by Tracey H.
May 30, 1998
 

WHO WAS BEHIND THE DEATH OF PRINCESS DIANA

The following serialization is an expansion of my theory about who had
Diana killed (see Diana's Murderers, Part I).  I’ve learned a great deal about
this topic since my last essay, including how useless it is to pin
labels on ruling class conspirators.  The high-level group behind most
20th century assassinations, and the march toward the New World Order,
are chameleons who work at many levels and through many organizations.

All serial killers, no matter their social or political strata, choose
certain types of victims.  They also have a mode of operation that, if
successful, they repeat until they are caught.  This essay tries to
explain in more detail why Diana fit their victim profile, why they
haven’t been caught, and why they never will be, unless people have the
courage to stop, look, and listen to the world beyond their habitual
boundaries.

OVERVIEW

For decades, the media has brainwashed us to believe that the untimely and mysterious
deaths of political leaders, popular heroes and witnesses thereto are
always the work of lone assassins, accidents or natural causes.

However, it is my belief that there exists a group so powerful and cunning that they can
move the world in their intended direction— obliterating nations, legislatures and loose
cannons.  The only question is how they do it.

The answer I discovered in my research is really quite simple.  It’s
MONEY—money that crosses national boundaries and oceans and respects
neither laws nor leaders—and the POWER that comes to those who have it.
Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild and
father of five sons he sent throughout Europe to establish banking
centers, said it best:  "Let me but create a nation’s money and I care
not who makes its laws."

The Rothschilds and their cohorts may not respect laws, but they do
respect organization and like any other element of organized crime, they
have a legitimate front.  In this case it’s international banking, run
by a small, behind-the-scenes group of families, whose influence
permeates the halls of government, business, media, education and
religion throughout the globe and whose center is in London.

The following details describe what I discovered about how one group
(which includes the British monarchy) can have so much money and power
that they are untouchable, and how they impact every area of our lives.
It also reveals how Diana became exposed to this information and how her
exposure greatly affected the statements she made in the 1995 Panorama
interview, the humanitarian work she did in the last year of her life,
and the time and manner of her death.

WHY SO LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT THE RULING CLASS

All but a fraction of the world has no notion of an invisible ruling
class, for good reason.  They control virtually all channels by which
such information reaches the masses.  Only a few have managed to share
what they know.

Cognizant of these diehards and of alternative outlets to the public,
the power elite know they can’t prevent all negative information from
leaking out.  They, therefore, focus their immense resources on blocking
that which is most dangerous to their interests

Ruling class critics who have massive appeal to the public or very
dangerous information are subject to increasingly restrictive
censorship.  This includes 1) shutting down access to the public; 2)
orchestrating a barrage of ridicule aimed at marginalizing the person or
the message; 3) turning on the attack dogs of government (like the tax
man, media, et al);  4) threatening the life of the critic and his
family; and 5) murdering the writer or his sources.

On the other hand, critics with information that points to wrongdoing at
lower levels of the Establishment are perfectly acceptable.  In fact,
scapegoats are especially important if and when the "official" story is
rejected by the public and spin doctors are sent out for damage control.
Their job is to manage the content and direction of plausible
alternative explanations.  The JFK assassination community calls these
"limited hangouts" and author Martin Schotz describes them as "books or
articles that have the appearance of giving us information, but are
really ways of framing issues narrowly so as to conceal a greater and
more important truth."

A particularly insidious limited hangout destroys the victim’s character
as it examines relevant issues.  CIA-paid JFK bashers have it down to a
science and Diana bashers have learned well their lessons.  They spend
most of their time and print on Diana’s (supposed) self-absorption and
instability as the cause of her tragic royal life and death, while
excusing Charles’ (very real) relationship with his mistress as a royal
prerogative.  This limited hangout keeps the focus off the queen and her
husband and their role in hiding their son’s affair from Diana to assure
themselves a good breeder.

More significantly, the media’s narrow focus hides the greater truth
that the British monarchy will do anything to anyone in order to
safeguard their position at the top of the oligarchy’s pecking order.
After Diana’s Panorama interview in 1995, many British papers carried
comments about this greater and more important truth, to wit:  Queens
and princesses have died when their remarks or behavior threatened the
institution of the monarchy.  In the days and months after Diana’s
death, such thoughts never appeared in the Establishment press, thereby
denying the public the perspective of British history:  rebels must
die.

