pedophile Problem
Oh, if only the new king's greatest fault were to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.
Unfortunately for all of us, it's much worse than that.
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 total 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.
First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry's godfather.
Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile's close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile's advice on sensitive political matters.
And on top of all that, there was Savile's own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had "let him off the hook" for his past sins.
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 is 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 because, as it turns out, the honor "automatically expire[s] when a person dies."
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, yes, there's the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn't sweat so... it's all a lie?
No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork.
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...
Oh wait, make that three.
So here's a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?
Conclusion
Making this video 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. It's telling fully grown adults that Santa Claus isn't real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.
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:
Plus ça change...
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 incomprehensible that this royal eugenicist is trotted out to be the face of The Great Reset and to lecture the peasants about how they'll have to become serfs on the neofeudal plantation for the sake of Mother Earth, but even more disheartening is the fact that there are still vast swaths 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 video is completely unnecessary and the placing of a fancy hat on some pompous British octogenarian's head was of no significance to anyone whatsoever.
One can always dream...
This piece is an addition to a previous report: The Dark History of the Royals...
|
