+0 به یه ن

وزارت اطلاعات سلطنتی انگلیس,سایت کریستوفر را مسدود کرد

کریستوفر اسپی وی :

خانواده سلطنتی بریتانیا, شیطانی است! ملکه انگلیس با ستمگرها, سوسیالیستها و متجاوزهای جنسی و بچه بازها چای می نوشد!

منابع خبری کشور کانادا که هنوز هم جزو مستعمرات انگلستان محسوب می شود به بحران مالی در انگلیس و ارتباط آن با خاندان سلطنتی این کشور پرداخته و نوشته اند : کاهش هزینه های دولتی ، افزایش مالیات ها و کاهش کمک های مالی به دانشجویان در سال گذشته میلادی موجب برپایی تظاهرات اعتراض آمیز گسترده در سرتاسر انگلیس شد و این تظاهرات ها به نوعی وجهه انگلیس را در اذهان عمومی جهان خدشه دار کرد.

در همین ارتباط خانواده سلطنتی انگلیس سال گذشته برای برگزاری مراسم عروسی پرنس ویلیامز نوه ملکه و همسر وی بیش از پنج میلیارد پوند هزینه کرد و به دلیل همین اعتراض شدید مردم انگلیس را برانگیخت. تا پیش از سال 2002 ملکه انگلیس سالیانه از محل دریافت مالیات های مردمی 122 میلیون پوند درآمد داشت و از این مبلغ برای هزینه های درباری و خانواده سلطنتی استفاده می کرد اما وی مجبور شد در سال مالی 2010 – 2011 تنها از 51 میلیون پوند برای مخارج خود و خاندان سلطنتی انگلیس استفاده کند و قرار ا ست درآمد ملکه در سال آینده بار دیگر کاهش یابد . از سوی دیگر افشای رسوایی جنسی خانواده سلطنتی انگلیس به خبر اول رسانه های این کشور طی ماههای گذشته تبدیل شد. در همین زمینه منابع خبری گزارش داده اند پرنسس دایانا ، زمانی که عضوی از خانواده سلطنتی بوده مورد آزار و اذیت قرار گرفته است! این جمله کوتاه کافی است تا بزرگ ترین جنجال رسانه ای سال در خصوص کشوری اتفاق بیفتد که خود را مهد آزادی و دموکراسی می داند اما در آن حتی بالاترین مقام های سلطنتی نیز از آزادی های حیوانی در امان نیستند . روزنامه های چاپ لندن در گزارش هایی در خصوص رسوایی جنسی خانواده سلطنتی که فاش شده است نوشتند : اعضای خانواده سلطنتی و افراد مشهور، این روزها در مورد حق حفظ حریم خصوصی خود زیاد صحبت می کنند اما چرا ما نباید در مورد زندگی خصوصی آنها و آنچه در این قسمت از زندگیشان می گذرد چیزی بدانیم؟ در پی رسوایی هک کردن تلفن و زیر سؤال رفتن فرهنگ شغلی، عملکرد و اخلاق مطبوعات انگلیس، این امر تقریبا تبدیل به نوعی تابو شده که کسی بخواهد اینگونه استدلال کند که به هرحال نوعی علاقۀ جمعی و مشروع به نوشتن و خواندن در مورد زندگی خصوصی افراد مشهور در بین مردم وجود دارد.

( کتاب حرامزاده های سلطنتی انگلیس )

روزنامه های انگلیسی نوشتند البته قصد آن نیست که از اقدامات هکرهای تلفن دفاع کنیم و یا از رفتار کسانی که پرنسس دایانا را مورد آزار و اذیت قرار داده اند. اما می خواهیم بگوییم که این موضوع کاملا قابل فهم، قابل قبول و قابل دفاع است که خبرنگاری به دنبال کسب اطلاعات و نوشتن در باره کارها و برنامه های غیر رسمی اعضای خانوادۀ سلطنتی باشد کارهائی که در اوقات فراغت و خارج از مسئولیت های رسمی شان انجام می دهند. این روزنامه ها اضافه کردند : البته وسواس و حساسیت ما نسبت به رویال ها ( اعضای خانوادۀ سلطنتی انگلیس) چیز جدیدی نیست. در طول قرن ها نشیب و فراز های زیادی دربین بوده ، اما اگر به عنوان مثال؛ به دوران سلطنت چارلز دوم برگردید می توانید اسناد رسوایی معاشقه های پادشاه را با معشوقه های فراوانش پیدا کنید.در اوایل دهۀ1970 و اواخردهۀ 1990، احترام به سلطنت تا حد زیادی افول کرد. اما امروز رویال ها سواربر ابرها در آسمان سیر می کنند. خبرنگار روزنامه انگلیسی " دیلی میل " که به افشا کننده راز پرنسس دایانا معروف بوده می نویسد : به طور کلی، روابط بین مطبوعات و کاخ سلطنتی یک رابطۀ دو سر سود است، هر چند گه گاه یکی از طرفین دست بالا را می گیرد و سود بیشتری می برد و در حال حاضر، متاسفانه، این خانواده سلطنتی است که این امتیاز را در اختیار دارد ، در حالی که رسانه ها عقب مانده اند.

