~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997
Sender: "mdevos" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#710> Assassination claim (fwd)
Hi
I read the assasination claim with interest and a certain amount of sadness
at the sheer predictability of it all. I have a few observations.
-The UK laws may well be as stringent as claimed but that would not
prevent the story from surfacing in the rest of the world.
-What motivates British Intelligence to protect the monarchy? It
seems a little outdated to me. Wouldn't they rather swear
alleigance to "the state" or to the western system in general
rather than a specific family?
-The final proof of the theory will of course be whether or not the
remaining survivor is assasinated or not. If he survives, he is
going to spill the beans and so the only solution is for MI6 to
make sure that he has a cardiac arrest like Diana did.
Until then...
mark
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Dear mark,
Yes the story has surfaced - on the Internet - and it has certainly reached
UK mailboxes. But that in itself doesn't distract from the theory. (I
imagine MI5 doesn't have a high opinion of the Internet. I don't believe
I've violated the Official Secrets Act, if it exists, because all I know
about that is rumors, and I've received no "D Notice" and am not in the
UK.) Parveez, however, is in the UK, and presumbly would have received a D
Notice, and this could explain why he made no allusions whatsoever about
possible foul play.
Your other points are very good ones - and here is where the plot thickens.
Recall that in "cj#708> Why Diana? Why now?", I offered the suggestion
that the motivation for an assassination could have arisen from Diana's
alleged intent to participate in Parveez's hard-hitting documentary re/
Iraqi infant deaths, UN sanctions, plutonium shells, etc. etc. Allow me to
reemphasize that this would have been very troublesome indeed, amounting to
a frontal assault by Diana and her media-pull against one of the core
engagements and deceptions of modern globalist collective imperialism.
First she "betrayed" the royals, and now she's "betraying" the entire West.
(We can discuss whether living under a dictator justifies being
also starved by the UN, but that's another story, focusing on
Iraq and North Korea. For now, I call it "state terrorism".
We could also discuss the real motives for these terrorist
acts. I call that "putting the nail in the coffin of national
sovereignty" - note that the international community _supports_
and _funds_ similar dictators when they kow-tow to the globalist
line and put themselves at the mercy of the IMF.)
Also notice the rapidity with which the Queen and Tony Blair have taken up
discussions of "modernizing the monarchy", which we all know is a
code-phrase for "further disempowering the monarchy". Whether the monarch
_should_ be disempowered I have no particular opinion on, but the
disempowerment of the Monarchy has been going on gradually for centuries,
and has been marked by some very dramatic episodes. It seems to have
ongoing significance for the UK government, and that's the main point here.
The thickened plot goes like this...
A royal representative meets with his MI-5 contact and says:
"We are deeply disturbed. It seems our Diana is planning to marry
this son-of-an-arms-dealer Dodi fellow, and possibly even move
somewhere in the Muslim world to live. We simply cannot countenance
the future King living in a Muslim household, with a shady step-
father, and Muslim half-siblings, off somewhere in an unstable
part of the world. It would be profoundly embarrassing to the Royal
Family, presents security risks, opportunties for kidnap, and
might severely complicate relations between the UK and the Muslim
world. There might even be doubts raised about the loyalty
of the future King to his own country."
The MI-5 contact thinks to himself... "Hmmm... interesting development - we
have our own reasons for wanting to find a final solution to the Diana
problem; perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone." He then responds
to to the royal representative...
"We are deeply and sincerely concerned about your problem, and would
like to help you out. However we want to prevent similar episodes
from occurring in the future and feel that adjustments need to be
made in the relationship between the royals and the government."
to which the royal rep says:
"I see... you demand a price for your services. I find that unfair,
but in the circumstances we'll have to go along."
I find this scenario more plausible, even though highly speculative, than
the pure-royal motivation, which as you say lacks a certain core
credibility. I know nothing about "Sherman Skolnick", but it is possible
he unwittingly published a story which is an intentional cover story - it
is one of those predictable conspiracy theories that some will believe, and
some will discount, without much harm being done, and it shifts the
suspicion from "core government interests" to yet-another scandal about the
royals - assisting ever so slightly in the royal-disempowerment initiative.
---
I'd like to comment on one of the statements made in the Sherman posting:
"Thereafter, British Intelligence planted disinformation (and continues to
do so) throughout the world." This would of course require a certain
amount of cooperation from non-UK intelligence services, and one might
wonder how such cooperation would be achieved. The pure-royal motivation,
again, is somewhat questionable in this regard, whereas the
Iraq-documentary motivation would be important to the CIA and others.
In addition, it turns out that "gentlemanly cooperation" among intelligence
services is not that uncommon. In the "sinking of the Rainbow Warrior"
episode, where French-government terrorists blew up the Greenpeace ship and
killed one of the crew (this is all firmly established fact - New Zealand
actually convicted the French agents of terrorism in court), the world's
intelligence services all rallied behind the French and tried to help quash
the New Zealand investigation.
I don't think we've heard the last about this. If anything happens to me
it's definitely foul play - no suicidal tendencies. (:>)
rkm
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 Wexford, Ireland
http://www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal (USA Citizen)
* Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: