Sunday 14th of July 2024

oh god, help me god (a royal bloody oaf's oath)......

In England, on May 6, we witnessed the coronation of the greatest of all kings. The British press preemptively assured us that he had no political rights, only a representative function. Is that so? Then how did the Prince of Wales manage to change the agenda of the House of Commons a hundred times during his mother’s reign and have subjects removed that displeased him? Experts assure us that these were only minor bills, but what right did the Prince, not the MPs, have to deem them unimportant?

As Prince of Wales, Charles has become a patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, a secret political organization created by MI6 during the colonization of Egypt. It is banned in many Muslim countries because of their pro-British terrorist activities. In 1993, he became the head of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, from which the Brotherhood and MI6 would radiate throughout the Middle East in the tradition of Lawrence of Arabia. The zeal of Prince Charles is such that London is transformed into Londonistan, hosting many leaders of the Brotherhood, including the Saudi Osama Bin Laden. The prince went 120 times to meet Gulf monarchs supporting the organization.


Two worlds, staged on May 6 and 9


by Thierry Meyssan


London and Moscow are the scene of great collective events. Each one expresses its own values. In England, the splendors mask the origin of rich ornaments, often stolen without scruples. In Russia, celebrating the martyrs of the Second World War is a commitment to the same sacrifice for the fatherland. In London, success is measured in terms of what you have taken. In Moscow, it is measured by what you have done for your people.



Under the name of Charles III, the Prince of Wales had just been crowned monarch of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the United Kingdom, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Detachments from the armies of his kingdoms marched to escort him to his palace.

About a hundred heads of state and government came or were represented. The official BBC images did not show them. They were guests, nothing more.
The North Koreans, Syrians and Russians were not welcome at the coronation. The Chinese were invited, but caused a scandal by sending Vice President Han Zheng, who was portrayed in the United Kingdom as the man responsible for the anti-British crackdown in Hong Kong.

The ceremony had not changed much since the decolonization of the Empire on which « the sun never sets ». At most, a few gems stolen from India were removed from the Crown Jewels.
It is, of course, foolish to evaluate an old-fashioned ceremony by the standards of another era. But the British chose ancient symbols as if they were still acceptable in the 21st century. For example, a beautiful embroidered screen masked the king when he was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the light of God would not blind the audience. Was anyone really afraid of being dazzled? After the coronation, King Charles III was proclaimed "God’s lieutenant on earth. How could ministers of many religions join in this masquerade?

These pompous events did not seem to correspond to the advent of a king, but rather to the funeral of a world. That of the West dominating humanity.



Today, May 8, Russia celebrates the victory of the USSR over Nazism. The Soviet population suffered as much as the Polish population during the Second World War. 27 million people died, including more than half of its armies. In total, that’s 1 in 7 Soviets (compared to 1 in 10 Germans, 1 in 83 French and 1 in 655 Americans).

To face the enemy, the country came together. First Secretary Joseph Stalin freed the prisoners of the Civil War (the gulags were populated by dissident communists, the Mensheviks). He ended religious persecution and made an alliance with the Orthodox Church. So that this tragic period is also the crucible of reconciliation and national unity.

The May 8 celebrations are therefore both a remembrance of the horrors of war and the ability to save each other. In this period, Russians are aware that the "integral nationalists" they are fighting in Ukraine are the heirs of those who joined the Nazis to massacre as many Jews, Gypsies and Slavs as possible (According to the current official Ukrainian doxa, Ukrainians are not Slavs as such, but descendants of a Viking tribe, the Vareg, mixed with Slavs)


Traditionally, since 1965, Russians also march on Victory Day, May 9, in honor of their grandparents and great-grandparents killed fighting the Nazis. From 2012, this parade became widespread throughout the country and was organized under the name of the "Immortal Regiment". Today it is not so much to celebrate the dead, but to pose as his successors, to say that we are ready to die to defend others. Russians are patriotic, not chauvinistic, but capable of sacrifice.
Given the Ukrainian attacks, most of these parades will not take place this year. Vladimir Putin will preside over the events, including the traditional parade of armies on Red Square. In the West, he is described as a dictator living in luxury, far from his people. His fellow citizens know that this is not true. He is of Russian culture and therefore considers, like them, that luxury should not make him forget that he is a man.


If the subjects of King Charles III are fascinated by the magnificence of the Crown, the citizens of President Putin consider that there is no nobility in adorning themselves with stolen jewels. For them, only what one has earned oneself has value.


Thierry Meyssan



Roger Lagassé










people for the people.....


By Jenny Hocking



After the nauseating display of royal excess and dynastic exceptionalism last week, an Australian republic cannot come soon enough.

On 2 May, four days before his coronation, King Charles III gave the royal assent to a controversial new Public Order Act, signing it into law. The Act gives the UK police unprecedented powers to stop and search without suspicion of any offence, to deny access to designated areas, and to arrest people as a preventative measure to prevent ‘protest and disruption’, before any protest has even taken place. Although the Home Office insisted that the timing of this draconian Bill, which cut sharply across the right to political protest, so close to the coronation was purely coincidental, it was of course no such thing.

At 7.30am on the morning of the coronation, the chief executive of the anti-monarchy group Republic UK, Graham Smith, and 5 other senior members of Republic UK were targeted, arrested, and locked up. Late on Saturday night all 6 were released on bail, although exactly what they had been charged with remained unclear. Two days later police announced that they would not be pursuing charges against any of the Republic UK leaders, and it appeared they had been arrested purely in order to detain them for the duration of the coronation.

Graham Smith, who had worked assiduously to secure police approval for Republic UK to hold a peaceful protest well away from the coronation path, with placards reading ‘Not My King’ as their main message, was clearly shocked; ‘what is the point in being open and candid with the police, working with their liaison officers, if all their promises and undertakings turn out to be a lie?’, he said on release. The aim, as one senior police acknowledged, was simple – ‘to get them off the streets quick and early’.