هم اکنون برخی مستند سازان قصد دارند 60 سال حاکمیت ملکه الیزابت دوم و فراز و نشیبهای زندگی وی و خاندان سلطنتی انگلیس، سیاست داخلی و خارجی این کشور طی این مدت از جمله تغییرات در مستعمرات و روی آوردن به استعمار نو، اعطای استقلال به مستعمرات سابق، جنگ عراق و افغانستان، سیاستهای نرم ملکه الیزابت برای تاثیرگذاری بر دولتهای مختلف حزب محافظه کار و کارگر در تاریخ معاصر انگلیس و استفاده از مکانیزمهای غیرشفاف برای حداکثرسازی نقش خاندان سلطنتی در روندهای تصمیم گیری و پرهیز جدی از مداخله آشکار در مسائل سیاسی را بررسی و به تصویر بکشند. مسلما بخشی از این تلاش ها معطوف به فساد گسترده در خاندان سلطنتی و تلاش ملکه برای سرپوش گذاشتن بر این فسادها و نیز تلاش وی برای تغییر نگاه مردم به این خاندان، تقویت زمینه ادامه نظام سلطنتی مشروطه در انگلیس و ممالک تابعه و چالشهای مربوط به تعیین یک پادشاهی با ظاهری مقبول برای آینده این کشور خواهد بود. به اعتقاد اکثر تاریخ نگاران بریتانیا از گذشته دور با مشکلی به نام خاندان سلطنتی و سیطره آن بر تمامی ابعاد زندگی مردم این جزیره مواجه بوده؛ خاندانی که از همان روزهای آغازین تا امروز با فساد و انحراف اخلاقی رابطه ای ناگسستنی داشته است. سابقه فساد اخلاقی خاندان سلطنت بریتانیا به بیش از 100 سال می رسد و گهگاه به آگاهی افکار عمومی نیز می رسد، مثلا ادوارد هفتم در سال 1870، آلوده روابط نامشروع بود و همگان از فساد جرج پنجم و روابط ضد اخلاقی اش آگاه بودند. روابط عاشقانه متعدد ادوارد هفتم که در سال ۱۹۰۱ به سلطنت رسید، همواره باعث رنجش ملکه می ‌شد، اما در نهایت وی با شاهزاده الکساندرا از دانمارک وصلت کرد که این ازدواج برخلاف تصور همه تا سال‌های زیادی دوام آورد. در سال 1891 میلادی، پسر ادوارد پنجم که با دو زن بدکاره رابطه و مکاتبه داشت، ناچار شد به آنان باج دهد تا بتواند نامه هایش را پس بگیرد و ماجرا را پایان دهد اما شماری از نامه های این فسادها بعدها در حراجی های انگلیس به فروش رفت. در دوران معاصر، شاهزاده مارگارت، خواهر ملکه الیزابت دوم؛ ابتدا با یک خلبان انگلیسی رابطه داشت اما چون دولت و کلیسا با ازدواج شاهزاده با یک مرد مطلقه مخالفت کردند، با یک عکاس ازدواج کرد. مارگارت پس از مدت کوتاهی طلاق گرفت و تا آخر عمر با مردان فراوانی رابطه داشت. در سال 2005 میلادی نیز رسانه های انگلیس گزارش دادند یک همجنس باز که با پسر مارگارت رابطه جنسی داشته، تقاضای باج کرده تا نوار مربوط به این رسوایی را منتشر نکند.

براساس اسناد موجود، شاهزاده چارلز، ولیعهد انگلیس، با این که با زنان فراوانی رابطه داشت، در سال 1981 با شاهزاده دایانا ازدواج کرد و با داشتن دو پسر، در سال 1996 طلاق گرفت. به گفته دایانا، در طول زندگی مشترک، چارلز با "کاملیا پارکر" که در آن زمان شوهر داشت، رابطه نامشروع داشت. چارلز در سال 2005 میلادی ، با کاملیا ازدواج کرد و دایانا نیز به همراه دوست پسرش که فرزند یک میلیاردر مصری بود در یک تصادف در پاریس درگذشت. جدایی چارلز از دایانا ضربه محمکی به وجهه‌ خاندان سلطنتی بریتانیا وارد کرد. کوتاه مدتی پس از آن درز مکالمات تلفنی چارلز با کامیا پارکر، معشوقه چندین ساله‌اش، به روزنامه‌ها سر و صدای زیادی را به راه انداخت و موجب شد که بسیاری از مردم چندان رغبتی برای به سلطنت رسیدن شاهزاده چارلز نداشته باشند. در سال ۲۰۰۳ پاول برل، خدمتکار شخصی دایانا، کتابی منتشر کرد و در آن پرده از بحران زندگی زناشویی چارلز و دایانا برداشت. شاهزاده اندرو، دومین پسر و سومین فرزند ملکه الیزابت دوم، در سال 1986 با "سارا فرگوسن" ازدواج کرد و بعدا از وی طلاق گرفت. روابط کاری شاهزاده اندرو با جفری اپستین، میلیاردر آمریکایی، افشا و موجب بی آبرویی خاندان سلطنتی شد زیرا شریک شاهزاده اندرو، به جرم تعرض جنسی به کودکان، در آمریکا تحت پیگرد است. سال ۱۹۹۲ سال چندان خوشی برای خاندان سلطنتی بریتانیا نبود. در ماه مارس اندرو از همسرش سارا فرگوسن جدا شد. چند ماه پس از جدایی عکس‌هایی نیمه ‌برهنه از سارا فرگوسن به همراه مشاور مالی ‌اش در کنار یک استخر به روزنامه‌ ها راه یافت. و در ماه دسامبر شاهزاده چارلز و دایانا پس از سالها اختلاف جدایی خود را رسما اعلام کردند. ملکه الیزابت دوم این سال را که همزمان با چهلمین سالگرد تاجگذاری ‌اش بود "سالی بد" لقب داد. ادوارد، سومین پسر و چهارمین فرزند ملکه انگلیس است که ازدواج کرده و دارای دو دختر است. پیش از ازدواج وی با سوفی رایز- جونز در سال 1999 میلادی، شایعاتی منتشر شد مبنی بر این که شاهزاده انگلیسی، در خفا همجنس باز است اما این صفت خود را بروز نمی دهد. هری، نوه‌‌ ملکه الیزابت، به دلیل روابط عاشقانه‌ متعددش با زنان، حضور در مهمانیهای متعدد و انتشار عکسهایی از او در حالت مستی، لقب "شاهزاده مهمانی" را از رسانه‌ ها دریافت کرد. انتشار عکسی از او در یونیفورم نازیها نیز تا مدتها خبرساز بود. این مسایل تنها گوشه از واقعیت ها و حقایق تلخی است که تاکنون به جهان خبر درز کرده و انتظار می رود با ادامه آشکار شدن رسوایی های مالی و اخلاقی خاندان سلطنتی بریتانیا مردم این جزیره در آینده با سرافکندگی خود را انگلیسی معرفی کنند.

