Conspiracies and Coverups

Diana's Murderers
by Tracey H.

 Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." Aldous Huxley

 The following presents a picture of the most likely suspects in Diana's murder. What follows may seem to go far afield of the day she died, but it’s essential to opening skeptical minds to the possibility that a small international group could conspire to kill Diana without getting caught. This group relies on the general disbelief in high-level conspiracies so I ask you to suspend your disbelief, at least temporarily, while you consider the section below entitled the Committee of 300. If you find this section too far-fetched, as I would have at one time, stay tuned for a future post on the history of the elite. It will contain more details and substantiation – like the true story which follows.

 Definition of Elite and Establishment

. The Establishment actually refers to the entire power structure from the highest to lowest levels. However, the term "elite" is often used to refer to its highest level, the ruling class, which is not elected, has been around for centuries, and works diligently to keep their private lives out of the public eye. The "Establishment" usually refers more to their lackeys: elected and unelected government officials (like Diana’s and Fergie’s gray men), intelligence agencies, think tanks, research institutes, selected universities, 99% of the media, and multinational corporate directors and executives.

 The Wall Street Fascists

 The following bit of information, omitted from our history books, illustrates the motivation and power of Committee 300 members. It involves a highly decorated Marine Major General named Smedley Butler, beloved by veterans for his courage and compassion, and described by Teddy Roosevelt as "the finest fighting man in America." The retired Butler was approached by a man named MacGuire who came as a representative of Morgan, Rockefeller, DuPont and other Wall Street moguls who wanted the Major-General to lead a coup d’etat against the FDR White House in the 1930s.

 Why? During the Depression FDR took steps to get the economy moving again – steps benefiting the people and hurting corporate profits. The business press called FDR "a traitor to his class…an impulsive, uninformed opportunist…lacking stability…reckless…unreliable" (everything but a "loose cannon").

 What happened? Major Butler played along with MacGuire’s request and, when he felt he had enough information, asked a reporter friend to investigate the story. His friend gained MacGuire’s confidence and was given the same facts, including information about a right-wing political group that would soon emerge. Once the group emerged as predicted and the reporter confirmed the details of the planned coup, Major Butler brought his evidence to the authorities.

The result? After refusing to subpoena witnesses who could take the testimony beyond hearsay, the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee formally stated there was no evidence of conspiracy. However, a report "for Congressional members only" (leaked to a reporter named Spivak) stated: "There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."

And our vigilant friends in the media? Time Magazine called the allegations a joke, thus ending mainstream media coverage. Only one small left-leaning publication printed reporter John Spivak’s story of this attempted coup of the US government.

 [A Man in His Time by John Spivak; Witness to a Century by George Seldes. For more information re: Maj. Butler, see http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/butler1.html]

 The above story shattered my disbelief. Prior to this, no matter what I read that supported Oliver Stone’s grand conspiracy theory in JFK, I’d return to the question "How could there be such a conspiracy without the media blowing the lid off?" The Major Butler story gave me the answer -- because they’re part of the conspiracy of silence. That’s why we don’t know much about the Committee of 300.

THE COMMITTEE OF 300

 It’s my contention that Diana’s death was approved, and the assassins set in motion, by an international committee, which acts like a Board of Directors of the World. Dr. John Coleman, author of a book on the subject, calls this group the Committee of 300 and says that it’s headed by Queen Elizabeth II. I feel, however, that her preeminence does not mean that she alone could order Diana’s death no matter the embarrassment she caused the Royal Family. Diana had to be deemed sufficiently poisonous to the power, wealth and goals of the Committee as a whole before consensus was reached to assassinate her. That happened when she expanded the number of people she wanted to "love" beyond England’s shores to the poorest corners of the globe.

The Members

 Dr. John Coleman, a professional intelligence officer, was on an assignment when he found some unusually explicit top secret documents and became "so outraged that he set out to uncover what power it is that controls and manages the British and United States governments." His research and contacts in the intelligence community led him past the lackey level – the Council on Foreign Relations, Round Table, Club of Rome, RIIA, Bilderbergs, Trilaterals, etc. -- to the elite themselves.

 What Dr. Coleman discovered was that you cannot search in the dark recesses of the mob or intelligence spooks for the elite. Instead, he tells us to "note how the Queen, Elizabeth II, performs the ceremonial opening of the British Parliament? There in full view is the head of the Committee of 300. Have you ever witnessed the swearing-in ceremony of a US President? There in full view is a [temporary] member. The problem is only one of perception." Also represented on the Committee are powerful but less public figures from the who’s who of European aristocracy and multinational corporate royalty, including old familiars like Rockefeller, DuPont, Morgan, Bush, Rothschild, Ranier, Forbes, Rhodes, the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine and Mountbatten.)

