Royal Carbon Poo.

The Mirror, the Rupert Murdoch owned tabloid, reports the Duke of Cornwall, Prince
Charles, said while in New Zealand, human history had reached a defining moment, “a
tipping point, at which we still have the ability to change course, but really only in the next 10 years… after which there may be no going back”. He told an audience at Lincoln
University during his tour of New Zealand: “Now, of course, we are indeed being confronted by these very children, demanding immediate action and not just words. How much longer therefore can we dither and delay?”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/prince-charles-touches-down-in-solomon-islands-for-whistlestop-visit-after-new-zealand-leg-of-royal-a4294846.html

The Royal Tour, according to author Tom Bower’s book, Rebel Prince: Charles always has a butler, two valets, a chef, a private secretary, a typist and his bodyguards on his trips. His group of staff can be up to 14 people, as he travelled with this many during his 2007 trip to the US. Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, were joined by ten members of staff on their 2018 Australian tour. This includes two private secretaries as well as a personal assistant, an orderly and four members of the communications team (there to handle the royal image) and a hairdresser. They were also joined by one of Meghan Markle’s friends, whose duties included style advice.

The Royals made over forty trips out of the UK in the past twelve months with an estimated entourage of 400 -500. It’s impossible to calculate the carbon cost of these trips, due to all the variants, but the Guardian calculated a long-haul flight “generates more carbon emissions than the average person in dozens of countries around the world produces in a whole year.” So we can say the carbon cost of these junkets exceeds the annual consumption of over ten thousand people a year. Regardless of what your politics might be, if this is not a case of “do as I say not as I do” then it’s
hard to determine what the definition of hypocrisy might be.

Fact is the Royals (and they are not the only ones), if we judge them by the company they choose to keep, don’t really have a very good history of demonstrating that they do, in fact, care about children at all. In fact, it’s pretty fair to say they are crap when it comes to the idea of leading by example.

The Royal Playmates – the company we keep

• 

• 

On Saturday 24th November (local time NZ) on orders of the Queen, Charles’ brother, Prince Andrew’s office was removed from Buckingham Palace and his public engagements cancelled. This follows his disastrous interview on the BBC relating to his close friendship with pedovore Jeffrey Epstein a twice convicted paedophile and child trafficker.

Epstein’s legendary black book contains thousands of names of global VIPS, many of which Epstein is thought to have seduced or done favours for and then blackmailed. It’s causing concern in high society for fears of who else will be named in a paedophile (and suspected money laundering) ring that is now fully documented by both mass media and law enforcement globally as a transnational operation. One that is implicating the most powerful people on the planet, including those who associated and partied with Epstein such as Prince Andrew. The scandal has numerous over laps with other child trafficking and sex scandals such as the Hollywood NXIM sex cult involving Hollywood celebrities and billionaires like Sir Richard Branson.

Prince Andrew’s association with Epstein, a man who like to collect powerful friends and know their secrets, is not unlike Prince Charles association with Sir Jimmy Savile, the BBC children’s television who abused over 450 victims, mostly boys and girls as young as eight over a 50 year period.

The ‘Oldie’ reporter Miles Goslett first wrote a piece for the March 2012 edition of the UK magazine explained how the BBC were scared of broadcasting Savile’s Epstein scale sex offences for fear of what damage it might cause the Royal family and Prince Charles. Sir Savile, who appears in over a dozen photos with Prince Charles was so he close he advised the Prince on “everything from marriage guidance to checking speeches” according to Royal biographer Catherine Mayer’s.

Charles, however, survived the Savile scandal largely untouched as the result of a compliant and self serving media, specifically the BBC. The UK newspapers belonging to Robert Maxwell like the Sun also went easy on Savile and his VIP mates. Maxwell, a known blackmailer, is father to Ghislaine Maxwell (whose Ocean Trust Foundation has being identified as a money laundering conduit), the girl friend and alleged madame to Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire paedophile banker. Maxwell owned papers also had credible evidence of Savile’s abuse of children and chose not to publish.

• 

• 

Murdoch Maxwell & The Battle For Market Domination

The internet has received much flack over fake news in recent years (some of it deserved) but the reality is, it was the internet not media oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell or the BBC, who exposed to the wider public the scale of institutional child abuse (and blackmail) within the corridors of power. In contrast, big media has done whatever it need to stay on top as it marches to the goal of being our only information provider, a corporate ministry with a sole monopoly on the ‘truth’. A truly terrifying thought, especially if you study the history of who covered the abuse of children by Prince Charles friend, Sir Jimmy Savile, and who did not and what were their agendas.