منبع گزارش : سیر نیوز

!Christopher Spivey : The Satanic British Royal Family

Personally I would seriously question the morals of a Queen who takes tea with tyrants and socialises with***offenders and paedophiles.

کریستوفر اسپی وی : خانواده سلطنتی بریتانیا, شیطانی است! ملکه انگلیس با ستمگرها و سوسیالیستها و متجاوزان جنسی و بچه بازان چای می نوشد!

( سایت کریستوفر از سوی وزارت اطلاعات سلطنتی انگلیس مسدود شد )

We were involved in and spoke at the UK Rally Against Child Abuse in Trafalgar Square last Saturday (7 Aug 2010). Filmmaker and child abuse survivor Bill Maloney opened the Rally with a rousing speech in which he committed treason under Nelson’s column declaring that the Queen Mother was a paedophile. Diana had apparently declared to a close friend that she was evil. Her footman, who had previously been a butler to the Queen, was a convicted child***offender who used to groom his victims by taking them to parties with the Queen Mother at Clarence House” – Spokes person for UKRACA

With the Queens Jubilee celebrations still dominating the news it’s probably a bit unfair to try and gauge whether the Royal family are gaining or losing public support. After all, some of those who wouldn’t normally support the Queen but are easily led – of whom there are many – often get caught up in the inevitable wave of patriotism that an event such as QE2’s 60 years on the throne is bound to generate.

For what it’s worth, those who are pro monarchy tend to put the country’s support for Liz at around 80%. On the other hand, those in favour of Britain becoming a republic are more likely to site the result of a recent major poll undertaken which came back as showing support for the Queen as now being less than 50%.

To my way of thinking, even 50% support is far too high. There is a wealth of easily accessible information available as to how evil, corrupt, greedy and parasitic this woman and her family of inbreeds are, yet at least 1 in 2 of us are happy to let her reign continue…

Are these people mad?

The Queen should have been hanged for High Treason back in 1972 when she let the corrupt paedophile Prime Minister, Edward Heath sign away our sovereignty. She had and still has the authority to do so, yet she still let him. Furthermore, she let him do so under very unfavourable terms for the country- Terms which Heath had in fact been blackmailed into agreeing too.

This blackmail came about after it was discovered that Heath was molesting young boys from various children’s care homes around the country. The following is an extract from ‘Wheel Of Fortune’ written by T Stokes:

 “One of those who stood most to lose was Sir Edward Heath prime minister from 1970-74, who was known to visit the Jersey care home the Haute Garrene among others to take young boys on boating weekends on his yacht called  ‘Morning Cloud’, or as bodyguards referred to it, ‘Morning Sickness’.”

Heath had already been warned several times by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police about his conduct, but like so many before him, The then Prime Minister thought that he was untouchable and as such, ignored the warnings..
Many of these boys were allegedly provided to Heath and many more prominent MP’s for that matter by the Radio 1 DJ and TV Celebrity Jimmy Saville.

Course, Jimmy ‘rattle, rattle’ Saville was a hero to millions of kids in the 1960’s & 70’s who would never believe that of him. After his career took a nose dive in the 1980’s Saville reinvented himself as a Charity fund raiser for the Stoke Mandeville Hospital and as such millions more would also never believe him capable of such a heinous crime.

On the other hand, I find it extremely easy to believe and very plausible too. After all, he was extremely flamboyant, he never married – in fact he was never known to have had a girlfriend. But most tellingly of all was his fondness for children, especially boys in care homes. The following is an extract in connection with the Haut de la Garenne inquiry into the child abuse that took place at the Haute Garenne Childrens home on Jersey :

 “A source spoke to one of his victims and he said about others who were present, and more important, who was supplying the children to him. The person bringing children for him to abuse was Sir Jimmy Saville. He was seen by the witness, victim, taking young boys onboard Heaths yacht the ‘morning cloud’ when they were at party conference. Saville is known for supplying a number of high profile MP’s with children for them to sexually abuse”.

Saville, a homosexual paedophile, was also a frequent visitor to the Royal household. You can draw your own conclusions from that but I will remind you that during these 6oth anniversary celebrations, one of the invited guests on the Royal Barge was the convicted***offender Harbinder Singh Rana who served a 4yr prison term for a list of offences including 5 counts of indecent assault.

The fact that all of the senior royals were in the company of this known***offender – who would have been closely vetted before being allowed anywhere near them – would not have mattered a jot to Liz & Co. After all, the Royal family have been linked to  perverse***scandals for centuries.

Prince Andrew for instance has been dogged for years by rumours of homosexuality. If he is, fair enough, but he would never be allowed to admit it, what with his Mother being the head of the Church of England. However, the nature of his sexual preferences was called in to question following the revelation of his close association and friendship with the child***offender Jeffrey Epstein. Now if you or I were known to be regular visitors to a Paedophiles home we would be attacked and beaten in the street.

Unfortunately, Randy Andy also thinks nothing of charging the public for the travel costs to his shenanigans. Now considering the fact that he is well aware that the tax payer should only pick up the tab for his travel to and from ‘Official business’ trips, the word ‘Fraud’ automatically springs to mind.