In the examples of media cover-ups that follow, you will note a pattern
of  omission, obfuscation and outright lies to hide ruling class
infamy.  This pattern has emerged again in the handling of Diana’s
death, making even more apparent the media’s primary role in our
world—public relations for the super-rich and powerful.

THE PROUTY-GARRISON CORRESPONDENCE

One person who knows what information fits where on the elite’s
"allowable information" scale is Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, Mr. X in
the movie JFK.  He has experience as both an inside observer of the
power elite’s modus operandi and as a victim of its censorship policies.
For nine years as the officer responsible for providing military
assistance for CIA covert operations, the Colonel watched the struggle
between JFK and the power elite—big money, big business, big banks and
big law firms along with their media/intelligence foot soldiers.

For years after the assassination, Colonel P. struggled to communicate
what he knew.  His long-time correspondence with New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison, written in the 1980s, tells us about their
struggle to get the truth out and provides us with excellent examples of
the power elite’s censorship methods.  Remember, Garrison for a time was
even more dangerous than Col. P. because he had the mechanisms of the
courts behind him to expose the real power structure in the U.S.

What happened instead?  Undercover agents infiltrated Garrison’s
investigative team to sabotage his efforts, the IRS and Justice
Department trumped up bribery and tax evasions charges which were
dismissed by the courts, his life and family were threatened, and he
lost the case against Clay Shaw.  It was only later that much of
Garrison’s case was validated with the release of CIA documents proving
Shaw was a CIA asset and a link to Perimindex—a high-level,
Switzerland-based assassination operation for Anglo-American interests.

In 1984-85 Garrison was trying to get a book published about his
post-trial discoveries.  In a letter to Col. P. he shared one of the
strangest rejections he had ever received:  McGraw-Hill didn’t think
"Americans were interested ‘in a murder that took place 20 years ago.’ "
Coincident with his attempts to get published were new charges by the
IRS.

Col. P.’s return correspondence is full of discouraging news.  He tells
Garrison about publication of his 1973 book "The Secret Team," which
appeared at the same time and had the same editor, as a tell-all about a
ruling class family, the DuPonts.  Despite already being out on the
street and each being selected for Book of the Month,  Prentice Hall
withdrew both books.  Through CIA contacts, Col. P. discovered that a
Prentice-Hall VP was with the CIA and had received word to stop
distribution.  The publisher’s long-time senior editor "was fired for
being ‘non-productive.’  That’s how the game is played," the Colonel
tells Garrison.

In another letter, Col. P. warns Garrison about the effectiveness of
"the anti-book crowd" and illustrates it with the story of how RCA
bought Ballantine Publishers (which had just printed "The Secret Team")
and fired the book editor and the two sales promotion people.  Forty
thousand Prentice-Hall editions reached the streets and 100,000
[Ballantine] paperbacks, but "the books just began to disappear."
Thirty-five hundred reached Australia but a member of the Australian
Parliament who tried to buy the book wrote Prouty to tell him that he
"found a ‘notation on the accounts there to the effect that ‘3,500 The
Secret Team sold to Col. John Doe, Australian Army.’  They disappeared."

A Col. P. story also gives us a glimpse of what happens to journalists
who try to tell us the truth.  Right after ex-CIA chief Dick Helms
appeared at a televised Church Senate Committee hearing to tell them
that the CIA did not assassinate people, CBS journalist Daniel Schorr
approached Helms and challenged his statement.  Wanting to help, Prouty
called Schorr and described an order he received to set up a flight for
CIA-contracted assassins on their way to shoot Castro.  After Schorr’s
televised account of the Prouty interview, the CIA was recalled and this
time they admitted involvement in assassinations.  For his noteworthy
efforts, "CBS fired Schorr."

Prouty also told Garrison that he learned from his intelligence sources
that "selected" writers such as Summers, Hurt, Hersh, and Epstein got
huge payments up front and were then "guided" as to the assassination
areas they could cover.  Their books then received favorable reviews by
CIA-media assets.  The Colonel’s  story matches the Church Committee
Report on the CIA which stated that:  "…the CIA sponsored, subsidized,
or produced over 1,000 books.  Often a book written… by one CIA
operative was reviewed favorably by another CIA agent in the New York
Times."

Another CIA ploy, Col. P. tells us, is the sham use of the courts when
they go after books which appear to be giving away CIA "secrets [but, in
truth] such actions are just high-class window dressing to make people
believe that certain carefully selected propaganda is true."  On the
other hand, the Courts are rarely used against those who get too close
to the truth for fear of incriminating evidence being leaked.  Instead,
the CIA makes sure these books and their authors are massively ridiculed
or "disappeared."

ALLOWABLE INFORMATION: AUTHOR TONY SUMMERS

While most who deal with Colonel Prouty consider him both honest and
knowledgeable,  I need to verify what I can of anyone’s testimony, so
off I went to dig through my mountain of  books, where I found an unread
copy of "Conspiracy" by Tony Summers.  If Prouty were correct about
Summers’ CIA affiliation, then his book should focus on the middle
men—the operatives and patsies—and dismiss anyone who suggests they were
guided by forces at a much higher level.

Sure enough, Summers book has  1) page after page of patsy Oswald and
rogue CIA agents working with the Mafia; and, 2) a three page preface
filled with fulminating ridicule of Stone and Garrison, both advocates
of the involvement of conspirators at a level so high they had the power
to get the parade route changed, to order the Secret Service’s backup
military unit to stand down, and to arrange for and maintain a cover-up
which has lasted 30+ years.

Summers describes Garrison as a "strange figure—considered crazy by
some, crooked by others" and then goes on to present a tissue of lies
and half-truths about him and the trial. As for Stone’s movie which had
not yet been released, Summers tells us that an earlier script was so
full of  "howlers and historical distortions" that it remained to be
seen whether the movie "will end up precisely as so many in authority
would prefer—exposed as travesty…" (Instead, America found it credible
enough to pressure Congress to release thousands of classified documents
that incriminate "many in authority.")

The critics’ treatment of Summers book is completely consistent with
Prouty’s contention that CIA media assets come out in droves to praise
their own. The front cover of Conspiracy touts it as "the definitive
work on the JFK assassination" and, inside, Establishment luminaries
write lavish praise.  None, however, quite matched the Los Angeles Times
front-cover comment that this book is "an awesome work."  The question
that immediately came to my mind was—how would most media outlets, and
the Los Angles Times in particular, recognize an awesome piece of
investigative work?

MOST EXCELLENT ELITE PROPAGANDIST: THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

 In September 1996, the handwritten, contemporaneous notes of Warren
Commission member Gerald Ford were released.  They prove that Ford
altered the JFK autopsy report by moving Kennedy’s back wound six inches
higher in order to ensure consistency with a 6th floor trajectory and a
hole found in Kennedy’s throat—findings essential to the Commission’s
single bullet theory.

How did the LA Times handle this eye-opening evidence of a prosecutable
crime by a former President?  Instead of interviewing a criminal lawyer
about possible criminal charges, they put a story on page 20 entitled
"Ford Calls His Revision in JFK Assassination Report Minor," telling us
Ford’s take on what he had done.

Hardly ashamed of this journalistic flim-flam, that same day the
newspaper printed a regular columnist’s assessment of the Assassination
Records and Review Board.  In it, Patt Morrison tells the ARRB, and the
majority of Americans who don’t believe the Warren Commission, exactly
what she thinks of them:  "The problem with the slippery slope of
conspiracy theorizing is that the high ground is one step away from the
bottom, which is inhabited by folks who stretch out like buzzard
bait…hoping to be abducted by aliens."

Harsh words, but maybe the LA Times feels the best defense of its
irresponsible journalism is a good offense and they need a good one to
explain why one of their reporters entered into a conspiracy with an FBI
employee to defame Garrison and scare off grand jury witnesses under the
guise of conducting interviews.  Two witnesses were told that "Garrison
was some kind of a nut" and, if they went to New Orleans to testify, he
was crazy enough to put them in jail for 5 years.  One of these
witnesses, Loran Hall, said he was going to testify anyway.
Subsequently (and, of course, coincidentally) two attempts were made on
his life before he eventually testified.

SILENT CONSPIRACY: SO MANY EXAMPLES

I found evidence in several books that the best protection the ruling
class can buy is often media silence.  After all, there are some
activities so appalling that no propaganda can put them in the proper
light.

In his book "Trading with the Enemy," journalist Charles Higham uses
contemporaneous correspondence and State Department documents to prove
that U.S. and British multinational corporations helped Hitler build his
war machine and continued to supply vital war materials throughout the
war.  When "the war was over, [they] pushed into Germany, protected
their assets, restored their Nazi friends to high office, helped provoke
the Cold War, and insured the permanent future of The Fraternity…whose
binding ideology is Business as Usual."

Very protective of his profession, Higham scarcely mentions the media’s
silent complicity when confronted with evidence of treasonous crimes
committed by this elite group.  With few exceptions, there wasn’t a peep
from the Establishment media about Fraternity activities.  Only a few
maverick journalists like George Seldes told the truth.

One episode reported by Seldes occurred in March 1942, when "the
assistant attorney general, appearing before a Senate Committee
investigating war profiteering, testified that Ethyl Gasoline
Corporation, General Motors, Standard Oil and I.G. Farben supplied
Hitler with the secret of making lead for gasoline, without which Hitler
could not have operated his air force or gone to war.  They also
supplied him with the secrets of making synthetic rubber. Committee
Chairman Truman declared this "treason."

The Seldes newspaper, In Fact, and other liberal, small circulation
weeklies published Truman’s statement and the committee findings; the
big press did not.  Actually, one did.  Henry Luce, a man with very
close ties to the CIA from its inception, allowed Time to ridicule
Truman on page 16, while on page 89, the magazine carried a $5,000
full-page ad for corporate traitor, Standard Oil (called Exxon today).

For his ground-breaking stories exposing the morality-free zone in which
the power elite move, Seldes was vilified by the people he covered and
ignored by the Establishment media but, note well, he was never sued for
libel.

Returning to Higham’s book, the author repeated the tale of Wall Street
plans for a White House coup (see Part I of my theory).  His version
provides a frightening glimpse of the real power that Colonel Prouty
tells us runs our world.  Higham writes that President Roosevelt was
told of this fascist plot by General Smedley Butler, the elite’s choice
to lead the 500,000 veterans they had already bankrolled.

What should Roosevelt do?  If he "were to arrest the leaders of the
houses of Morgan and DuPont, it would create an unthinkable national
crisis in the midst of a depression.  Not for the first or last time in
his career, FDR was aware that there were powers greater than he in the
United States."  Roosevelt leaked the story to the press to quash the
government takeover.  They responded with a front page story calling the
report "preposterous."  Later, a congressional committee found the story
to be based in fact.

As reprehensible as this example of media-ruling class collusion is, the
book "Creature From Jekyll Island" tells us of an equally egregious
silence in the disaster of the Lusitania.  Historical documents prove
that the ship carried contraband and possibly war weapons labeled as
"lard, furs, cheese…consigned through the J.P. Morgan Company."  The
people who boarded the ship had no idea the ship’s cargo violated
international neutrality agreements, making it and its passengers likely
targets for German U-boats—but the government and the media
did.

The German embassy filed a formal complaint about the Lusitania’s cargo
but the U.S. State Department denied the charge.  Still trying to avert
disaster, the embassy paid for the placement of an ad in fifty, mostly
East Coast, newspapers, warning Americans not to book passage on the
ship.  They requested the prepaid ad be placed on the trade page a full
week before sailing date, BUT…

"…the State Department intervened and, raising the specter of possible
libel suits, frightened the publishers into not printing it without
prior clearance from State Department attorneys. Of the 50 newspapers,
only the Des Moines Register carried the ad on the requested date." Over
1000 people died on that ship; 195 were Americans.  This silence in the
face of a death sentence for Lusitania passengers highlights the media’s
callous indifference to the people and the truth

Why would the U.S. government send innocent people to their deaths?  A
1955 congressional committee found uncontested evidence that the British
and American Money Monopoly wanted an incident so outrageous that it
would ensure America’s entry into the war and to stop the U.S.
isolationists from gaining the upper hand.  Isolationism was and is
totally unacceptable to the global plans of the ruling class.

DIRECTING THE MEDIA: CIA DOCUMENTS

How does the media know to act in such a uniform way?  Mark Lane answers
the first question in his 1992 book "Plausible Denial." Lane is an
attorney who began his public attack on the government’s case against
Oswald three weeks after the assassination.  At that point in time, his
criticism was especially dangerous because the government disinformation
campaign had barely begun. He had to be stopped.

In December of 1963, editors of every major newspaper rejected Lane’s
"Did Oswald do it?" article, including the Nation magazine that had
previously asked him to submit articles on other subjects.  Its editor,
a friend, told Lane that no one in the media would touch the
assassination topic.  Lane went on to write three books, all treated
like poison, and all accompanied by harassment from various government
agencies trying to find criminal activity.

Fed up, Lane sued and the Court ordered the release of long-suppressed
documents on how to handle assassination critics.  As you read the CIA’s
advice to the media, notice how closely it resembles statements the
Windsors have made through their media "assets."

One internal CIA report expressed how "deeply upset" they were that so
many Americans rejected the Warren Commission’s conclusions and how
"concerned they were about international opinion."  A memo was written
suggesting that they set up a "public relations effort to counter the
critics who, by doubting such an array of honorable, honest men, must be
clearly subversive."

The first step in their public relations effort was a call to patriotism
made in a Top Secret memo sent to the media.  It stated:  "The aims of
this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the
claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such
claims in other countries… Just because of the standing of the
commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast
doubt on the whole leadership of American  society."

The memo was quite specific about how to stop the criticism:  "Employ
propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics.  Book
reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this
purpose.  The unclassified attachments to this guidance should point
out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted
before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii)
financially interested…"  Lane tells us that CBS, the New York Times,
the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times stepped right up to the
plate with text that seemed almost plagiarized from the CIA directive.
And why not?  The evidence indicates that most of them are owned or
controlled by a handful of people.

OWNING THE MEDIA

Once upon a time there were newspapers that used to measure their worth
by how often they got the "real" story before their competition did.
Now, media outlets seem content to merely echo each other.  Why?  Two
books on the ruling class came to the same answer—a Media Monopoly both
here and abroad.

J. Anthony Lukas, a Pulitzer Prize winning author and former columnist
for the New York Times, writes in his most recent book "Big Trouble":
The Associated Press is "…one of the nation's most effective monopolies
[embracing] eight hundred member papers." Wrote one independent
newspaper editor, ‘Here is the most tremendous engine for Power that
ever existed in this world. If you can conceive all that Power ever
wielded by the great autocrats of history... to be massed together into
one vast unit of Power, even this would be less than the power now
wielded by the Associated Press.’ And controlling the Associated Press…
of course, the Money Monopoly."

In his book on "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve," researcher and
author Eustace Mullins sees the same problem with the press abroad:
"With the control of the money came the control of the news media.  Kent
Cooper, head of the Associated Press, writes in his autobiography
Barriers Down,  ‘International bankers under the House of Rothschild
acquired an interest in the three leading European agencies.’

"Thus the Rothschilds bought control of Reuters International News
Agency, based in London, Havas of France, and Wolf in Germany, which
controlled the dissemination of all news in Europe."

Media control by the ruling class goes a long way toward explaining the
blandness and uniformity of the news we get about most major world
events, like the death of Princess Diana.

BRAINWASHING THE CHILDREN: RULING CLASS FOUNDATIONS

The brainwashing media, however effective, can never match the power of
propaganda on the young.  My "real" history library contained a book
entitled "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary Kah.  In it, he points
out that once he found out that major textbook publishers were owned by
the global-is-good group, he decided to take a close look at education.

He discovered that this was one of the first areas the globalist
Rockefellers targeted for subversion.  Using one of their tax-free
foundations, they began in 1902 to make large annual education grants.
The Foundation Board’s "Occasional Letter, No.1." makes clear their aim:

"In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield
themselves with perfect docility to our moulding hands.  The present
educational conventions fade from our minds, and unhampered by
tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsible
rural folk."

With an investment of about $2 billion by 1930, you can be sure the
foundations  hit the city folk, too.  In fact, the Carnegie and
Rockefeller "philanthropic" foundations, provided two-thirds of the
funding for all higher institutions of learning that heavily influenced
public school curriculum.  Does anyone doubt the impact their "good
will" had on the research and textbook writing that feeds ideas to
"grateful and docile" minds?

In support of Kah’s contention, a 1952 congressional committee,
investigating the un-American activities of tax-free foundations, found
evidence of a deliberate attempt to rewrite history with a pro-elite
slant.  That they were successful was made obvious by the research of
author Matthew Josephson who stated that, by the 1930s, revisionist
historians began to argue that the Robber Barons were, in reality, only
"architects of materials progress and, in some way, saviors of our
country."

Historians tempted to resist this elite-friendly view of history had
only to be reminded of the fate of respected American historians, like
Charles Beard, who found himself excluded from access to documents
usually open to historians, blacklisted by publishers, and ignored by
the media..  (Sound familiar?)

Pondering revisionist history, I wondered what groups the ruling class
deemed it most critical to target.  As I looked over the strata of U.S.
society, it seemed likely they needed to target all children, except
their own.  I believed this for about a second before the truth jumped
out at me.

Of course!  They would absolutely have to brainwash their own children
because these little Lord Fauntleroys are the key to the perpetuation of
class structure.  The elite know that children aren’t born with a desire
to enslave a large portion of the world’s people for their own
enrichment—or to exterminate an even larger group who do nothing, they
believe, but consume scarce resources.  As the teacher Anna tells the
King of Siam in the musical "The King and I," children have to be taught
to hate, "they have to be carefully taught."  And so they have their
Choates and Harvards and Yales and Etons and Oxfords and Cambridges to
convince them that Daddy’s one of God’s chosen few and so are you.

Once past the turmoil of the 1960 assassinations of the massively
popular Kennedys and King, this elitist propaganda worked very well for
the ruling class.   Unfortunately, by accident, they allowed into their
world a naïve young girl who turned into a spokesperson for the
population they had targeted for extermination.  Diana’s common touch
most certainly created confusion in the mind of her son, the heir
apparent to the premier ruling class family, and chaos in the New World
Order, as she taught William and the have-nots by example that all men
are created equal.  Fortunately (they feel) and by accident (of course),
Diana died and things have returned to the "way they’re supposed to be."

"WHO WOULD LISTEN?"  THE FATE OF THE WHISTLE BLOWER

What all this research taught me is why the average citizen has no clue
about the invisible hands that guide them.  For me, one question
remained:  How does this shadow government interface with our day-to-day
world, managing to bend or break every rule with abandon?  Whether it’s
extortion, forgery, assassination, campaign fraud, stock market
swindles, voting irregularities, or tampering with Henri Paul’s blood
sample—all seem to go undetected or unreported.

I wondered why there wasn’t a trail of copied documents or overheard
discussions and decent people rushing to testify to their existence.
The answer that now makes the most sense to me came in a totally
serendipitous way and was only later confirmed by my research.

In 1992, I was working for a consulting firm and just beginning my
descent into the assassination research hell that leads to the New World
Order.  One day I had lunch with one of our firm’s clients, Mike B., who
was a film producer for a major telecommunications  company.  Talk
turned to what each of us did on weekends.  He told me about his
moonlighting with a film company that did extensive work with big-name
stars and big-time corporations.

When he finished his amusing anecdotes about the stars, it was my turn.
I just laughed and said my weekends were spent with my husband following
our son’s baseball career and helping him with term papers.  Based on
this very exciting life, I said: "I can only tell you that my son’s a
darn good pitcher and the Rockefellers are a bunch of crooks."
Expecting a polite chuckle, I was surprised when Mike said, "You don’t
know the half of it."

He then went on to tell me of a weekend when he was working with the
film crew at the Rockefeller-owned Chase Manhattan Bank.  He and a
co-worker were setting up the microphones and testing for audio quality
when he heard David Rockefeller discussing the necessity of
assassinating the South American leaders who had banded together and
were refusing to refinance their Chase loans under IMF-imposed,
tight-money policies.

Mike didn’t remember the conversation word for word, but he said it was
peppered with references to Spanish-sounding names, the CIA, and the
names of other corporations also being hurt by these defiant countries.
This chatter went on for about 15 minutes when four or five more people
joined the original group and the film crew got the signal to begin
filming.  From that point on nothing about assassination was discussed.

