-Caveat Lector- from: from:alt.conspiracy As, always, Caveat Lector Om K ----- Click Here: <A HREF="aol://5863:126/alt.conspiracy:566690">Windsors and political divisions evident this week</A> ----- Subject: Windsors and political divisions evident this week From: banana <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">banana@REMO VE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk</A> Date: Tue, 02 November 1999 10:09 AM EST Message-id: <R2atE$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A lot is going on, this week! In the article below I comment on some of the major political rows in which the Windsors are currently involved. Including with reference to four newspaper articles I am posting to the archive of this newsgroup. And with special reference to genetically modified foods, foxhunting, and Prince Charles snubbing the president of China. References ---------- The headers of the articles are: 1) ARCHIVE: 2-11-99 Prince Charles in row (foxhunting) (Guardian) 2) ARCHIVE: 01-11-99 Windsor line weakens, but cash will still register (Guardian) 3) ARCHIVE: 26-09-99: Prince Charles funds pro-hunt lobby (Guardian) 4) ARCHIVE: 01-11-99: Royal Society defends genetics biz (threats) (Guardian) Peter Preston ------------- I would like to start by drawing people's attention to article 2) above, a column by Peter Preston. Preston is a former editor of The Guardian. He fell during the affair in which he and Mohammed al-Fayed arranged for a 'cod fax' to be sent with a Parliamentary letter-heading to the Ritz in Paris. The fax solicited further information about Jonathan Aitken's stay in that hotel, when he secretly met with agents of the Saudi royal family, at their expense, at a time when he was British Defence Procurement Minister. Aitken lied about this and is currently in prison. At the very same time that that was going on, The Guardian was also running a story about Tory cheating in the 1992 general election, which the Tories won against most people's expectations. The Tories were systematically entering votes under false names, offering elderly and infirm people, and people going on holidays abroad, information about voting by proxy, and then, without contacting them again, voting Tory in their names. Several cases came to court, but as a general rule weird things would happen which led to the cases being dropped. For example the people alleging cheating would be informed that the case was to begin at 2pm, but everybody else would be informed that it was to begin at 10am. It would begin at 10am (or, as anyone who's been to a court cause in England will be aware, more like 11am), and the magistrate would then throw up his hands in surprise, announcing 'oh dear, the complainant's not here', and would then dismiss the case. Those who think this was a minor issue are wrong. It was a potentially extremely explosive issue, a potential Watergate. We are talking about a big scale operation involving senior Tory strategists and officials, and the wielding of illegal influence in the judicial system. Major could have been forced to play Nixon. One straightaway thinks of the means used by CREEP, the Committee to Re-Elect the President, the bugging of the Watergate hotel. The Tory Party could have ended up almost destroyed, with its money seized and many of its senior officials in prison. It is obvious that The Guardian newspaper, which was and is very close to the New Labour high command, was working with Mohammed al-Fayed at that time. MAF helped with revealing many of the corruption stories against Tories. This is the context of that time. But alas, there was no Watergate. Tories kicked up an enormous fuss. About the cheating allegations? No - they were hardly mentioned. I don't even think they were picked up in any other newspaper. What they kicked up a fuss about was the 'cod fax', the use of Parliamentary notepaper. They didn't even accuse MAF of forging the evidence against Aitken. They were shouting about the use of some f*cking notepaper! They were foaming at the mouth, calling for Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian, to be brought to 'the bar of the House', i.e. in effect, placed under arrest by the House of Commons and required to answer questions. The reference, not too far below the surface, was to Parliament's little-known right to send people to prison without reference to the law courts. Preston fell. Although rather quietly. Little song and dance was made. It was as if his time had come, he'd finished his spell as Guardian editor, and that was that. Americophile Alan Rusbrudger took his place. IMO a decision had been taken by New Labour high command to discontinue the fight on the expose-the-Tories-cheating-in-the-1992-election front. The New Labour high command notably includes Jonathan Powell, former Foreign Office attaché to Clinton's campaign, a man who showed no interest in party politics until after the 1992 election, and who is clearly SIS. He did the job of liaising with Clinton - a tough job, given that the Foreign Office tried to help Bush, and then he got the job of helping Blair, choosing Quango bosses across the country, playing an important politico-cum-administrative role in the post-1997 government. He has also dealt with the IRA, and he is basically an SIS whizzkid. To be precise, Preston did not fall out of the media entirely, he was 'kicked upstairs', he was made editor-in-chief of the group which includes The Guardian and The Observer. He does not have as much power as Rusbridger. I do not know whether he still sits