Course, if asked which member of the Royal family is Gay, the majority of people automatically choose Prince Ed the Ball. Now while it’s true that he wasn’t man enough for the Military and as such tried a career as a ‘luvie’, there are no scandal stories to support the claim. In fact, apart from trading in on his Royal status and beating his dogs with a walking stick, there is actually very little tittle tattle on Rock steady Eddie… He’s just a pratt.

His older Brother Prince Big Ears… Sorry, that was rude so I will start again. Edwards’s older brother Prince Dobby, sometimes affectionately known as Charles, on the other hand is also rumoured to be Gay, or at least bisexual. This information came straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak. That isn’t to say that the info came from Princess Anne. I will deal with her later.

Prince Charles sexuality was called into question following the murder of his wife Diana. Diana, in a self preservation exercise had made a tape recording of one of Charles’ valets telling of how he was raped by a senior member of the Royal Household. Jamie Doward, social affairs editor at the Observer ran this story on November 2, 2003:

“Secret confessional videos made by Diana, Princess of Wales – which would have caused huge embarrassment to the royal family if they had been made public – have been [allegedly] destroyed.

Royal sources say the videos, recorded by a former BBC cameraman, who is now believed to be living abroad, were seized when detectives raided the home of Paul Burrell, Diana’s former butler, in Cheshire two years ago.

The videos featured an emotional Diana discussing her life following her divorce from Prince Charles and an allegation that a courtier close to a senior royal raped one of his male colleagues [apparently Princess Charles sodomized one of his male valets].

This is the same allegation that Diana reputedly recorded on the infamous audio tape whose whereabouts is now the subject of a media frenzy.

On the audio tape the princess recorded George Smith, a former aide to Charles, alleging that he was [homosexually] raped [sodomized, “buggered”] by a senior courtier [apparently Princess Charles, who partially admitted the allegation by stating that he was the person named in Diana’s diaries, without going so far as confessing his guilt that he perped the crime]”.

Never the less, despite the evidence pointing to Charles being a Homosexual Rapist – A common and accepted practice amongst the Elites apparently – at least he and his Sister Anne can be reasonable sure of their parentage. On the other hand Prince’s Randy Andy & Ed the Ball cannot claim likewise with the same degree of certainty.

This is because despite appearances, The Queen and her husband, Phil the Greek (who is in fact German) are not as close as they would have you believe. There are in fact far to many Newspaper articles and rumours pertaining to Liz & Phil’s cold, loveless marriage, for them not to be true.

Prince Andrew’s parentage was called into question shortly after his birth and the murmurings have gained momentum ever since by sly digs in the media such as this one from the Telegraph:

“There are those who persist in believing that Prince Andrew’s natural father was the Queen’s racing manager, Henry Porchester, “Porchey”, 7th Earl of Carnarvon, suggesting the conception occurred at some point between 20 January and 30 April 1959 when Philip was away on another of his long sea voyages in the Britannia”.

In 1993 The New York Times Magazine exposed the Queen’s penchant for sleeping with her underlings in an article quoting the columnist Nigel Dempster telling the author Christopher Hitchens, ‘Get hold of a picture of Prince Andrew and then one of Lord Porchester at the same age. You’ll see that Prince Philip could never have been Andy’s father’.

Tellingly, The Queen did not dare challenge the article. She did however use the tax payer’s money to increase the budget for the Buckingham Palace Press Office – the outfit set up decades ago to buy the silence of media owners and editors.

Coincidentally enough, or perhaps as fate would have it, as I was searching for a photograph of  the Queen and Lord Porchester in each others company, I came across an article in today’s Telegraph newspaper (6/7/12) from which the following extract is taken:

Euston headed the list of well-born “flirts” that Elizabeth and her friends used to joke about, which also included Lords Porchester and Plunket, among others. Unlike her fun-loving younger sister, Margaret, Elizabeth was painfully shy and cautious and solemn in her demeanour, albeit still attractive. At parties she could appear something of a wallflower. However, at nightclubs – such as the 400 Club in Leicester Square, where there was a band for dancing, or the nearby Café de Paris, before it was bombed – she could be squired by young men she liked, away from prying eyes.

“She clearly found Hugh Euston, Porchey [Lord Porchester] and Lord Plunket sexually attractive,” recalled a lady-in-waiting to the Telegraph journalist and author Graham Turner, “and they would get the come-hither looks, a fluttering of the eyelashes. You can’t have much going on between you in a Viennese waltz, but there’s the look, the pressure of the hand and, in those days, it wasn’t so commonplace to want the next thing.”

Moreover, according to royal researcher Jim Hutchinson, State Papers released in 2009 confirm that in 1959, the [pregnant] Queen and the question as to who her – as yet unborn – baby’s father was likely to be, was discussed in Cabinet on three occasions. The details of the first of these discussions had been stamped ‘Not to be seen for 50 years’. That is 20 years longer than the standard 30 year rule. The details of the other two discussions have been stamped ‘Not to be seen for 100 years’.

Four years after Randy Andy’s birth, Prince Ed the Ball was born and just like his older brother, it wasn’t long before his parentage became gossip for the press. However, in Edwards’s case the man being touted as his Father wasn’t the womanising Lord Porchester, it was in fact a chap named Baron Patrick Plunkett.

While the evidence for Pluckett being Edwards Father isn’t as compelling as that for Porchester being Prince Andrew’s Father, it would tie in with the much repeated claim that after the birth of Princess Anne, Bizzy Lizzy refused to have Phillip in her bed.

This claim was repeated in a book written by Nicholas Davies and revealed “a shocking world of royal adultery, passion and betrayal”

The book stated – as fact, not surmise – that the Duke of Edinburgh’s liaisons with his cousin, Princess Alexandra and the film star Merle Oberon, not to mention his former Daughter in Laws mother, Susan Barrantes (among others!)- as the reason “why the Queen banned her husband from her bed”.

More damming still, the Telegraph reported in an article on the 5^th of September 2004, about how Phillip  had sat “impassively, incensed but silent” when a Journalist from a “Sunday broadsheet” had suggested to the Duke that he might have a raft of illegitimate children and had enjoyed a homosexual liaison with Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former President of France.

Course, Prince Dobby – being a chip off the proverbial old block – is known to have had the odd extra marital affair or two. It has been well documented that he was sleeping with Camilla Parker Bowles throughout his entire marriage to Princess Diana. However, what is less well known is that while still married to Diana and sleeping with Camilla, Charlie boy was also getting it on with his son’s Nanny, Tiggy Legge-Bourke.

After Princess Diana’s death, it was revealed that she had deposited a letter with her solicitor, Lord Victor Mishcon, stating that Charles planned to have her killed in a “Car accident” so as he would be free to marry “Tiggy” ( Tiggy Legge-Bourke). When the letter had first been made public, the name of the woman Charles wished to marry had been censored. This led to the general consensus amongst the British population being that the woman in question was Camilla. However, as you can see from the photo of the letter(below), Diana states that Camilla was just a decoy.

Moreover, further details of the sordid affair were revealed at the Diana inquest in 2007. The Daily Mirror had this to say on the matter:

 “Princess Diana told her solicitor that both she and Camilla Parker Bowles were going to be “got rid of” so Prince Charles could marry Royal nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke, her inquest heard”.

It is a known fact that a ‘Car accident’ is a recognized way of carrying out an assassination. The method of doing so is called the ‘Boston Brakes’. It is also a fact that 6 weeks before Diana was murdered, Camilla Parker Bowles was in a serious road accident while driving alone. Despite knowing that it is a very serious criminal offence to flee the scene of an accident, Camilla immediately ran into the nearby woods from where she then phoned  Prince Charles, who immediately had his security team rush and get her. She later said that she was in fear of her life – A curious thing to say.

I do intend to cover this car accident in more detail in a future article surrounding the murder of Diana.

In November 1995 the National press were tipped off that Tiggy Legge-Bourke (TLB) had become pregnant by Charles and had had an abortion. It was further reported that ‘words’ had been exchanged between Diana and Legge-Bourke on the subject at a party on the 14th of  December 1995, where Diana had supposedly said to TLB; “So sorry about the baby”.

On 18 December 1995, Legge-Bourke, with the Queen’s agreement, instructed the libel lawyer Peter Carter-Ruck to write to Diana’s solicitors demanding an apology and asking that the accusation be “recognized to be totally untrue“.

Predictably no apology or retraction was ever received, but Legge-Bourke’s lawyers never the less circulated a letter to the news media to warn against publication.

Staying on the subject of illegitimate Royal offspring, there have always been rumours flying around suggesting that Dobby isn’t actually the real father of his 2^nd son, Prince Harry. Certainly, as is the case with Dobby’s younger brother Andrew, there is a lack of the usually predominant Mountbatten (Battenberg/Windsor) facial features present when you look at Harry.

It isn’t in fact, unfair to suggest that Harry does indeed share many more characteristics in common with those of his alleged father, James Hewitt than he does with Charles. Award winning Journalist, Ian Halperin had this to say on the matter:

 A longtime employee of Harry’s mother Princess Diana told IUC that the Royal Family was involved in a massive cover up to hide the fact that Diana’s ex lover James Hewitt is in fact Harry’s real father.  According to the source Prince Philip threatened Hewitt’s life if he didn’t go along with the cover up.  “They made him lie about the timeline,” the source told IUC.  “Prince Philip told Hewitt he would destroy him if it ever leaked out.  It’s impossible that Charles is Harry’s real father.  Hewitt was on the scene as Diana’s lover two years before Harry was born.  Diana stopped having***with Charles years before Harry was born.  Harry looks exactly like Hewitt”.

So there we have both the Queen’s husband who is all but King in name and his son, the King in waiting, both having evidence against them to suggest that they both indulged in multiple affairs while married. Both were closet homosexuals – Charles being an alleged homosexual rapist. Both impregnated with child, women other than their wives and both play father to children who may not be their biological children. Do they not say that history repeats itself?  It certainly seems to be the case in the House of Windsor, but could it get any worse?

It most certainly does because while Dobby was carrying on his love affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, his Sister Princess Dobbin AKA Anne had resumed her love affair with Camilla’s Husband, Andrew Parker Bowles.

The Daily Mail newspaper had this to say on the matter on June the 19^th 2010. I have underlined certain words in order to put emphasis on certain insinuations:

“It’s been 37 years since their red-hot affair ended in tears when the young cavalry officer called a halt to their romps, announcing he was going to marry a girl called Camilla. 
Anne, shattered at the loss of her one true love, got hitched on the rebound to another cavalryman, Mark Phillips, before finding contentment of sorts with ‘harmless’ naval officer Tim Laurence.

Since then, between their four collective marriages, Anne and Andrew have often rekindled the flame.

Anne is 59 and Andrew 70 – but despite their advancing years, the talk round Royal enclosure this week focused on a report that their on-off affair was on again”.

Now, as far as I am aware, Anne and her husband ‘Dim Tim’ haven’t announced their separation. Therefore, a person would be entitled to ask; Is there no end to this dysfunctional family’s bed-hopping?

Apparently not. The Royal Researcher Jim Hutchinson has this to say in relation to Princess Dobbin and her Daughter Zara Phillips, who is obviously the Granddaughter to the Queen:

“Zara is the daughter of Princess Anne and Peter Cross, a detective of the Royal Protection Squad. When Princess Anne told Mummy she was pregnant Cross was moved to an ordinary police job in South London. But ‘the Royal and her Dick affair’ carried on (and on – much to the delight of MI5). The Queen’s spooks reported the couple spending steamy nights in a workers cottage on Anne’s Gatcombe Park estate, Gloucester. Mummy was not amused”.