The removal of anti-monarchy protestors was central to the construction of an imagined revered monarchy with the coronation as its centre-piece spectacle, presenting to the world an unflinching, united, national endorsement of the new King Charles and Queen Camilla, and of monarchy itself. As the culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, put it; ‘we were on the global stage .. at an event with millions of people watching… I think it was really important that [the police] took that into account when making their decision’. The conservative party’s vice-chair called on republicans to leave the country and emigrate instead of protesting. So much for the coronation as ‘the homage of the people’.

In this tightly stage-managed, tax-payer funded, £100 million (AUD$187 million) extravaganza of religious ritual, stupendous wealth, and dynastic privilege, even the BBC coverage was vetted by the Palace. Clear directives were given on what could and could not be shown, camera positioning and framing, and Charles himself vetoed broadcasting his anointing with holy oil by the archbishop of Canterbury. Since the BBC provided the feed for other networks’ coverage of the coronation, this amounted to an absolute Palace control.

All of which was paid for by the British people themselves, rather than the King whose vast personal wealth is estimated at £1.8 billion (AUD$3.4 billion), buoyed by his royal exemption from income tax, inheritance tax, and financial transparency laws. Under the ‘monarch’s consent’ power the then Queen’s lawyers intervened in the drafting of financial transparency legislation introduced in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal, specifically to conceal the finances of the monarch and the heir from its reach before the Bill was tabled in parliament.

And yet still we hear the insistent refrain that the monarchy today wields no power and is not involved in political matters. It does and it is. It is simply staggering that despite the revelation by The Guardian of the direct involvement of the monarch in the drafting of legislation on any matter which may affect them through the ‘monarch’s consent’, the Palace continues to deny it and the British people continue to accept it.

The monarch is neither powerless nor politically uninvolved, and Charles has relished the capacity to exercise both.

From his boorish, untutored, views on architecture which led to several world-leading architectural commissions in the UK being dropped, to his letters to the Blair government on his favoured policy positions, Charles’s political interventions as Prince of Wales are well known. They show an opinionated, entitled, ‘meddling Prince’ who saw it as his right to push a political position to government, despite the professed requirement for political neutrality.

With Charles’s ascension as King Charles III of Australia, it is his involvement in governor-general Sir John Kerr’s 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government that should trouble us today. Charles’s coronation serves as a reminder of just how extensive the involvement of our new King, and the then Queen and her private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris, was in Kerr’s dismissal of the elected government. And, like all royal political interventions, this has been emphatically denied by the Palace for decades, despite clear evidence to the contrary in Kerr’s archives and of course in the Palace letters. As Kerr later told his friend, the South Australian lieutenant governor Sir Walter Crocker, ‘for good reasons, I never had any doubt about what the Palace’s attitude was on this important point’.

In this, Charles played a pivotal role as the lynchpin between Kerr, who considered himself a friend, and the Palace. As I have written here previously, it was a conversation between Charles and Kerr in September 1975, during the PNG independence day celebrations in Port Moresby, that first drew the Queen and Charteris into Kerr’s planning and decision to dismiss Whitlam. Kerr told Charles that he was ‘considering having to dismiss the government’ should the Opposition block the government’s Supply bills – one month before Supply had even been deferred in the Senate.

From there, as the Palace letters and Kerr’s notes confirm, Charles relayed their conversation to the Queen and Charteris who then began a regular secret correspondence with Kerr about the ‘general principles’ involved – including ‘the reserve powers of the Crown’, whether their use would cause the monarchy ‘any avoidable harm’, Kerr’s likely refusal to accept the advice of the attorney-general and the solicitor-general Sir Maurice Byers on the reserve powers, and ultimately the dismissal of the Whitlam government.

All of this was of course secret from the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, who always believed that the Queen knew nothing of Kerr’s plans because, as Whitlam later said, ‘Her immediate reaction would have been, “Have you consulted your Prime Minister?” or “What is your prime minister’s advice?”’. It is striking that these critical questions are never asked of Kerr. Neither Charles nor the Queen suggested that Kerr speak to the Prime Minister as his constitutional advisor and head of elected government about these intensely political matters, which clearly required the advice of the Prime Minister to resolve. Not only was the Palace thereby made a party to Kerr’s deception of Whitlam, the deception itself was a profound breach of the cardinal principle of constitutional monarchy that the monarch and their vice-regal representative act on the advice of ‘responsible’ elected ministers. Even Kerr’s secret advisor, High Court justice Sir Anthony Mason told him that, ‘If you do not warn Whitlam you run the risk of being seen as deceptive’.

This pivotal conversation between Charles and Kerr in September 1975 traversed more than the possible dismissal of the government and Kerr’s fear that Whitlam might recall him as governor-general – as if that were not enough. Following the High Court’s decision in the Palace letters case, the National Archives released an intriguing document in Kerr’s papers which it had previously withheld from me. It provides further details not just about this conversation in PNG, but about ‘several important discussions’ between Kerr and Charles, and their ‘friendly relationship’ leading up to the dismissal.

During a visit to Australia in October 1974, Charles had approached Kerr with the extraordinary proposal that Kerr would, at some stage in the future, stand down to make way for Charles to become governor-general of Australia. This, Kerr writes, was ‘something which was very dear to his heart’ and which Charles sought fervently in several discussions involving the Queen, Charteris, Charles and Charles’s private secretary. What is remarkable is that none of these discussions about Charles’s great desire to be governor-general, certainly as described by Kerr, included any consultation with the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam on whose sole advice the appointment of governor-general must be made. It was as though the choice of governor-general was still a decision of the British monarch.

Charles’s own interest stemmed from his view of the governor-general as a sort of training run for monarchy, in Kerr’s pompous description as ‘not irrelevant to what would be his later experience on ascending the throne’. It was a comical, impossible, equivalence which would only have bolstered the vain, ingratiating, royal manque Kerr’s view of the governor-general as akin to royalty itself, vested with discretionary ‘reserve powers’ beyond the advice of the Prime Minister.

And if we needed any further confirmation that our new King Charles III of Australia fully supported Kerr’s deceptive dismissal of Whitlam, it can be found in his handwritten letter to the embattled governor-general, then besieged by protests at every public appearance, four months after the dismissal; ‘I appreciate what you do and admire the way you have performed… What you did last year was right and the courageous thing to do’. 

The lasting image of the coronation for me will always be of King Charles, draped in ermine and diamonds in his heated gold carriage, complaining at waiting five minutes for the coronation to begin, while the National Health System crumbles, pensioners cut their heating to just four hours a day, and food banks grow exponentially. French left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon said the coronation, ‘is a reminder to us why we are so deeply republican .. Kings are monsters who accept such a display in front of so much suffering’.

After this nauseating display of royal excess and dynastic exceptionalism, an Australian republic cannot come soon enough.











a king and his dada.....






On May 6, 2023, Charles III will be crowned King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and 14 other sovereign states. He will also become the head of the 56-state Commonwealth of Nations and the secular head of the Anglican Church of England. Charles III is already 74 years old. In the history of Great Britain there has been no king older at the time of his coronation. Countless TV stations from all over the world are covering this ceremony. While the cameras of the mass media are focused on the splendor and pomp of this event, this documentary aims to open a five-part file that shows a very different face of King Charles III, one that is largely kept quiet by the mass media. This documentary brings to light a shocking background.


I. King Charles III and His Possessions

As heir to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III inherits a gigantic fortune. Normally, he would have to pay inheritance tax like any other Briton; however, Charles is exempt from inheritance tax under a 1993 agreement with John Major’s government. Here is a brief overview of Charles III's possessions, or rather his British Empire.



1. Land Ownership


Charles has become the largest landowner on earth as a result of his mother’s death, with the British Crown owning a registered area of over 2,500 million hectares in Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Canada, Great Britain and the Falkland Islands. This is more than 1/6 of the entire surface of the earth or 75x the area of Germany.


2. Duchies and Country Estates 


Charles owns the duchies in Lancaster and in Cornwall, which include lands in the most expensive areas of London. Furthermore, he now has at his disposal more than 300 residences, including castles and palaces such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace, St. James Palace, Balmoral Castle in Scotland, and Sandringham in Norfolk.


3. The British Seabed 


The Crown controls almost all of the seabed and half of the seacoast around the United Kingdom. It is estimated to be worth over US $ 100 billion.


4. The Crown Estate


“The Crown Estate” is one of the largest real estate groups in the world. It manages the real estate and land holdings of the royal family and each year transfers 25% of its profits directly to the monarch’s coffers. In 2020 alone, the company made a profit of EUR 420 million. The royal family received about EUR 100 million of that.


5. Precious Stones


The British Crown owns the world’s largest collection of jewels. The crown jewels consist of more than 140 pieces. The entire collection consists of 23,578 precious stones, including Cullinan I, the largest cut diamond in the world with an estimated value of about EUR 440 million and the Koh-i-Noor diamond, estimated value of at least EUR 1 billion.


In order not to have to disclose her immense private fortune but to be able to continue to hide it from the public, the Queen had prevailed with the government that a planned bill was amended accordingly. This was reported by the Sun newspaper in February 2021, citing documents discovered by the Guardian.


A look at the history of the British Empire casts a very dark shadow on this gigantic wealth of King Charles III, which his “royal ancestors” have stolen many times by force with bloodshed. The Crown’s fortune is based largely on the plundering of mineral resources of poor countries of origin.


Charles III’s ancestors were deeply involved in the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries. A document from 1689, for example, shows that shares in the Royal African Company, which was involved in the slave trade, were transferred to King William III. As a result, the British aristocracy unscrupulously profited from slavery through the stock market. According to calculations of historian David Richardson, British ships transported at least 3.4 million captured Africans to America.


Against the background of this criminally acquired wealth, the pompous coronation of King Charles III seems like a slap in the face of every “normal citizen” who has to earn his daily bread with work and diligence!


II King Charles III and the Manifold Entanglements of the Royal Family


    1. The WEF Entanglements* of Charles III

[*insert: Word Economic Forum]

Various commentators report that the “Project Great Reset” was not originally launched by Klaus Schwab but rather by the current King Charles III. Indeed, it was Charles who officially launched the project on June 3, 2020 with the tweet #TheGreatReset [insert original tweet] and became the official patron. Was Klaus Schwab only the recipient of orders from King Charles III? This is also indicated by Charles’ visit to the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2020. Already there, Charles specifically made his case for part of the Great Reset, climate protection or the so-called “Green Deal”. 


However, a report in the Byline Times on October 4, 2021, ruthlessly reveals his actual motives, namely that Charles himself is, in fact, probably the biggest beneficiary of his green agenda. Since the British Crown owns large parts of the seabed, gigantic profits end up in the monarch’s pockets with every offshore wind farm built.


Ultimately, this “hypocritical climate protection” pumps the profits from rising energy costs directly into the pockets of the rich. It is an elaborate money redistribution machine in which the population becomes more and more impoverished.


2. Entanglements With Freemasonry


The British Crown has been very closely intertwined with Freemasonry for centuries. Already King Edward VII (1910) and also King George VI (1952), the father of Elizabeth II, were professed high-level Freemasons


Queen Elizabeth II, Charles’ mother, was not only the great patroness of Freemasonry but she also presided over the Order of the Garter, the governing body of Freemasons around the world. Since 2022, King Charles III has presided over the Order of the Garter.


This order controls the rest of Freemasonry through the Grand Lodges of England and uses them to infiltrate all aspects of society. As a special distinction, the King may also knight deserving civilians and military officers. The British Crown also uses these Knights of the Crown as agents who swear allegiance to the House of Windsor and receive power and wealth in return. Knights of the British Crown include


    • members of the British House of Rothschild

    • former US President Ronald Reagan

    • formerUS Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

    • Bill Gates

    • former Chairman of the FED* Alan Greenspan

    • former mayor of New York Rudi Giuliani

    • US businessman and politician Michael Bloomberg

    • film director Steven Spielberg

    • US Army General Wesley Clark

    • pedophile and former BBC host Jimmy Savile.


[*please insert: U.S. Federal Reserve]


His close ties to the wealthy circles of Freemasonry and his leadership role in the Great Reset, which aims to have people own nothing, show that King Charles cannot be looking out for the good of the people!


III King Charles III and his Financial Scandals


Although royal family members are prohibited from accepting cash under rules governing royal donation policy, Charles has been involved in numerous “cash affairs”.


- In June 2022, he accepted a suitcase filled with EUR 1 million from a Qatari billionaire sheikh. He should never have accepted the cash, even though it was allegedly intended for charity.


- In total, Charles is said to have received EUR 3 million in cash for the Prince of Wales Charity Foundation from controversial Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar, between 2011 and 2015. What is bizarre is that some of the money was stashed in shopping bags. The sheikh was also referred to as “the man who bought London”. 


- Back in 2013, Charles had accepted a £ 1 million [about EUR 1.19 million] donation from Osama bin Laden’s half-brothers against the advice of his advisers. 


- Charles’ close confidant Michael Fawcett had to resign as chief executive of his Prince Foundation after a “money-for-honors” scandal. After donating money, Fawcett promised to help a Saudi businessman obtain both British citizenship and a knighthood.


These examples demonstrably show how carelessly Charles handles cash donations. Clearly, he is not trustworthy!


IV. King Charles III and the Mysterious Death of Diana


1. The Premonitions of Princess Diana


On August 28, 1996, Charles and Diana were officially divorced. Approximately one year later, on August 31, 1997, Diana died as a result of a tragic accident in Paris. Very remarkable the statements of Diana in which she had said … “If something happens to me, you can be sure that Prince Philip, with the help of the secret service, is the culprit.” 


10 months before her death, Diana delivers a handwritten letter to her butler Paul Burrell, published by the Daily Mirror in 2003. She wrote, “This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. My husband is planning ‘an accident in my car.”


As early as October 1995, Diana confided in her lawyer, Victor Mishcon, and revealed to him that Charles was planning to kill her by means of an arranged car accident. The notes became known as the Mishcon Note.



2. Serious Inconsistencies at the Scene of the Accident

- Emergency physician Dr. Frederic Mailliez “happened” to be in the vicinity and arrived two minutes after the accident at 0:25. However, there was insufficient medical equipment in his emergency ambulance. He called the fire department and directed them to a false accident scene. He later gave many conflicting statements. When the fire department arrived, he left the scene of the accident very quickly.


- The medical ambulance did not arrive until 0:40 a.m. and took 12 minutes to travel 2.3 km. This corresponds to an average speed of about 17 kph. The ambulance doctors made inexplicable mistakes.


- Princess Diana did not arrive at the hospital until 2:06 a.m., about 1½ hours later. The ambulance strangely did not travel to the nearest hospital and only at an average speed of about 17 kph. It inexplicably stopped again for 5 minutes 500 meters before the finish. Shortly after arriving, Diana died in the hospital.


Dr. Michael Bade, chief of forensic pathology at the New York State Police said, “With this type of injury, time is of the essence [...] In the U.S., the delay in getting [Diana] to the hospital would be serious malpractice. There is no excuse for it.”


John Morgan has intensively investigated Diana’s death and has written the book “The Paris London Connection”. For him there is only one conclusion: Diana was murdered by a secret service operation! This raises the serious question, “Will a contract killer be crowned king on May 6, 2023?”.



V. King Charles III and the pedophile entanglements of the royal family


1. Charles’ Friendship with Britain’s Worst Sex Offender

Ex-BBC presenter Jimmy Savile, who died in 2011, was the “worst sex offender in the country’s history”, according to Scotland Yard. Police first investigated him for sexually abusing minors as early as 1961.


Later investigations revealed that over a period of 40 years he had abused at least 500 girls and boys, some as young as two years old. The number of unreported cases is likely to be much higher!

Peter Watt, director of the U.K.’s child protection agency, the NSPCC, said, “We're dealing with someone who never missed an opportunity to find vulnerable victims and abuse them.”


Princess Diana thought Savile was crazy and expressed to a friend that even she could not do anything about the fact that he was very often given access to the royal household. How is it possible that Charles called this child abuser his best friend, maintained a very close relationship with him and even put him on the list of possible godparents for his son Harry? The Queen topped the incredible scandal by making Savile a Knight of the Crown.


In light of repeated interrogations by the police for child abuse, it is completely absurd that Charles or even the Queen did not know about his double life. The BBC also covered up Savile’s practices and prevented an investigative report from being broadcast in December 2011. 


After the scandal surrounding the former BBC presenter nevertheless later became public, other high-ranking figures, e.g. ex-Prime Minister Edward Heath and ex-Interior Minister Leon Brittan – as if in a domino effect – also came under serious suspicion of child abuse. This suggests that Savile was procuring children for the wealthy, celebrities, and politicians, possibly including the royal family itself. This would also explain how he was able to finance his dissolute lifestyle.


Despite intensive research, no reports have yet been found to show that King Charles III has condemned Savile’s now revealed abhorrent sexual practices and distanced himself from Savile.


2. Charles III Supported the Pedophile Bishop Peter Ball!


Charles was also close friends with pedophile Bishop Peter Ball, who abused teenagers and young men over a 30-year period. When the latter was first accused and arrested in 1992, Charles used his influence to protect him. With Charles’ help, he was released, allowing his abuse offenses to continue for many more years. Ball was finally able to be legally convicted of abuse, rape and torture as recently as 2015. Charles was thus complicit in the abuse victims as Ball felt untouchable through Charles’ intercession and continued the horrific crimes unchecked after 1992. Ball was even guest of honor at Charles and Camilla’s wedding in 2005!


3. The Royal Family and Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophile Ring


Prince Andrew, Charles’ brother, has been linked to the pedophile sex trafficking ring of convicted U.S. sex offender Jeffrey Epstein because of his longtime friendship with the latter. The latter placed minors with celebrities in particular. According to the Daily Mail, Epstein is also said to have referred Virginia Giuffre, a U.S. citizen who was still a minor at the time, to Andrew. They are said to have met on Epstein’s “Pedo Island” in the Caribbean. Giuffre accuses the prince of having sexually abused her several times. Only by the millions of Charles and the Queen he could buy himself out of the abuse scandal. The alleged suicide of Epstein shortly before a new trial raises many questions. Epstein installed hidden cameras on his properties to record celebrities’ crimes with underage girls so he could then blackmail them. Strikingly, the same pattern is evident here as in the Jimmy Savile pedophile ring. Numerous high public figures are clearly deeply entangled in the swamp of pedophilia. This makes them susceptible to blackmail. Under this pressure, they henceforth, by virtue of their high social position, cover up for the sex crime cartels. These provide children for abuse on a grand scale. This also explains why, according to official statistics, thousands of children are reported missing every year and never turn up again. According to research by the British publicist David Icke, many of these children are murdered after being abused so that the high figures are not exposed as perpetrators and the sex crime cartels are also not exposed.



Charles and the royal family maintained the closest of relationships over many years with serious criminals who raped, tortured and abused innocent, underage children! The inevitable question that must now be asked is not whether the royals were so naive that they did not even notice but whether Charles or the royal family were even directly involved in these horrific crimes?


Dear Viewers,

The King Charles III File documents a completely different picture than the mass media present. The mass media convey to millions of TV viewers all over the world the illusion of an illusory royal world through a pompously staged coronation and fade out the reality behind the walls of the magnificent palaces. How is it possible that a man implicated in his wife’s killing and a pedophilia sympathizer is to be crowned king yet there is no outcry?


Therefore, help in any way to make known the shocking backgrounds of the top secret “Charles III File”! Inform as many of your acquaintances as possible by mail or WhatsApp. Post the video on FaceBook or upload parts of this video on TikTok!



from svw, kno, str, hm





Klagemauer TV (or Kla.TV) is a German-speaking Swiss site run by a certain Kaleb Tschabold. It is one of the most prolific sites for anti-Semitic conspiratorial content in the German language (“Klagemauer” means “Wailing Wall”).

The site is in fact an offshoot of Ivo Sasek's network, behind various initiatives such as the “Anti-Censorship Coalition” (AZK) – presented by its founder as “a platform for people who are slandered, oppressed and terrorized by the mainstream media” – or the “Organic Christ Generation” (OGC). These structures are based in Switzerland, in Walzenhausen, as is Kla.TV (with its declination, recorded by Elias Sasek, the son of Ivo Sasek.

Appearing in 2012, the site claims an unambiguous line of conduct: “The lie of the mainstream media begins with the illusion of their diversity, while at the global level they are almost all in the hands of a single direction. Through a consequent repression of opposing voices, they manage to keep extremely dangerous lies standing”.

Kla.TV offers shows, videos and documentaries in over 40 languages, dealing with classic counterculture conspiracy themes: 9/11, vaccines, the Rothschilds, the “deep state” and more.






reset beget.....

Should the public ignore the history of the Rockefeller Foundation as they shift resources towards promoting Agenda 2030 and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals?

In late July 2022, Rockefeller Foundation (RF) president, Dr. Rajiv J. Shah, released a public letterdetailing the organization’s plan to increase their resources and attention to addressing climate change. Shah noted that the RF had a hand in shaping “the American and global responses to the pandemic’s crises“ as they funded projects like the CommonPass, helping promote the concept of vaccine passports.

Established in 1913, the foundation used the Rockefeller family wealth to ostensibly promote “public health” by funding mass vaccination campaigns and the founding of public health authorities around the world. To continue their mission today, Shah says the RF must “directly confront climate change.”


“Climate change poses a singular threat to humanity,” Shah wrote. “We have decided The Rockefeller Foundation will take specific actions to transform how humanity farms and eats, powers its communities and homes, prevents and protects against disease, and lives and works. That is how we will make opportunity universal and sustainable.”

Shah says the foundation has taken steps in this direction already, including helping women get “green jobs,” investing in “regenerative agriculture,” and committing to divest its $6 billion endowment from fossil fuels. Shah said the foundation has “divested most of our endowment from the sector.”

The foundation also partnered with the Ikea Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund to accelerate the transition to so-called “renewable energy.” The groups claim to have raised more than $10 billion in additional funds.

The announcement of a reallocation of resources did not include much in the way of details or solid plans. However, Shah did write that the foundation’s goal is to “develop an integrated vision and plan for the years 2025 to 2030” that will be shared with RF Trustees within a year. No updates have been shared since the letter was published.