Their Goals

 The elite want the power to dominate the world’s wealth and to protect it from the encroachment of others. To that end, they discourage further industrialization in the world and seek to ensure exclusive access to the natural resources found in abundance in poor, non-industrialized nations. As Coleman states, this calls for "… the slow but sure disintegration of industrial nation states; the destruction of hundreds of millions of people [and] the removal of any leader who dared to stand in the way…" -- leaders like JFK, RFK, MLK, labor leader Reuther, banker Herrhausen, uncooperative heads of state in Europe, Asia, Africa and Central/South America, and the Queen of People’s Hearts, Diana.

 Their Operation

 The Committee, like any multinational enterprise, has local, regional and global levels of operation. I will deal with the global level because it was from this level that approval for Diana’s death came. But, keep in mind, that regardless of level, the elite surround themselves with ambitious toadies who will do their bidding out of greed and/or fear. These power brokers have great organizational skills sharpened by years of running ever larger enterprises and they succeed by utilizing ruthless management skills devoid of human decency.

 Coleman describes the elite’s foreign policy-making group as the Club of Rome, which is a "conspiratorial umbrella organization, [run] by… Anglo-American financiers and the Black Nobility families of Europe, particularly the so-called ‘nobility’ of London, Venice and Genoa. The Club has its own private intelligence agency and also ‘borrows’ from David Rockefeller’s INTERPOL. Every US intelligence agency cooperates very closely with it, as does the KGB and the Mossad. The only agency that remained beyond its reach was the East-German intelligence service, the STASSI."

Their Opposition

 As mentioned previously, the elite fear two enemies: 1) the "masses," who may eventually stop using each other as scapegoats and recognize that 328 billionaires in the world have as much wealth as the poorest 2.5 billion [Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 1996]; and 2) leaders who, by virtue of their humanity, charisma and position, might help Enemy No.1 to alter the balance of wealth and power the elite have worked centuries to skew.

Plans to Remove The Opposition

 Removing the masses: Starvation appears to be the extinction method most in favor; the only dispute seems to be who decides which people starve. Harland Cleveland, former US Ambassador to NATO, prepared a 1975 Club of Rome policy paper which essentially stated that it would be up to Third World leaders to decide among themselves which populations should be eliminated. The Committee decided this recommendation would give each leader too much power so they formulated a policy of "deliberately starving African nations to death, as evidenced in the sub-Sahara nations."

 If Dr. Coleman’s findings seem too far out to be taken seriously, ask yourselves how a supposedly compassionate country like the USA continues to provide subsidies for farmers to cut back food production, or destroy food already produced, when there are still millions in drought-stricken areas of the world to feed. A policy like this is incomprehensible unless you see how consistent such actions are with the elite’s goal of eliminating "useless eaters."

Before you say "there but for the grace of God…" note that we common folk in industrialized societies are not immune. In his book on the Kennedy presidency, Professor Donald Gibson states that a 1977 Rockefeller Report on the environment emphasized the recommendations of Paul Erlich (author of The Population Bomb) to reduce the US population by 50 million and the world’s by several billion. He also made it clear that birth control wouldn’t do the job, but a "massive increase in the death rate" would.

 How could they accomplish this? Starvation, of course, when possible. When not, how about war? Did you know that British and American elite helped to build up Hitler’s war machine both before and during the war [Trading with the Enemy, Charles Higham]? That’s hard to believe unless you’re aware of the 1953 Reece Congressional Committee investigation, headed by Norman Dodd. Among the evidence his staff gathered was a smoking gun in the 1916-1918 minutes of meetings at the Carnegie Foundation For Peace. (By now you must know the elite’s mode of operation well enough to realize that the Committee hearings were shut down the day they were to begin, with charges of partisanship and investigation irregularities. And, of course, you know the media slanted its meager coverage to protect the foundations.)

 The Carnegie minutes revealed that representatives from all the major tax-free foundations worked on ways to start wars, to manipulate people made malleable by the "crisis" of war; and to ultimately affect the sovereignty of the nation’s involved. In this way, the elite reshape the world according to their plans. What they didn’t foresee was the unbelievable devastation the atomic bomb would cause. After all, their property might be affected or, God forbid, their lives. This caused them to modify their use of warfare to limited wars with limited objectives and no clear resolution.

While disappointing as surplus population thinners, these limited wars were excellent revenue-generators for the arms portions of the elite’s portfolio. As Buckminster Fuller said in 1981, "That is why the annual military expenditures by the USSR and the USA have averaged over $200 billion a year for the last 30 years, with much of it spent in developing the ability to kill ever more people, at ever greater distances, in ever shorter times" [Critical Path].