The Daily Mail Newspaper however were slightly more restrained than Mr Hutchinson. They had this to say on the affair which, as you will see, also reveals that Dobbin’s husband at the time, Captain Mark Phillips had also got in on the royal trend of having illegitimate children:

“For some years before they parted, she [Anne] and Mark Phillips were not really happy.

As he flew around the world riding and teaching (and siring an illegitimate child in New Zealand, whose mother eventually came looking for maintenance), there was talk and innuendo about Anne and the men (Note the insinuation, ‘men’ being the plural – Spivey) close to her.

 Much of it involved Detective Sergeant Peter Cross, a married officer from Mitcham, South-West London, who became her protection officer in 1979.

A year later, Anne came down to breakfast at Gatcombe Park to find grim-faced Royal Protection Squad senior officers waiting to meet her. Cross was being relieved of his duties amid suggestions that he and the Princess had become ‘too close’.

Never was the Princess’s imperious manner as useful as when rebutting such suggestions.

The formerly high-flying Cross found himself back in uniform, but moved from the glamour of royal protection to a mundane role behind a desk at Croydon police station.

Alas, that wasn’t the end of the matter because four years later, in 1984, handsome Sergeant Cross (by then retired) sold his kiss-and-tell story to the News Of The World.

They paid him £600,000 – worth about £2million in today’s money  –  in exchange for which he claimed the Princess snuggled up to him on the sofa while watching TV at Gatcombe, had intimate meetings in the library and in a lodge on the estate, the changing rooms of a swimming pool at Windsor and even a rendezvous in a three-bedroom semi in Ewell, Surrey, loaned to them for the afternoon by a fellow officer.

The Princess Royal has never acknowledged, let alone commented, on his claims”.

I think it’s safe to say then that the Royal Family take the sanctity of Marriage  with a pinch of Salt. That is hardly what you would expect from the so called Head of the Church of England is it?  They cant even stand behind the defence that they got married  at the local registry office. All of their weddings have cost the tax payer a great deal of money. For instance, according to the Daily Mail, Dobby and Camilla Parker Dogface’s relatively small wedding cost us £14Million.

Course Camilla – who insiders say Dobby “can no longer stand” – added an extra £40 Million to the tax payers annual £2Billion bill which is already being spent on protecting the Royal family.   

Never the less the cost of Dobby’s second wedding was Small change compared to his first. That wedding to Diana cost us £4Million back in 1981 (£70Million at todays prices –Source: Global Trader Magazine).

However, according to the respected financial magazine, Global Trader, that wedding could also be said to be cheap in comparison to Prince William’s wedding. Global Trader had this to say on the matter:

 “On the simplest of balance sheets, it will be a massive loss. The CBI has said that the Bank holiday alone will cost the country £5bn in lost production, while the cost of the wedding itself, though predicted to be less (in real terms) than the £70m it cost Charles and Di to tie the knot in 1981, is going to put a heavy dent in the public purse”.

So, lets be clear on this matter. We, the tax payer pay for the richest woman in the worlds children and grandchildren to get married. We don’t get an invite and even after we have forked out for the bash, the spoilt parasites don’t take their wedding vows seriously. Is it just me who thinks that there is something seriously amiss in that equation?

And, While the majority of the British public are finding it tough at the moment in this age of austerity, here are a few more facts on the Royals and what their expenditure has cost us over the past year.

• Fact: … Long live our Noble Queen? The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘Noble as: moral in an honest, brave and not selfish way. With that in mind, consider these other facts.
•  Fact: The sovereign’s official expenditure in 2011-2012 was £32.3million, up £200,000 on the previous year. Never the less, while we tighten our purse strings It has just been announced that the Queen has been given a pay rise totalling £6Million. Meanwhile children in this country, i.e. her subjects, are going hungry.
• Fact: It has been revealed by the prince’s annual accounts that Charles received almost 2.2 million pounds  from grants and government departments in the year to March 31. That is a rise of 11 percent comparing to the year before. Figures also show that Charles income and expenditures both rose at the cost of the taxpayers in the UK. The Prince already receives a large income from properties and investments of the Duchy of Cornwall. That is a land the size of 136,000 acres which was established in the 14th century to provide income for the heir to the throne – Plenty of room for him to grow his own veg then. “One can’t eat the cancer giving crap that the riff-raff have to eat, do you not know”. Never the less, Dobby was exposed in July as having spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on personal travel, including £29,786 for a return flight from Clarence House to Balmoral for a private four-day break. Fraud? Meantime Big ears still continues to lobby parliament for more money from the Civil list.
• Fact: Prince Andrew  was revealed to be pushing for taxpayer-funded roles for his daughters, causing tensions with senior Royals. In February 2012, Prince Andrew’s UK trade and industry  position was challenged in the House of Commons due to his close connections with Col Gaddafi and Libyan gun-runners. Since then he has clocked up bills of £378,000 on flights in his capacity as a controversial global ambassador for UK trade and industry.
• Fact: Kate and William’s  wedding  has been revealed to have impacted negatively on both UK tourism and economic growth. Furthermore, their earlier PR failed them after announcing in late 2010 that they would have no servants… then in June 2012 they were caught, errr… Advertising for servants, Doh!
• Fact:  Prince Harry’s jubilee tour on behalf of the Queen in March cost £107,098… Nice work if you can get it. Of that £51,443 was spent on scheduled flights for himself and his staff from London to Miami and Rio de Janeiro back to London. A further £55,655 was spent on a private jet to take him from Miami to Belize and onto the Bahamas, Jamaica and then back to Miami… Thanks Nan, Thanks Peasants.
• Fact: It has been revealed that Princess Dobbin’s daughter Zara Phillips’ wedding cost the taxpayer over £400,000… Did Retired Police Sgt Peter Cross give her away? 
• Fact: Prince William and his wife Kate spent an incredible £52,000 on a one-way flight from Los Angeles to London for themselves and their seven-strong entourage. The cost of royal travel is continuing to raise eyebrows with a bill for £6.1million last year, an increase of £100,000 on the year before.
• Fact: Dobby cost the Taxpayer, that’s us, £460,387 for a private jet for him and his ‘put it about a bit’ wife for their tour of Middle East, South Africa and Tanzania. A few days before flying out to the Middle East, Charles flew by charter to Saudi Arabia at a cost of £67,215, to pay his condolences on behalf of the UK following the death of the Saudi Arabian Crown Prince. I take it that would be the Saudi Arabia which likes to publicly behead those who break the law. I don’t remember asking him to pass on my condolences to the tyrant, do you? 

