Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: Princess Diana articles by Seamus
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

The Princess Diana Debacle: Part I

[Image: princessdiana.jpg]


To write a long piece on Diana Spencer, contributing to the plethora of literature written about her already, is something that I have resisted doing for an extremely long time.



[URL="http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012/02/the-princess-diana-debacle-part-i/"]Read the rest here

[/URL]
This essay is, in a word, disturbing.

Seamus, of course, will speak for himself. And I acknowledge the kinds words he used in the piece to describe me.

But it seems to me that Seamus is making THE critical errors that are most commonly made by well-intentioned but less than ideally disciplined researchers of deep political phenomena relating to assassinations: He moves to the "who" and "why" questions without first establishing the "how" of the event under scrutiny, and he riddles his arguments with straw men.

Analyses of Mohammad Al Fayed's character and sexual dalliances have as much to do with the process of discovering the "how" of the Diana case as analyses JFK's character and sexual dalliances have to do with the processes of discovering the "how" of Dealey Plaza. Such analyses likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.

Those who would draw moral and/or historical equivalency between Diana and the JFK/RFK/MLK triumvirate have as much to contribute to the efforts to establish the "how" of the Diana case as those who disparage the morals and/or historical significance of JFK, RFK, and MLK have to contribute to the efforts to establish the "hows" of Dealey Plaza, Lost Angeles, and Memphis. Analyses of said individuals and groups likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.

As was the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, the "how" of Diana's death will be discovered by those who are willing and able to conduct a classic criminal investigation of the event -- one deeply informed and directed by the lessons and methods taught by deep political science.

I have worked on this case from Day One. I have concluded that Diana was murdered by conspirators. I am now applying the Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics model to my work.

I am working on reverse-engineering the "how" and moving outward from the facts in a process-of-elimination investigation designed and executed to discover the "who" and "why" of Diana's murder.

"Who" could have done it in the way it appears to have been done? For instance: "Who" had the authority to strip security that night?

Seamus: You don't have to admire Diana in order to examine the "how" of her death impartially and honorably.
Charles Drago Wrote:This essay is, in a word, disturbing.

Seamus, of course, will speak for himself. And I acknowledge the kinds words he used in the piece to describe me.

But it seems to me that Seamus is making THE critical errors that are most commonly made by well-intentioned but less than ideally disciplined researchers of deep political phenomena relating to assassinations: He moves to the "who" and "why" questions without first establishing the "how" of the event under scrutiny, and he riddles his arguments with straw men.

Analyses of Mohammad Al Fayed's character and sexual dalliances have as much to do with the process of discovering the "how" of the Diana case as analyses JFK's character and sexual dalliances have to do with the processes of discovering the "how" of Dealey Plaza. Such analyses likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.

Those who would draw moral and/or historical equivalency between Diana and the JFK/RFK/MLK triumvirate have as much to contribute to the efforts to establish the "how" of the Diana case as those who disparage the morals and/or historical significance of JFK, RFK, and MLK have to contribute to the efforts to establish the "hows" of Dealey Plaza, Lost Angeles, and Memphis. Analyses of said individuals and groups likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.

As was the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, the "how" of Diana's death will be discovered by those who are willing and able to conduct a classic criminal investigation of the event -- one deeply informed and directed by the lessons and methods taught by deep political science.

I have worked on this case from Day One. I have concluded that Diana was murdered by conspirators. I am now applying the Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics model to my work.

I am working on reverse-engineering the "how" and moving outward from the facts in a process-of-elimination investigation designed and executed to discover the "who" and "why" of Diana's murder.

"Who" could have done it in the way it appears to have been done? For instance: "Who" had the authority to strip security that night?

Seamus: You don't have to admire Diana in order to examine the "how" of her death impartially and honorably.

CD after coming across your debates and your discussions I am very much middle of the road on the topic.

