[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Di Privacy, Die / Was: Death of Privacy



The death of the "People's Princess" is bringing calls for laws to
protect 'privacy'.
  Except that the laws being talked about are mostly about limiting
what people are allowed to do in public. Same-old, same-old.
  Laws are being discussed that deal with the 'licensing' and the
'regulation' of telephoto lenses and listening devices. Same-old,
same-old.

  The fact that Dodi and Diana's staged death took place in a country
with the most plentiful and restrictive laws concerning the public
movement and actions of the press, seems to be lost in the similarly
staged outrage against the private press.
  Does anyone doubt that whatever new laws are enacted will result in
the further herding of the press into mainstream feeding pens, ala
Whitehouse news conferences and military maneuvers? 

  Of equal importance to the effect on restrictions of public activity
that the staged murder of Diana and Dodi will have, is the restrictions
on the press, through threats of arrest and intimidation.
  Typical government-spook operation. Witnesses and evidence subjected
to detention and seizure. All 'news' of the event being coordinated by
goverenment/LEA shills who 'point' us towards 'those responsible' and
'at fault'--with a mainstream press providing us with the 'solutions'
to preventing the actions of free people resulting in similar tragedies
in the future.
  The message is clear--freedom leads to tragedy. If people run around
doing what they want to do in public, then there will be accidents and
tragedies. This must be prevented at all costs.

  Get real. The same monarchy spooks who released the Dianagate tapes
of Diana's private telephone conversations, in order to make her look
like a slut in order to make Prince Charles sluttery look less serious,
watch Diana twenty-four hours a day, are the same people who took
possession of the photographic evidence of the murder scene.
  Diana herself, in a public interview, spoke of the Dianagate tapes as
being just a small part of the monarchist conspiracy to tear her down
and nullify the threat she presented to the anal retentive structure of
the monarchy.
  Dodi's ex-fiancee plainly stated on TV that Diana would be alive today
if she had not taken up with Dodi. The Fayed family has made it clear
that they feel the deaths were the result of the monarchy not wanting
Diana's image and influence being connected to those outside the loop
of the monarchy.
  Think about it. The mother of the future King of England, getting
married to a rich, political mobster. [Translate~~a non-white who buys
parliamentary votes.] It's not going to happen.

  Ask yourself this--"What do the assassinated free-world figures all
have in common?"--John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy,
John Lennon, Princess Diana.
  Answer: "They are decent people, visionaries who used their power
and influence to fight for the empowerment of the citizens, and against
the reign of a dictatorial secret government."
  Answer #2: "Once they were dead, everything they stood for became
subject to revisionist history by their murderers."

  The initial assault after Diana's death was on the free press, the
secondary assault (in reality, the main attack, the first only being
a diversionary maneuver) focuses on placing the 'blame' for Diana's
death with her stepping outside the loop of the anal-retentive monarchy
and hanging out with parliamentary vote-buying thugs who employ loud
mouthed drunk drivers.

  In the age of the ten-second sound-byte, giving the government spooks
two whole days to manipulate the press coverage before the private
citizens at the murder scene are allowed to speak, is a godsend.
  Once the paparrazi and the sandniggers have had the blame balanced on
their shoulders, the press is not about to backtrack and look for the
true story. Even job interview self-help books tell us that the first
two minutes set the tone and future impression of the whole process.
The governement FUD disseminators know that if they can have the first
say in any event, that those pursuing the truth have to play catch-up
from that point forward.

  Has anyone noticed that the 'news' surrounding this event has had
precious little coverage of the people actually involved in the whole
affair?
  The doctor who magically appeared on the scene and 'treated' Diana
isn't known about or accessible for a couple days. The police, firemen,
etc., are not interviewed, like they are in even the most extremely 
inconsequential of news story coverages.
  Get real--if a fucking cat gets rescued from a cocksucking tree, then
we get to see an interview with the hero at the scene. In the death of
a major public figure, the press doesn't bother to interview those at
the scene of the event? Right...
  The first eye-witness interview I saw was by someone who used the
word "explosion." That was the _last_ time I saw that interview. I saw
_one_ mention of the Fayed family saying the monarchy had murdered
Dodi and Diana. Never saw that again. Must not be news. Right...

  Notice that the press reports that the two little princes want to 
walk behind the casket. Is it a 'coincidence' that the two innocent
victims who are now under the thumb of the monarchist spin-doctors
are going to be front and center in the coverup of their mother's 
murder? 
  Why are the thousands of death threats against Prince Charles if he
tries to use the funeral to redeem his image *not* news?

  Why? Same-old, same-old.

TruthMonger