To me, those facts just confirm what I already knew i.e, They are taking the right Michael out of us, yet somewhere between 50 – 80 % of the British population apparently feel that the Royal Family are worth the cost. The phrase ‘Mad Dogs & Englishmen’ springs to mind.

Personally I would seriously question the morals of a Queen who takes tea with tyrants and socialises with***offenders and paedophiles. Furthermore, this despicable woman who is touted as being ‘caring’ doesn’t sound so caring to me when you take into account that some estimates suggest that she could end world poverty 10 times over and still be a Trillionaire.

Disregarding that fact, anyone who can sit on a throne wearing a million pound hat and say that they empathise with our suffering in these times of austerity is taking the piss. Yet at least 1 in 2 of us still thinks she is worth keeping… Never mind her morality, what does that say about our own?

The Royal family are without a doubt all barking mad, primarily brought about by years of inbreeding. Indeed Dobby made it perfectly clear to Diana that he had only married her to inject much needed new blood into the line. I personally strongly suspect that Prince William was ordered to do the same in relation to Kate Middleton.

However, I don’t doubt for one second that like her deceased Mother in Law, Kate is truly in love with the man she married. The royal males however are incapable of such feelings. Had Diana still been alive, then no doubt in the case of William & Harry this trend may have been reversed. Alas, any chance of that happening ended with Diana’s murder on August the 31^st 1997.

Indeed, such is the lack of compassion running through the Monarchy’s veins that William & Harry were paraded in front of the world’s media after being forced to attend the Windsor’s hypocritical, customary Sunday church service at Balmoral, some 2 or 3 hours after being told that their Mother had been killed in Paris.

If that wasn’t bad enough the Reverend – or whoever it is that presides over these pantomimes – was under strict orders from the Queen to make no mention of the Princess’s death what so ever.

Course, the royal family’s inability to show love for their children is well documented. This fact is even caught on film footage from the 1950’s which shows a Pre-school aged Prince Charles trying to take his Mother’s hand only to have it shooed away.

It is also a documented fact that Dobby’s young life was shaped by his Great Uncle Louis Mountbatten. Wikipedia has this to say on that matter:

“Mountbatten was a strong influence in the upbringing of his grand-nephew, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and later as a mentor—”Honorary Grandfather” and “Honorary Grandson”, they fondly called each other according to the Jonathan Dimbleby biography of the Prince”.

Now while that may sound innocuous enough in its self, the fact that Mountbatten was a known gay paedophile, who was rumoured to have had incestuous relationships with both Edward VIII & Prince Philip, should have meant that he wasn’t allowed within a 100 miles of the young Prince Dobby… Or perhaps there were darker, more sinister reasons for Charles to be in the care of such a vile monster.

The Authors of the controversial book ‘The War of the Windsor’s’ which was serialised in the Daily Mail state:

“Lord Louis Mountbatten had the nickname “Dickie” …and for good reason. Philip’s uncle Dickie was the last viceroy in India where he was a known paedophile who sexually exploited young working class Indian peasant boys”.

Mountbatten is also linked to the paedophile ring who abused boys living at the Kincora Care Home in Belfast Northern Ireland. An excellent website, dedicated to exposing the Royal Family http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/index.html, have this to say about a book written on that paedophile ring entitled ‘The Kincora Scandal’:

 “The Kincora Scandal connects Lord Dickie Mountbatten to a child prostitution vice ring in Belfast, Ireland. Authorities failed to intervene at the Kincora care home for boys until 1981, despite reports over the years of child sexual abuse”.

The operators of the Kincora child prostitution ring were eventually convicted in 1981 of the RITUAL sexual abuse of defenceless young boys who were sold like prostitutes. No charges were ever brought against the VIP customers made up of Royals, Politicians, lawyers, and Judges. However, Belfast citizens finally had reason to celebrate when Prince Philip’s paedophile uncle was killed by  an IRA bomb planted in his boat”.

I can fully appreciate that many people will find all this information hard to believe. However, it is for that very reason that the House of Windsor have got away with it for so long. Course, whenever the majority of people hear the word paedophile, they automatically think of an old, dirty raincoat wearing social misfit. This couldn’t be further from the truth according to ‘Abel Danger’ who say this:

“We are inclined to think of child molesters as strange men in dirty Macs hanging around street corners looking for unsuspecting prey. This perception is erroneous, since it has been established that the villains are more likely to be the ‘Bastions of Society’ who have an infinite supply of vulnerable victims from children’s homes, who are too afraid to tell. Who would believe them anyway, as the officials in authority they approach for help are usually involved”?

It is important to remember that the Royals have no concept what so ever of what most of us would consider ‘Normal’ life. For instance, how often have you heard it said that the Royal family are steeped in Tradition?

The word ‘Tradition’ is described by the online Cambridge Dictionary as being;  a belief, principle or way of acting which people in a particular society or group have continued to follow for a long time, or all of these beliefs, etc. in a particular society or group.