on the 'D' Notice Committee. He is however allowed to write a column. And he has published two novels - one was about Britain becoming the 51st state of the United States. The other was about the fall of the Windsors. The latter was set some time in the future, using the kind of resetting that is not exactly unknown in the publishing industry. Peter Preston's latest article pulls some punches, but not many. He is in fact remarkably direct: >Adriano, chief executive at Sainsbury's supermarkets until a few days >ago, was the wizard who would rescue the failing chain. He hasn't. He >has been promoted upwards to think great thoughts. And Sophie? She is >the Countess of Wessex. Their fates are linked by a single word: >dynasty. And the question they pose can be pretty brutal: what happens >when dynasties fade away, when the spin of genetic dice for the next >generation comes up without a winner? It is one of the questions for >our times. >We are becoming used to disappearing dynasties. The Kennedys - through >Joe to John and Bobby and thence to the remains of John Jr in the sea >off Cape Cod - lasted three generations. The Sainsburys - through two >Johns to Lord S of Turville - seem similarly fated. ... >Remember: dynasties in today's spotlight don't last. Charles Forte >can't bequeath his empire to Rocco and sit back. Ken Thomson isn't Roy >Thomson. Rupert Murdoch's troubles are just beginning. You need >remarkable luck (and genes) to pass the baton successfully. And Windsor >history, of course, is full of extremely weak links. ... >One day soon, I guess, the transitional Dinos will go on their way and >the Sainsbury family will do what such families now do naturally: sell >out for huge bucks, and depart. That is what happens to failed >dynasties - and it is what, in all practicality, may happen to the >Windsors, too. Not the clap of constitutional doom, but the chink of >cash in the buy-out of the (next) century. This is a remarkable article. He is quite clearly painting the Windsors as they are: a mega-rich, billionaire-bracket, family firm which, if the going gets too hot in the field where it made its brand, will look to the option of getting out of that field and taking as much of its money with it as it can. Some of us have known this for ages. Now it's getting in the newspapers. On alt.conspiracy.princess-diana we have even discussed likely boltholes. The Caribbean? The Far East? Myself I've usually suggested the Far East. One notes that it was a Chinese heroin boss who paid off the Tories' debts after the election, and one notes what kind of views and connections the British capitalists in Hong Kong tend to have. Also, it has been suggested that the Sultan of Brunei, who appeared from practically nowhere in the mid-1980s to be the multi-billionaire sovereign of a newly-independent country, and then got active in financial circles in Britain, may well have been fronting for the Windsors. Certainly he helped 'save Singapore from freefall' in August 1997 - this may in fact have also been on behalf of the Windsors. The recent snubbing of the Chinese president by Prince Charles now raises a question mark over my view, of course. I deal with some of this below. But no-one should believe that the snubbing had anything to do with Prince Charles's spiritual respect for the Dalai Lama, leader of Tibetan Buddhism. I mean, let's live in the real world. The Windsors and the Biotechnology Industry ------------------------------------------- The thing one has to understand about this is that the reason why two conflicting positions are being given time in the newspapers, the reason why senior scientists are at loggerheads, is money. Money and only money. Article 4) referenced above is also remarkable. Quite clearly, clearly enough for almost everybody to see, the Royal Society is acting on behalf of the biotechnology industry (in which of course one company, Monsanto, holds a very important place). The information that has been published about its 'rebuttal unit' may be found very enlightening. Basically it has set up a committee of very powerful scientists - obviously on Monsanto's payroll - who are shaping opinion on biotech. In every field, this is how opinion is shaped, by a very small group of individuals at the top. This often includes scientists on leading journals, paid by multinational corporations, and working for the same interests as the senior executives in both the 'elected' government and the permanent civil service. Making sure it does what is supposed to is why the government has 'advisory committees' at all. What is remarkable in this case, is firstly that this has to some extent come out into the open, and secondly, the reason why it has done so: namely that there is clearly an important struggle, not just globally, but *within Britain itself*, within the ruling class on this issue. This has zero to do with 'caring for the environment'. That's just horse-shit, which the rulers like because it's a strong variation of the 'we're all in the same boat' lie. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if one factor in the building up of greenery since around 1980 was manipulation by the CIA and NATO in order to weaken the pro-Soviet or considered-to-be-pro-Soviet-because-pacifist left. One wryly recalls the Brandt report on global environmentalism - Brandt was found to be a friend of numerous multinational corporations with interests in the 'third world'. Similarly the leader of GReenpeace, Lord Melchett, is from the family that controlled ICI, Imperial Chemical Industries, and the Greenpeace organisation is about as immune to secret service manipulation as Amnsesty International or Oxfam are. Let's not kid ourselves. The reason GM is being allowed to be built up into an issue - an issue being covered on that traditional political media tool, BBC Radio 4's Archers programme - is because a big fight between rival moneyed interests is going on. And what a fight! It's a fight in which the Windsors and New Labour appear to be on opposite sides! Indeed the Windsors and the Royal Society appear to be on opposite sides too! Science means megabucks, we should recall, it's not to do with pure objectivity. Francis Bacon thought it was about 'making Nature our slave'. The 'we' being of course the progressive ruling elite. It presents itself as something to do with pure objectivity because that's in the interests of that elite. In most fields of science, there is a single internationally dominant journal. Sometimes there are two or three, mainly there is just a single one. And one company dominates world scientific publishing, owning the copyright on the vast majority of the important articles - or at least those that are published rather than being kept secret in the military-industrial sector. That company is Reed Elsevier, based in the Netherlands. Article 4) describes how a senior member of the Royal Society threatened the editor of the Lancet, a leading British medical journal, Peter Lachmann threatened Richard Horton, and told him his job as editor was on the line if he published an article by Arpad Pusztai which questioned the safety of GM foods. This article was the top-strap front-page article in yesterday's Guardian. And again, it opens an important window. Does the Royal Society own or publish The Lancet? one may ask. No, it doesn't. The Lancet is owned and published by Reed Elsevier. Clearly folks there is a close relationship between the Royal Society (which, we should recall, was involved in the very origin of science as an ideology) and Reed Elsevier (which dominates world science publishing, and owns the copyright on most important scientific articles). This close relationship is now being suggested in The Guardian newspaper. Some fight is going on! Why, then, are the Windsors opposed to GM, or, to be more exact, to the concentration of powerful interests around Monsanto, backed by Reed Elsevier and the Royal Society? There can only be one answer to this: money. Unfortunately that does not tell us in what way the Windsors' financial interests are opposed to those of the biotechnology industry? What sources of profit is the biotechnology industry endangering, or taking from its rivals? I don't know. I will however mention my hunch that Reed Elsevier is controlled by the Dutch royal family, the family that controls Europe's largest company, Shell (as well as being involved in various Rockefeller-connected globalist orgs). The Windsors and China ---------------------- Ruling out the possibility that Prince Charles snubbed the head of state of a nuclear superpower because of spiritual concern for the Buddhist hierarchs of largely rural and completely landlocked Tibet - I mean he's stupid but he ain't *that* stupid - one has to ask why the snub took place. Of course, perhaps it didn't take place, perhaps it is just being made up by powerful forces including those running Blair's office, but if one were to take that view, one would have to note that those forces would also include the forces that run the Daily Telegraph. As article 1) points out, >The prominence given to his absence by the Daily Telegrpah's royal >correspondent amounted to a court circulear in all but name. Charles >Moore, the paper's editor, is an intimate of the prince who would not >have allowed the Telegraph to cross him on the issue. How about that, eh? This is a blatant recognition of the fact that the Windsor family has the power to stop something getting into one of Britain's leading national daily newspapers. The Windsors have great power, they're not just figureheads - this is extremely rarely admitted, times are changing. Of course as soon as one mentions the Telegraph, one has to bring the Vatican into the analysis, but that is not something I am going to consider in this article. I will though reiterate that the Chinese president's visit to Britain, in which he spent a lot of time at Buckingham Palace, coincided with the six-monthly meeting of the Way Ahead Group, the political strategic committee of the Windsor dynasty. Odd how they couldn't reschedule the meeting. One wonders whether Jiang Zemin attended, or was briefed afterwards? Perhaps he has a gigantic row with Prince Charles? If one wants to hypothesise a financial bust-up between the Windsors and Beijing, one has to ask questions about divisions in the Far East within Chinese capital - perhaps even a division between Beijing and certain triad interests that previously - although a keen watcher of cross-straits relations and deteriorations in those relations - I have estimated as much smaller than is usually made out. Clearly there is trouble in many places in the Far East at the moment, not least of which is Indonesia. Triad capital seems to be dominant in that country, as it is in Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, likely Canton, and quite possibly Shanghai. It will be interesting to see how the Sultan of Brunei fares in the coming months. The Windsors and Australia -------------------------- Although the basic thesis is that the star of the Windsors is waning, one should not