In the letter, Shah acknowledged that John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil and the Rockefeller Foundation, acquired his wealth through the oil industry, which the RF now claims to oppose. “There is some irony here. Our namesake, John D. Rockefeller, founded Standard Oil and made his fortune by fueling a growing United States with carbon,” Shah wrote. However, he says the RF is focused on what he calls “scientific philanthropy,” or, using the latest science and technology to “improve the well-being of each and every person, opening up opportunity for all.”

“Obviously, an institution like the Rockefeller Foundation has an even higher level of responsibility because we’re an even bigger beneficiary of that process,” he told the Associated Press at the time. The Rockefeller Foundation funds part of The Associated Press’ coverage of climate change.

Before we dive further into that history of the Rockefeller Foundation, and why we should remain skeptical of their claims of saving humanity through philanthropy, let’s take a closer look at the Rockefeller Foundation President, Dr. Rajiv Shah.

An Agent of Globalization

Rajiv J. “Raj” Shah is a former American government official, physician, and health economist who has served in a number of U.S. government positions, as well as working within the philanthropic sector. Shah served as the 16th Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from 2010–2015. He was appointed USAID Administrator by President Obama, unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and sworn into office by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on January 7, 2010.

USAID is ostensibly an “independent agency of the United States federal government” that handles “civilian foreign aid.” USAID is one of the largest official aid agencies in the world and accounts for more than half of all U.S. foreign assistance. However, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have been accused of being a tool for conducting activitiesfavorable to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the guise of providing foreign aid. The NED was created as a non-profit corporation via funding from the USAID. Both organizations have been involved in funding “activist” movements in countries which do not align with U.S. policy.

Critics have long compared USAID and NED funding Nicaraguan groups in the 1980s and 90s to the efforts of the CIA to overthrow governments throughout Latin America in the 1950s and ’60s.

Shah also served at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where he is credited with creating the International Financing Facility for Immunization, which helped reshape the global vaccine industry and raised more than $5 billion for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI).

I have reported extensively on the role the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI play in managing international health measures, particularly in advancing the ever-growing list of required vaccinations for developing nations.

Shah is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, sits on the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council, and is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

The CFR is a long-time player in geopolitics whose members include former U.S. presidents and federal officials. Researcher G. Edward Griffin has been one of the few working the last few decades to expose the influence of the CFR on U.S. foreign policy. During one of his many presentations Griffin outlines the true role of the CFR beyond the surface level explanation that they are merely a think tank:

It was spawned by a secret society which still exists today, that it is a front for a round table group originally embodied in JP Morgan and company but now the Rockefeller consortium and that its primary goal is no longer the expansion of the British Empire but global collectivism with control in private hands administered in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world.

For the last 100 years, the CFR membership roster has featured a rotating cast of members of the Rockefeller family, including John “Jay” Rockefeller IV, Nicholas Rockefeller, Steven C. Rockefeller, Susan Cohn Rockefeller, Valerie Rockefeller, David Rockefeller Jr., and David Rockefeller Sr., who co-founded the Trilateral Commission.

The Trilateral Commission is likely less known to today’s readers who are more familiar with groups like the World Economic Forum and the Bilderberg group, but they are equally important in understanding the players on the chessboard.

Patrick Wood, longtime researcher of Technocracy and founder of, recently reported that the Trilateral Commission’s 50th anniversary marked the culmination of its self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order”. On March 12, the Trilateral Commission held its plenary meeting in New Delhi, India to discuss issues relating to globalization. Wood reported that one of the Commission members stated,

This year, 2023, is Year One of this new global order.”

As Wood notes, the Trilateral Commission was co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and ally to many presidents in his lifetime. Brzezinski was also the author of Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, which sought to revive the Technocratic movement of the 1930s.

Finally, Shah’s membership with The Atlantic Council should also raise alarm bells. The Atlantic Council has become more familiar to Americans in light of recent revelations from the Twitter Files. However, The Atlantic Council has been making moves behind the scenes in recent years. In May 2018, the organization partnered with Facebook to fight “fake news.” Only 6 months later the infamous Purge of 2018 removed more than 500 accounts of independent media and researchers from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

Dr. Shah also spoke at the World Economic Forum’s 2022 gathering in Davos, Switzerlandand is listed as an “Agenda Contributor” to the WEF. During an interview with CNBC in Davos he was asked what he makes of the fact that nations around the world are “sitting on” vaccines because “there are no takers.” Shah responded by saying:

A big part of why the vaccines are not being demanded right now is there’s tremendous misinformation about the vaccines, their effectiveness, their safety, and so a lot of people who need them don’t want them because they’ve been told something that’s false, and we need to invest in that problem in order to turn it around and change the course of the pandemic.

Shah said the Rockefeller Foundation is investing in vaccine access in countries around the world with the goal of reaching 90% of the “high risk groups” within a country. Shah also said he believes “there needs to be some sort of international agreement about how the world responds to pandemics” which must include “a much better real-time surveillance system.”

Shah’s presence at the Davos gathering should not come as a surprise since the Rockefeller Foundation is partnered with the WEF in pushing the Great Reset agenda. During the COVID-19 panic the Rockefeller Foundation funded the CommonPass as a method for verifying ones vaccination status. The so-called “vaccine passports” were always a gateway to the digital-identity future that is promoted by the WEF and the technocrats.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s Faux Environmental Movement

Whether the Rockefeller Foundation uses its resources to shift us towards a technocratic state under the guise of a pandemic or climate change, it matters not. The end result is the same – loss of individual liberties and choice in a constantly surveilled world complete with social-credit scores which track your carbon use and dole out rewards or punishments based on your behaviors. All for the good of the planet, we are told.