The windsors do indeed adhere to tradition. To them, tradition is ‘normal’ and that includes homosexual paedophilia, often with members of their own family. For their part, they despise us. We are only here to serve them and their needs. They are parasites who have accumulated fantastic and unimaginable wealth via conquest, pillage, slavery, deception, depleted uranium and fraud, yet it is us who are to blame for letting them get away with it.

As far as conquest and pillage are concerned, countless millions of men women and children have been murdered or forced into slave labour in the quest to establish the British Empire. Many people today are under the impression that the British Empire is a thing of the past.

Those people would be very wrong. The only difference is that the British Empire is now run covertly as opposed to the overtly way it was run in the past.

An article printed in the Guardian on the 21^st of April 2012 entitled ‘Deny the British empire’s crimes? No, we ignore them’ will give you some idea as to the mass genocide that took place in order for the Royal Family to add to their already obscene wealth. The article has an appropriate subtitle of; ‘New evidence of British colonial atrocities has not changed our national ability to disregard it”. I have re-printed a section of this article below and underlined the parts which I feel are important to emphasise:

 “Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain’s Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu’s Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize…

 …The entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died…

The inmates were used as slave labour… People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others…

…Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick.

Women were gang-raped by the guards…. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women’s breasts. They cut off inmates’ ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.

Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning”.

And that is just Kenya. Wide scale atrocities in the name of Britain – Therefore the Queen – took place where ever we conquered. Course, this conquest and pillaging still continues today by way of illegal overt wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the covert war in Libya (and soon to be Syria).

Many of you are under the impression that going to war is decide by the British government. However,  the Queen in her capacity as Head of State presides over a weekly meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee where she is fully briefed on the activities of all of the British secret services.

The Queen alone appoints military commanders. No British agents, or British troops, carry out a single act, overt or covert without direct orders signed by the British Head of State.

The Royal household has in the past made untold amounts of money from slavery, although some would argue that they still are today. Its all to do with those two words ‘Overt’  & ‘Covert’. Remember; “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”.

It is a fact that in 1679 the Duke of York (the future King James II) was one of the main investors in purpose built slave ships as were King George III & King William IV after him.

At the time of James II a slave sold for between £11-£14 (Around £1000 today) and had risen to as much as £95  (Around £10,000 today) per head by the time Queen Victoria took over the family business. Each ship held 600 slaves with an expected 20% death rate en-route. Records of how many slave ships the royals had an interest in and how many Slaves were transported on those ships are not readily available. However, in order to give you an insight into how big a business the slave trade was, you only need to visit the National Archives website where I found this information:

“Between 1808 and 1869 the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron seized over 1,600 slave ships and freed about 150,000 Africans but, despite this, it is estimated that a further 1 million people were enslaved and transported throughout the 19th Century”.

+0 به یه ن

زبان انگلیسی دریچه‌ی نفوذ امپریالیسم به درون لایه های اجتماعی

آیا زبان انگلیسی منبعث از یک فرهنگ امپریالیستی و نژاد پرستی انگلیسی که قدمت جنایات و تجاوزات پادشاهی آن، در سده های اخیر در سطح جهان گسترده بوده است؛ سزاوار جایگاه زبان بین المللی است؟ بی گمان هرگز! بنابراین الزامی است که طی اقدامات دیپلماتیک سیاسی و فرهنگی از سوی جوامع سازمان ملل و سایر سازمانهای داخلی و بین المللی، به برگزیدن زبان کشوری با قدمت تاریخی مثبت اقدام گردد. پادشاهی انگلیسی بواسطه فرهنگ زبان خود - در سایر ملل - نفوذ سیاسی و استعماری خود را سهل و آسان می‌سازد. هشداری

خانواده های گرامی ایرانی بایست واقف و آگاه باشند که امپریالیسم پادشاهی انگلیس، در راستای گسترش فرهنگ و سیاست دشمنانه خود در ایران، نیازمند پرورش کودکانی است که امروز فرهنگ انگلیسی را، در زندگی خویش گنجانیده، سپس فردای زندگی خود را با سیاستهای انگلیسی، در ایران بیآلایند. لذا نخستین قدم پادشاهی انگلیس، دشمن دیرینه‌ی ایرانیان، پرورش کودکان با القای لزوم آموزش زبان انگلیسی برای مقاطع سنی خردسالان و کودکان میباشد که متاسفانه اکنون متولی دلسوزی و ملی یافت نشده است که اقدامات شایسته ای برای مبارزه با افسار گسیختگی تبلیغات آموزشی و نرم افزاری زبان انگلیسی و امپریالیستی به اجرا گذارد.

همچنین نفوذ زبان عربی، در زبان فارسی، به نفوذ فرهنگ و سیاست عربی، در ایران انجامیده است که توجه بی شائبه متولیان فرهنگی ایران را، در راستای رجعت ایرانیان بسوی آخرین زبان ملی و اجدادی؛ یعنی، زبان پهلوی الزامی می‌سازد.

وقتی ایرانی علیه ایران است و توجهی به حوزه‌ی فرهنگ زبان اصیل ایران بطور شایسته ندارد، انتظار می‌رود که همچنان شاهد نفوذ بی رویه‌ی آنگلوفیل ها و خائن های انگلیسی، در حوزه‌های مختلفه ایران باشیم. نفوذ سیاستهای دشمنانه و جهانخوارانه پادشاهی انگلیس، در سایر کشورهای جهان و خاصه کشورهای در حال توسعه یا عقب مانده و جهان سومی، معظل فرهنگی و سیاسی بزرگی بوده است.آیا زبان استعمارگران و جهانخواران و متجاوزان ،به حقوق بشری و حقوق سیاسی سایر ملل، شایسته زبان بین الملل است؟