 If war failed to satisfy their death lust, the elite had back-up killing systems. How about organized epidemics of fatal diseases, like EBOLI and AIDS to eliminate millions of "useless eaters"? Whether the HIV virus was developed in a World Health Organization lab, as some medical researchers have suggested, or it developed in some natural way which they cannot yet explain, it has proved a winner in the death race. Even better, it has a disproportionate impact on the socially and economically oppressed "with about 80% of the world’s 9 million AIDS deaths through 1995 having occurred in Africa [Covert Action Quarterly Journal, Fall 1996]."

 Not only are epidemics excellent killers, they make billions for the elite’s investment in pharmaceutical companies, that use taxpayer R&D money to develop drugs, that they then patent and charge eye-gouging prices for, year after year after year.

Removing popular leaders: JFK’s death, of course, is an obvious assassination, but I won’t discuss this one because there are so many areas where he threatened the elite that it deserves a book, and it has one in the aforementioned "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency." Instead, I’ll use two examples provided by Dr. Coleman (which are also documented in Gibson’s Kennedy book).

 Italy’s former Prime Minister, the late Aldo Moro, defied the elite’s prescription for zero industrial and zero population growth. After several years and many warnings, Moro was brutally murdered by the Red Brigades in 1978. At the trial Brigade members testified to high-level US involvement in the assassination plot and confirming statements were provided by Aldo’s wife and a close associate Gorrado Guerzoni.

 Guerzoni in "explosive testimony… broadcast over Italian television and radio on November 10, 1982 and printed in several Italian newspapers… stated that Henry Kissinger warned Moro, ‘Either you stop your political line or you will pay dearly for it.’ " Coleman points out that "this vital information was suppressed in the US. Those famous bastions of freedom with a compelling right to know, the Washington Post and the New York Times, did not think it important to even print a single line of Guerzoni’s testimony."

Coleman also tells us that Kissinger was not acting as the then US Secretary of State, but as a member of the Club of Rome and Royal Institute for International Affairs, which act as both advisors and executors to the Committee. In this capacity Kissinger also threatened Pakistan’s President Bhutto who disobeyed the elite by building nuclear weapons to protect his country against Israel. Bhutto was "murdered in 1979 by the Council on Foreign Relations representative in the country, General ul Haq."

 Then ul Haq lost favor and "the Club of Rome was told to eliminate him… and in so doing they had no compunction in sacrificing the lives of a number of US servicemen." Warned not to travel by plane because he was targeted for a mid-air bombing, the General told his inner circle of advisors that he would take along the US Army Defense Intelligence unit visiting his country as "an insurance policy." What ul Haq failed to realize is there is no honor or loyalty among elite thieves.

(Comment: It’s fascinating how often Kissinger pops up as the elite’s front man just as he popped up at Diana’s funeral, sitting on the Royals’ side at Westminster Abbey. Does anyone know why he, of all former American government officials, was invited to the funeral?)

 Their Depraved Sensibilities

 These facts, and many others pointing to the elite’s perverted objectives and treacherous actions during the last 100+ years, almost convinced me that such a world conspiratorial group existed. However, I still couldn’t conceive of so many wicked individuals acting in concert. After all, most children are raised with some guidelines as to "good and evil." How could civilized people kill so publicly and so brutally?

It wasn’t until I came across the books of MIT professor Noam Chomsky that I realized that the elite are raised in a moral world which is light years from my ethical reality. In "What the USA Really Wants," Chomsky tells us about Secretary of State Kennan’s wording of Policy Plan 23 in 1948. Kennan stated that, in order to keep our postwar superiority, we should "cease to talk about vague… and unreal objectives, such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization" and start talking in "straight power concepts."

O.K., so they trample on freedoms of speech, religion, etc.. Despicable and eyebrow-raising, but not outrageous. I didn’t feel outrage until later in the book when I discovered trampling on human rights, included trampling on human life via torture and death. As an example, Chomsky tells of the assault by the US-trained Salvadoran Death Squads chronicled by Reverend Santiago, a Jesuit priest who worked in El Salvador.

 In one of his entries, Santiago describes a "peasant woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its down decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top ‘as if each body was stroking its own head.’ The Salvadoran Death Squad had found it hard to keep the head of the 18-month old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it." According to Santiago, macabre scenes like this aren’t uncommon and they "greatly increased when the Church began forming peasant association and self-help groups in an attempt to organize the poor."