I really couldn’t think of much to say to him because I didn’t believe
him (plus I had the urge to laugh).  But he was a client, so I asked the
only thing I could think of—"Did you go to the police or FBI or somebody
with the information?"  He looked back at me expressionless and said,
"Who would listen?"  I was saved from further discussion by the arrival
of the waiter with our bill.

Rather than spending any time trying to research the Chase Bank, I
mulled over why he told me such a nutty story.  Our firm had worked with
him for about three years on different projects and he never tried to
impress any of us by name-dropping or telling tall tales.  Since there
was no simple answer, I decided to let it hang out there with a lot of
other dots in my life I hadn’t been able to connect.

As the years went by and my assassination facts piled high, I gradually
recognized that what Mike overheard was not only possible but probable.
As premier members of the ruling class, Rockefeller property and power
snakes its way throughout the world giving them more than a passing
interest in the politics of other countries.  This interest, more often
than not, turned into brutal action against those who stood in their
way, especially dissenting leaders and assassination witnesses.  It
became very clear why Mike might not want to testify about what he
heard.

Specific to Mike’s story is Gerard Colby’s "They Will Be Done," which is
an extensively researched and well-documented book about Rockefeller
domination of South America’s people and natural resources.  In it we
find the convenient deaths of government leaders and Amazon natives who
defied them, as well as citizen activists and journalists who wanted to
testify against them.  It reminded me of the JFK assassination witness
death list that Jim Marrs catalogued in his book "Crossfire."

Still, some part of me continued to question Mike’s story because I
couldn’t believe anyone would discuss the need for assassinations in the
hallowed halls of one of the world’s largest banks.  I reasoned that, if
such things were discussed, it would surely be in the cloak and dagger
manner of the movies.  Much to my surprise, I recently discovered the
following article about Chase Manhattan while surfing the Net.

"Chase Manhattan Bank fired Riordan Roett, author of the infamous memo
of January 13, 1995, which contained this chilling paragraph: ‘While
Chiapas, in our opinion, does not pose a fundamental threat to Mexican
political stability, it is perceived to be so by many in the investment
community. The government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to
demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of
security policy.’ "

With this last dot connected, a picture emerged of a closed-minded,
know-it-all (me) who shut out an eye-opening story about the world and
how it works because it didn’t fit her worldview.  Such myopia blocked
out the truth of what Mike had to say.  How many people do this
everyday?

There are rumors and fleeting news stories about government cover-up and
possible complicity in Diana’s death, the Oklahoma City bombing, TWA
Flight 800, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Pan Am Flight 106, etc., etc., etc.  When
asked to accept them as true, the average person—in any part of the
world—is incapable of believing that their "fellow Americans or Brits or
Aussies" are capable of atrocities far beyond the bounds of their own
moral code.

Like the unworldly natives who literally could not see the large ship
that brought Darwin to their remote island, people "see" what they
believe is possible.  Without knowledge of classified history, they
cannot believe in the unconscionable behavior of the ruling class and
their lackeys in matters of British colonialism, the Lusitania, Pearl
Harbor, Hiroshima, American imperialism and political assassinations.
Without the help of a responsible media, they cannot know the present
day horrors of the genocide in Africa and the inner cities of the United
States.

Greeted with skepticism or hostility, how many witnesses who are tempted
to testify to Establishment crimes, ask themselves the same question as
Mike:  Who would listen?  Might not a witness who saw someone tampering
with Henri Paul’s blood sample choose the path of silence?  Or witnesses
to the administration of an overdose of adrenaline to Diana?

And what about the witnesses brave enough to tell their stories?  What
of their  testimony do you think we have been allowed to see or hear?
And what kind of "limited hangout" do you think we will see when the
French and British investigations are complete?  Will they tell us who
really did it?

Knowing what I know now, I have little hope the truth will emerge.  The
people behind Diana’s death and other political assassinations reaching
back into the previous century, are too powerful to be exposed, too
amoral to come clean, and too close to their New World Order goal to let
anything or anyone get in their way.

Coming Soon:  Part Three, The Ruling Class And Their Goals
 

WeThePeople Home Page