For example, the outlet that pursued the Savile story was owned by Australian publisher Sir Rupert Murdoch (knighted by Pope John Paul II in 1998 shortly after the Catholic abuse case story broke in Australia). Murdoch used the Savile story to make the pressure on his company, resulting from its reporters use of illegal phone taps, (Hackagate) go way. Murdoch then used the leverage he had gained from ordering his paper to go soft on Savile’s mates to encourage the same system, now in the public firing line over Savile scandal, to put pressure, censorship and controls on Murdoch’s chief rival and the internet in the hands of the public.

The Epstein affair, interestingly, has not caused a notable response from the Hollywood “Me Too” movement which was sparked by the outing of Hollywood movie mogul and blackmailer Harvey Weinstein in relation to his serial abuse of women. A movement which was just as much about the battle for media control as it was about outing exploitation in Hollywood.

Epstein, unlike Weinstein a Republican, had close links to the Clinton Foundation and its climate change fund raiser worth billions of dollars and was used jointly as political action fund for democrat election campaigns on a donation for favour basis. Epstein is thus seen as a partisan issue, associated with pro-Trump voters (who fail to mention Trumps links to Epstein in the same manner pro-Clinton’s fraction don’t mention Epstein), in the American political civil war which rages on between neoconservative Donald Trump camp and the Neoliberal Hillary/Obama DNC camp.

Vested media camps report on Epstein in relation to their strategy and market shares, as they vie for market domination in a rapidly shrinking pool of media options, as was the case with Sir Jimmy Savile regarding who reported on his VIP mates and who did not.

Mental Illness a Global Bi Partisan Affair.

• 

• 

Yet the fact is Epstein, Weinstein, Savile and NXIM collectively demonstrate, without argument or partisanship, to even the most harden sceptic something is seriously wrong with our elite, regardless of the left or right wing badges they wear. Literally we’re watching an epidemic of mental illness infect global leadership, corrupting its moral compass and sense of fair play for all, that emerges in the form of full blown
narcissism.

It boasts about ‘grabbing pussy’ it gets blow jobs in the Oval office.

An infection of self entitlement which has gone on to shape the very institutions and governing bodies that shape world affairs today. Naricism has it hooks firmly into the leadership circle of both neoliberalism and neoconservatism. Unsurprisingly as money and power are the food of narcism both camp wether they portray themselves as left wing or right wing are focused on economic policies that continue to entrench wealth and power into the hand of small select club.

Contaminated on both sides of the divide by a monstrous scale of now documented abuse
conducted around the entire gobe by Royal Presidental Pedovores and their consorts which extends from the reigns of Prince Phillip (Profuma Affair and Bohemian Grove) to Prince Charles and Prince Andrew, the Clinton/Trump era. It has included Sir Jimmy Savile, Hollywood Prince Harvey Weinstein, banking guru Jeffrey Epstein, NXIM, among other emerging cases. Such as the Catholic Churchs global sexual abuse which involved individuals like Cardinal George Pell convicted for numerous cases of child rape when he headed the Catholic church in Australia as its most senior clergyman and spiritual role model for the five million Catholics that live in Australia.

This bipartisan, bi-faith, poison has seeped into the highest offices in the land worldwide
where predators wear whatever mask they need to manipulate and deceive whomever they choose to prey on. This is not an anomaly but has become standard operating procedure in the world of a two faced hypocritical elite where image and maintaining the image is everything.

Mirror Mirror On The Wall.

The deception wove by self serving predators has tainted and polarized every issue in politics from the nature of free speech to environmentalism. Yet whatever you, the readers, ideology may be I’m fairly sure the majority of you will agree that the everyday person, where ever they may live on the planet, want one thing for the planet. For it to be a better place for our children in the future. I suggest, on this basis alone, that Prince Charles’s New Zealand speech is 100% correct. We need to curb the gross appetite for consumption of wants over needs that dominate our global 21st century culture.

Let’s start by considering just how insane it is to be listening to hypocrites talk about what’s good for our children’s future when their own walk, and that of the people they choose as friends, make it clear that our children’s future has never taken priority over their own propensity for gluttony and out-of-control consumption.

And the raw truth is, regardless of who you might think vote worthy, is that if we as a
collective species can’t (won’t) come together to stop the blatant hypocrisy and exploitation of a privileged few, then what chance have any of us got of creating a future that our children truly do deserve.