Lest you think this incident is an aberration, read a very well-documented book called Thy Will Be Done which records how the Rockefeller family, the American government, and America’s largest missionary organization, funded by a Rockefeller Foundation, "waged a forty-year campaign to conquer the Amazon – and eventually the frontiers of the entire Third World."

 Long before this book was published, a British journalist was moved to write about the plight of the people in the Amazon: "By the description of all who had seen them, there were no more inoffensive and charming human beings on the planet than the forest Indians of Brazil and brusquely we were told they had been rushed to the verge of extinction… The official report said pioneers leagued with corrupt politicians had continually usurped Indian lands, destroyed whole tribes… in which bacteriological warfare had been employed by issuing cloth impregnated with the virus of small pox, and by poisoned food supplies. Children had been abducted and mass murder gone unpunished… [Norman Lewis, The Sunday Times (London) Feb 23, 1969]

 With hours and hours of reading alternative history, a few tears, and a lot of rage, I came to comprehend just how Neanderthal is the morality of the elite. (My apologies to the caveman). With the atrocities they’ve perpetrated worldwide, Diana’s death was little challenge to their assassination capabilities and even less of a burden to their conscience. After all, she had stepped out of the boundaries of behavior deemed harmless to elite interests.

The Danger of Diana

What behavior on Diana’s part went past harmless to dangerous and when did it reach critical mass? On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most dangerous) let’s rate their perception of her danger to them. Was it her voicing public doubts about Charles’s suitability to be King? The Queen probably disagreed but the Committee’s danger rating was probably a 3. Was it a potential marriage between Dodi and Diana or giving birth to a "useless eater" (for surely that is the way the elite see the Muslims)? Over the Queen’s objections, they probably rated this a 5 because the marriage and the birth would mean little to the elite if Diana spent less time on charity work. Was it when she became poster caretaker for the world’s impoverished and infirm? After her death, one journalist pointed out that seeing the royal Diana with indigent children might cause the poor to see a connection between their plight and the wealth and power of the elite. Observations like these would surely make the whole Committee sit up, take notice and rate her behavior a 7 on the danger scale.

How about do-gooders around the world using Diana’s obvious love for the world’s "surplus eaters" as a symbol of the inherent worth of human beings? Diana’s attitude that no one on the planet is useless or surplus coupled with her ability to give them hope was downright lethal to them. A definite 9 on the dangerous behavior scale. Even worse she gave hope to Third World leaders and charmed the others. If, in a year, she could bring the world to the brink of signing a treaty banning landmines, what might she be able to accomplish next? For instance, what would be the fallout for elite-driven foreign policy if she did that provocative documentary showing the US-driven economic sanctions as the cause of the starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi infants? I agree with Lighthorse who said "it sounds like the sort of thing Diana would have gone for and imagine the consequences…" A clear and present danger and a 9.9. What if she got involved with groups investigating why a disproportionate share of Africans are getting AIDS? What if she started informing the world about International Monetary Fund and World Bank policies which paralyze Third World nations leaving their populations dying or enslaved and the elite wealthier and more powerful? Her past behavior made it clear that her future behavior and her influence on the two heirs, would do irrevocable harm to their goals. Thus, critical mass was achieved – Diana’s death was imperative. I can see the cynical pundits on TV scoffing at those who believe her role in the landmine issue would translate into a larger role on the world’s political and social stage and eventual assassination. To them I say look at Establishment reaction to the threat of seemingly insignificant social and economic progress by people in even the smallest countries in the world, which Professor Chomsky documents so well in many of his books.

Diana as the Threat of a Good Example

 When any low-level "people’s" revolution begins, Washington has stepped in, whether it was Laos in the 1960s, the tiny island of Grenada in the 1980s, or Central and South America nations from the 1950s through the 1980s. Chomsky notes that, as far as the elite’s wealth is concerned, individually these countries could disappear with only a slight dent in their net worth. Yet, all these nations have been subjected to murderous US assaults, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.

 Why? Kissinger answers that question with this statement praising the military takeover of the democratically-elected Allende government in the 1970s: "Chile was a virus that would infect the region with effects all the way to Italy."

 Another State Department official explained it more fully when he was talking about Guatemalan democratic reforms in 1954: "Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon: its broad social program of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors where similar conditions prevail." In other words Chomsky states, the US wants "stability," meaning security for the "upper classes and large foreign enterprises." If that "stability" is threatened, the agent has to be destroyed before the virus infects others. That’s why even the tiniest speck poses such a threat, and may have to be crushed.

 To that I add, whether it’s a nation or a person, loose cannons are "agents of instability." Diana had to be crushed.
 
  source:
WeThePeople

Cited and Related Research:

    

     

;    




Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.