underestimate them. They have fought a truly magnificent campaign in Australia. At the time of writing it looks as though they will win the referendum to be held in four days time, probably winning in all six states, although perhaps only by a small margin in Victoria. Four former prime ministers are backing 'Yes', i.e. republicanism. Oddly enough, the present one isn't. It was the present government that wrote the question. A 'Yes' vote is being portrayed as a vote for the details of the republican plan, namely the establishment of a republic where the president will be chosen by politicians. The 'No' campaign, rather than telling people that the hereditary principle is wonderful, or that the Windsors are wonderful, is - you've guessed it - appealing to people's mistrust of politicians. It takes your breath away. Everybody in Australia knows the government and authorities are as corrupt as arseholes. They are in the pocket of big business, and many are accomplished wheeler-dealers and indeed thugs and gangsters. It's far better known than it is in Britain. People who say they are in favour of a republic but who vote 'No' to keep the Windsors on the Australian throne deserve contempt. They are backing the billionaire Windsors because they've been told on the telly that that's the self-respectful thing to do, that's the way to indicate they won't be pushed around by politicians. What a lot of wallies. They may kid themselves that there's going to be another referendum soon, asking if people support a directly-elected president, but there ISN'T. There just ISN'T. Even I was surprised when I learnt that the Australian 'Socialist Workers' Party' is backing the 'No' campaign. Their slogan is 'Stuff the Bosses' Republic. Vote "No"'. The term 'double-think' comes to mind. What a load of tossers! One is awe-struck at the support the Windsors are able to call on in Australia. Their strategy has been successful from the word go. It was assumed, it has been assumed for decades, that eventually Australia would become a republic. Now, when the referendum comes, it is being fought wholly on the question of whether or not one thinks the republican plan as detailed in the proposals will be wonderful or not. Of course it won't be wonderful! It will be a load of sh*t! Australia will be run as before (see above). The questions that are not being asked in the Australian media are these: are you in love with the principle of hereditary monarchy? Do you think that Elizabeth Windsor (or Elizabeth Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg to give her what would be her family name under standard aristocratic rules) is wonderful? Do you like this billionaire piece of dog-turd who had her former daughter-in law murdered? The fact is, the monarchists have been setting the pace throughout this entire campaign. The republicans are generally not even referring to Elizabeth Windsor! I would be very interested to know more about the backgrounds of the leading 'republican' 'No' supporters. 'Interesting times' ------------------- But let's not be too pessimistic. The Windsors clearly have their opposition within the international and indeed the British ruling class. I have a feeling this coming week may be the proverbial 'long week in politics'. If they win in Australia, yes of course their victory will be heralded around the world. Constitutional historians will appear on the television and in the newspapers describing how hereditary monarchy is the political form chosen by the people for the twenty-first century. The toasts to the Queen in Oxbridge colleges and the genetlemen's clubs of St. James's will have an additional frisson, think of a boot smashing into the face of a tramp and you'll get the atmosphere. But...Mohammed al-Fayed's appeal against the Stephan report into the deaths of Princess Diana, Dodi Fayed, and Henri Paul, an assassination that many believe was commissioned by the Windsors and planned by SIS - is still going on. The Windsors will not be able to sit on all the evidence for ever, because there is so much of it. The assassination took place in Paris embassyland after all, one of the most surveilled areas in the world, a few hundred metres for example from the Chinese embassy, the Vatican embassy, the Brazilian embassy. The Mercedes S-280 went right past the US consulate that authors Sancton and MacLeod appear to have strangely forgotten the existence of. And the Windsors appear currently to have got on the wrong side of international biotechnology inc., indeed the ruling power in Beijing, and quite clearly, forces which have some power over the British newspapers. Some forces within the British state, including within SIS, will doubtless have been thinking of preparing alternative options... One notes with interest that, as Britain's policy in Ireland bites the dust (what is Mandelson likely to do that 'Failure' Mowlam couldn't?), Michael Oatley, long-term Irish hand for SIS, senior SIS officer, is coming out into the newspapers to condemn British policy. One notes Peter Preston's remarkable article referenced above. One notes the divisions over biotechnology, that clearly go very high up, and where the Windsors' hand does not seem to be a particularly strong one. One also notes that Prince Charles has been revealed as a secret funder of the Countryside Alliance, the pro-foxhunting organisation. Things *are* changing. The Windsors are putting up a tremendous fight, but I end with five words: sh*t could hit fan soon. -- banana ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