That's a huge leap from where I was. My aim or my intention is to bring people towards yourself, Jan and Magda indeed the DPF. That's when you guys can really discuss the evidence in the case in a rational manner, away from the Al Fayed circus. Charles you make some salient points which I always thought you would. I've often been asked why I go over material long since discredited like say John Hankey or Alex Jones/David Icke? What we forget as researchers is that most people who say they are really are not. I hasten to add most people don't consider themselves as anything other than interested. Thus I don't tend to pitch my stuff at people inside the JFK zone. Or say the Diana one (I have no interest in going there, bar the piece's I have submitted). It's really for those outside that come across the BS and disinfo. I like to think of myself as a cleanser of the stuff people like yourself, Jim Di, Jan and Mag can't be bothered dealing with. You know the pesky bullshit you always get asked but cannot be stuffed discussing. Trivial crap like Al Fayed for instance. Thus I do attack Al Fayed consistently. I also reinforce the real discussions taking place here on this forum. Sadly, a lot of the stuff dealing with Al Fayed does fall into the sleaze category. His bull only looms larger thanks to Keith Allens foray. I also discuss his asnine claims as being a boon for any potential conspirators.

You now have a piece that provides an alternative to the mewlings of Al Fayed. As for a perceived lack of understanding, I have for deep political events simply because I have a different take on the issues at hand. Making that sort of judgement call is odd. How can one judge 'deep political insight' its a matter of opinion. I may think from time to time somethings you say, may not be cool. Anyhow what I do is confront the elephants in the freaking room. I don't know anybody in the Diana zone that has effectively told Al Fayed to sod off. I think if I was really interested in the case enough to investigate, I think I would have out of necessity. Like you and I have told a number of people in JFK circles. I see giving Al Fayed a bit of grief as no different to nailing a certain other researcher. Am I lacking deep political analysis for bagging that person not to mention his pals that sought to dominate the discourse in JFK? Making us all look like mad hatters? A man of your obvious intellect should see this dichotomy. Straw candidates need to be exposed as badly as the conspirators. You've essentially said the same thing. Thus I am puzzled and as I said slightly hurt by your deep politics comments. Further, that piece was not edited by myself the flurry at the end about Al Fayed's sexcapades was never in my initial draft, that's my editor. That stuff is in the Orth article.

Despite all of the asides, I do look forward to your continued comments on this piece as it evolves. Though I have a feeling you may disagree with much of it and the angles I take at times. I also have no doubts concerning your expertise on the case. Remember, I emailed you Jan and Magda for some advice, however your's was the shortest reply lol. The Diana field is shockingly void of decent researchers. Terrible in fact, why is it thus in a small corner of the interweb and the Diana death scenario you guys are some of the only people I could find not talking shit about the case? It's a credit to you guys and it's a good feeling promoting you guys even though we may not agree entirely. Like I say I am looking forward to your future comments. Just remember too this piece is some 20,000 words at last count it's very early days.
Quote:I've often been asked why I go over material discredited like say John Hankey or Alex Jones/David Icke. What we forget as researchers is that a lot of people aren't. Thus I don't tend to pitch my stuff at people inside the JFK zone. Or say the Diana one (I have no interest in going there bar this piece). Its for those outside that come across the BS and disinfo.

Yes,and I thank Seamus for his research.This is exactly the reason that I posted for Seamus to empty his mail box.I wanted to know if Seamus has written,or is about to write about David Icke.I'm not a follower of Alex Jones or David Icke,but my youngest son is really taken by these guys.So Seamus,to me,has a definate target audience (people like me).

Although I don't have a particular interest in the Diana case itself,I hope that Seamus can give me some insights into others of my interest.I don't really have much respect for people like Icke,who proclaim to know much sacred and unproveable knowledge,and then will gladly sell it in some form to the gullible seekers (people like my son).

So hey,thanks Seamus,and if you've written about Icke please give me a link.
Yeah I have done my article on David Icke is pretty popular I have to say (so popular no one here has seen it lol). It's in eight parts. Try and get him to read my treatise
on Alex Jones ar CTKA also, second show him the conversations online here with myself AD/CD/JK/GB/ ripping JF a new one. Use that as a motivator tp prevent people descending into conspirahypocrite lunacy.

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/11/...searchers/

and

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/11/...mentators/

Lemme know what you think.

Furthering the point I made to CD is that I got another nice email from a FB pal. Who is a big fan of Carl Ogelsby (not Dawn lol) in it she said

"I was never a fan of Di either. As for her death, this essay was really a teaser; I'm tempted to go to Deep Politics to skip ahead."

I hope you get a lot of people from the article. If I was going to discuss her death with a level head this is where I would go.

The Princess Diana Debacle Part II

[Image: keithallen.png]

Keith Allen is an actor, comedian, musician, writer, director and father of singer/songwriter Lily, who crashed the Cannes Film Festival in May of 2011 with his documentary Unlawful Killing', concerning Princess Diana's death specifically, the alleged murder of Diana Spencer and her partner Dodi Fayed.I had always thought of Allen as being a slightly arrogant, belligerent, yet ultimately an intelligent and talented bloke.
Indeed, some of his critiques of author Martin Gregory's claims about the case have made for interesting reading. Thus, I advise viewing his Rebuttal of Martyn Gregory's Article by Keith Allen and the Unlawful Killing Production Team' on their Facebook page.
In his film, he notes the following areas of suspicion surrounding Princess Diana's death.
1) The legendary white Fiat Uno that clipped the car.
2) Diana was very much alive when rescue teams arrived.
3) Henri Paul, the driver's appearance that night. Not drunk, blood tests faked.
4) There being no cameras working in the Alma tunnel that night.
5) The length of time it took Spencer to get to the hospital.
6) The names of the ambulance staff are still unknown.
7) While not a note' as such, Allen was inconclusive as to the motives of the crime, i.e. was it a scare' operation that simply went wrong? It is a balanced take, not often seen in the Diana field.
Thus, if we take an objective point of view, there certainly are some things to discuss either way (if you are interested in the Diana caper).
However, it is also one of the hardest films to find anywhere in the world.

Read the rest here



Princess Diana Part III St Mohammed and Racist Royals

[Image: martyngregory.png]

Whether or not Martyn Gregory is an intelligence pawn (as Allen and Al Fayed have hinted strongly at) is not the issue here.
It is all about public perception, and it is in this key area where Gregory has positively run rings around both. While Keith Allen laments Gregory's continual targeting of Al Fayed, anyone with an iota of intellect can see why Gregory would.
What troubles anyone of a sober mind is Al Fayed's murder motives: that Spencer's pregnancy and marriage to Dodi Fayed was one of the catalysts for her murder.
This removal', so say Allen and Al Fayed, was at the behest of a racist and Nazi' Royal Family concerned about the future King of England having a Muslim half brother.
Muhammad Al Fayed is hardly the most evil man in England. Indeed Al Fayed's rival, the loathsome Roland Tiny' Rowland (1), whom he feuded over for control of Harrods, was a pretty nasty fellow as film maker Adam Curtis discussed in his brilliant 1999 documentary series the Mayfair Set' (2).
However, Rowland, for all his sinister underpinnings, did not turn Al Fayed into the richest and most incompetent conspirahypocrite in Britain.
If one has read Orth's piece on Al Fayed, discussed in Part II, you would have seen he had been in trouble for racism at his Harrods store. However, it was not just Orth.


Read the rest here


Magda,

Please pardon my cement-headedness, but who is the author of these articles?
Charles - if you click on the blue titles, they'll hyperlink you to the articles, which appear to be authored by Seamus.

I can't make much sense of them....
These trashy articles, bereft of even the most simple manifestations of deep politics-informed reasoning and insight, seem designed to deflect attention from the investigation of the "how" of Diana's death and instead shift our focus to the apparently unseemly life, times, and character of Mohammed Al-Fayed.

Mr. Al-Fayed, we are told over and over and over again, is a racist, a cad, an insensitive bigot.

Which tells us what, exactly, about how Diana, Mr. Al-Fayed's son, and their driver were killed?

And it gets worse. The author(s) of this disjointed little smear titillate(s) us with news that, in the next installment, "we will check out Spencer's inconsistent musings about her personal security."

Which will tell us what, exactly, about how "Spencer" was killed?

"Spencer"???

And my oh my, might the use of the word "we" to reference the author(s) of these articles be inadvertently revealing?

All of this is reminiscent of the posthumous assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. Wittingly or not, the author(s) would advise us, "Relax, the victims aren't worthy of our respect, so there's no good reason to inquire after the circumstances of their deaths."

And it gets worse.

The author(s)' disparagement of assassination investigators prompts his/her/their use of the following rhetorical gems:

"conspiravangelists"

"conspirahypocrite"

"the gaping maw that is the conspiracy-hungry United States"

Sound familiar?

These half-witted, ham-fisted attacks, clearly intended to marginalize and demonize conspiracy research and researchers, are all TOO familiar to those of us who seek truth and justice for John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Diana Spencer.

Who in God's name is responsible for these travesties? Moldea? Posner? Russo? Bugliosi?

"Colby"???