This is why it’s important to question the fundamental claims being made by the Rockefeller Foundation and their current president. In fact, the Rockefeller Foundation has a history of using environmental issues as a smokescreen for spreading poison and harming the population.

The current mainstream food paradigm – with its toxic, violent, and monopolized business model – was born out of “The Green Revolution” of the 1950s and ’60s. As part of this apparent revolution, Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho invited the Rockefeller Foundation into the country to help study and modernize Mexico’s farming. In 1943, Norman Borlaug, a plant geneticist, and his team of researchers traveled to Mexico and jumpstarted the so-called Green Revolution. Borlaug was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, with both organizations having an interest in establishing international farming standards which benefitted their bank accounts.

While the Green Revolution is often touted as a success due to increases in crop yields and an apparent drop in infant mortality, there is also a growing body of evidence indicating that the abundant use of pesticides has caused a rise in adverse health effects, including cancer. Most infamously, the world’s most widely used herbicide, glyphosate – a product of Agri-giant Monsanto, now owned by Bayer – has been linked to a number of cases of cancer and resulted in multiple billion dollar settlements against the company.

The same corporations and financiers behind Big Oil and Big Pharma were the same driving forces behind the Green Revolution. The Rockefeller Standard Oil network and their partners in the fertilizer industry, specifically DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Hercules Powder, benefitted handsomely from the apparent revolution in farming. However, when a struggling “third world” nation could not afford the new technologies needed to participate in the programs, the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank partnered with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to offer loans, which in turn granted the banks ownership over resources and financial assets should the nations fail to settle the debt.

Another outcome of the Green Revolution is the so-called Gene Revolution, which popularized the use of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, or genetically engineered foods. Once again, the cast of characters involved in the Gene Revolution are identical to the Green Revolution – the Big Pharma cartel and Big Oil. The Rockefeller- and Nazi-connected IG Farben have subsidiaries Bayer CropScience and BASF PlantScience working with Dow AgroScience, DuPont Biotechnology, and the infamous Monsanto. All of these corporations benefit from the funding of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and similar organizations.

This is the legacy of the Rockefeller Foundation – dangerous pesticides, GMO food, mono cropping, and disrupting of small farms.


The Rockefeller Foundation also claimed the COVID-19 panic presented the moment to “transform the U.S. food system.” The Rockefeller document, titled Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System, outlines how the Rockefeller Foundation can once again use its money and influence to shape the direction of a major industry, this time, the food supply itself.

Ironically, the Reset the Table document also notes that the Rockefeller Foundation “played a role in seeding and scaling” The Green Revolution, while also noting that the Rockefeller Green Revolution left a legacy of “overemphasis of staple grains at the expense of more nutrient-rich foods,”and a “reliance on chemical fertilizers that deplete the soil, and overuse of water.​​​​​​​” With no hint of shame, the Rockefellers and their ilk are presenting themselves as the solution to problems they previously contributed to or outright created.​​​​​​​

Using the same flowery language and trendy buzzwords which allowed them to infiltrate and capture the education system, the oil industry, and the medical field, they have managed to gain control over the large institutions which farm the world’s animals and crops in violent, destructive, and costly ways. This dangerous monopolistic cartel has captured many national and international regulatory bodies designed to protect the public and the food supply.

Are we really supposed to trust that the Rockefeller Foundation is now a force for good?

Does the Fight Against Climate Change Mask a Eugenics Agenda?

One final thought relates to the fact that the Rockefeller Foundation also has an extensive history of funding the eugenics movement. There is ample evidence and documentation of the Rockefeller family promoting “population control” under the guise of abortion, sterilization, and other methods.

Due to this history of funding these movements there remains a great deal of skepticism regarding the true motivations of the foundation.

In September 2021, the Rockefeller Foundation released a statement stating they were “currently reckoning with our own history in relation to eugenics.” The foundation said this would involve “uncovering the facts” and dealing with “uncomfortable truths.” Dr. Shah claimed an “investigation is underway” to learn the full extent of the foundations support of eugenics.

“The Foundation is confronting the hateful legacies of the past—in laws, structures, and systems—that have suppressed opportunity for so many and are helping our grantees and the people they serve to overcome them,” Shah wrote.

In an upcoming investigation I will uncover connections between the Eugenics philosophy which previously guided the Rockefeller Foundation and other philanthropists, and the movement to fight climate change.

Source: The Last American Vagabond

Derrick Broze, a staff writer for The Last American Vagabond, is a journalist, author, public speaker, and activist. He is the co-host of Free Thinker Radio on 90.1 Houston, as well as the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network & The Houston Free Thinkers.



Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMeeTelegram, HIVEFloteMindsMeWeTwitterGabWhat Really Happened and GETTR.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.





By Dian Maria Blandina
Peoples Dispatch


Sudan is experiencing its fourth week of conflict between two military factions, which has caused the death of over 700 people.

Sudanese civilians have fled the capital and the country altogether while the fighting continues with no end in sight. Commentators have so far focused on the military factions and ethnic conflicts.


A reductive explanation has been given for the food crisis in Sudan, such as economic crisis, climate change and the Ukraine war. The significance of macroeconomic policies and the institutions that promote them at the root of these crises tend to be overlooked.

Toppling Over the Breadbasket

The IMF imposed liberalization in Sudan, particularly in the agricultural sector, to promote exports. Liberalization means removing any barriers to trade and eliminating obstacles to foreign investment, while at the same time reducing the size and power of the government to regulate the economy.

Orthodox economics is the ideology of the rich and powerful. Poor countries trying to develop like Sudan cannot afford a regime of free trade. Sudan should have been left to develop its agricultural sector to serve its own people first.

Seeing Sudan in the news now, it’s hard to imagine that it was once destined to be the “breadbasket of Africa.” Sudan is not only rich in oil and minerals, but also arable land.

As explained in Oxfam’s 2002 report, rapid agricultural liberalization was a key cause of rising poverty and food insecurity in Africa. The consequences are still experienced to this day. 

Liberalization policies are also eerily similar to extractive practices in the colonial era; in this case, turning Sudan into the world’s farm while the people starve. Back then, there were also local and not-so-local businesses and politicians who facilitated the colonial powers in extracting Africa’s riches and exploiting its labor force.

Sudan has a diverse population of over 600 ethnic groups speaking 400 languages, with Islam being the predominant religion. The country has experienced two civil wars, three coup d’états and a 30-year military dictatorship under Omar Al-Bashir that ended in 2019 following an uprising.

A transitional government was established under Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, but it was fragile, and in October 2021, the military dissolved the government and placed the prime minister under house arrest, leading to protests and violent crackdowns that have resulted in more than 100 civilian deaths and many more injuries.

The IMF has long been involved with Sudan. To date, Sudan has undergone at least 11 IMF programs in between civil wars and conflicts. Between 1979 and 1985 alone, under Nimeiri’s regime, there were five IMF loan programs in Sudan. Outside of the programs, the IMF maintained counsel to the government, giving policy advice that would “help” Sudan’s creditworthiness and access to the international market. 

From the start of their relationship, Sudan has been in the weaker position. Highly ambitious development projects in the 1970s combined with years of ill-advised investments left the country in a severe deficit and with no bargaining power against international institutions and foreign powers.

The IMF dealt with Sudan in a very autocratic manner, handing down conditionalities and expecting the Sudanese government to implement them with no care of how it’s done.

An unusual feature of the IMF-Sudan relationship was that Sudan was almost always expected to conceive and implement austerity on its own, prior to receiving loans. 

The IMF also dealt with Sudan harshly, cutting off credits and aid at the slightest sign of non-compliance or policy disagreement, and imposing increasingly severe terms. The dynamic was so perplexing that scholars used Sudan as a case study to understand power struggle in IMF programs. 


Protests, Riots, Coup, Repeat

IMF “riots” took place many times in Sudan throughout the 1970s and ’80s because of cuts in subsidies and currency devaluation which made basic commodities expensive.

For a large and diverse country divided by factions like Sudan, such policies quickly turned to social unrest. One of these protests in 1985 led to a coup d’etat when the military intervened.

Scholars have studied social unrest during IMF programs over the past 40 years and found a correlation with coup d’états. IMF programs create winners and losers among both common people and regime elites, leading the “losing” elites to put up a new leader who is more likely to reject conditionalities unfavorable to their interests.

Sudan’s diverse nature and complex historical context have contributed to internal conflicts in the country. The IMF’s push for foreign investments has brought in foreign actors with their own interests, further complicating matters and making Sudan a hotbed for geopolitical struggles and power plays.

In 2012, anti-austerity protests brought thousands of people to the streets of the capital, Khartoum. Citizens were angry over the fuel-subsidy cuts imposed by the IMF combined with rising inflation and called for Bashir to leave the presidency.

Clashes ensued. It also led to another coup d’etat attempt which ultimately failed.

Still, the IMF pushed for subsidy cuts demanding the government “communicate the shortcomings of price subsidies and the urgency of the need for reform.”

It noted that cuts should be implemented gradually, while also acknowledging that “given the unstable political conditions, [subsidy reform] should be launched ahead of any further price increase.”

Subsidies may just be a numbers game to the IMF, but for the people, it is a social contract that lets them know that the government takes care of their well being, especially in times of crisis. Protests continued into 2013 and a violent crackdown ensued with a death toll up to 230.

The present conflict in Sudan has its roots in December 2018, when then President Omar al-Bashir ended subsidies on fuel and wheat, again, in accordance with the IMF’s recommendations.

This time the coup against Bashir was successful. But the protests and violent crackdowns that continued until after the military took over once again cost hundreds of lives before finally a compromise was reached and a transitional government was formed.

Given this track record, it was a surprise when the civilian Prime Minister Hamdok entered into another IMF program in 2021 when it was supposed to be turning over a new leaf. Subsidy cuts began in 2020 prior to the signing of the agreement while the country was battling the Covid -19 pandemic and facing other challenges.

Since October 2021, the Sudanese people have protested the military takeover at the cost of hundreds of lives. On the surface, the “international community” seemed to punish the military coup by suspending aid and debt relief, but on the ground, the military regime was given a seat at the negotiating table, and perhaps even a position of priority in dictating the “peace terms.”

On the other hand, the demand from the people had been clear all along that they wanted justice, an end to the military regime and most importantly, a complete restructuring of Sudan’s economy so that the needs of the people could be served. 

A real transformative process can only begin with first understanding the root causes of the people’s discontent, for example, by acknowledging that the military elites not only brutalize any form of dissent but also control the majority of Sudan’s natural resources which they use for themselves and foreign actors.

It is crucial to ensure that civil society organizations are given a priority seat at the negotiating table so that the voices of the common people can be heard and taken into account. 

Dian Maria Blandina is a correspondent for Peoples Dispatch.

This article is from Peoples Dispatch









chinese geopolitics.....

Difference Frames the World

China Does Not Care Whatever the US Does Anymore!


Interesting take on international politics.... The funny part is the mention of the "fall of England" and being replaced by the USA... So here we are, re-gilding the King's lily to bring back a bit of the old British empire in the memory of slaves.... But fear not, the City of London still controls a lot of the loot — sorry CASH — that is collected by the multibationals (aka MONOPOLIES et al)...

We're only pawns in a game of mugs and gangsters (see: 

they rob you with inflation.....)




inventions beyond copying and commerce on a free road beyond the sinking dollar.....