By now, even the most traditional of Brits
are starting to realize why the rest of the world considers
their royal family to be an outdated holdover of a medieval
institution.
And even the asleepest of the asleep are starting
to understand how this weird, dysfunctional family of
cousin-married inbreds is not just an anachronism, but actively
evil.
And every Tom, Dick, and Harry now knows about Andrew,
formerly known as Prince Andrew, a.k.a. The Duke of Dork, and
his very public Epstein problem.
But perhaps the worst
revelations are yet to come.
Do you know, for instance, how many
notorious pedophiles have personally mentored or advised King
Charles?
No?
Well, by the end of this episode, you will know,
and the answer will surprise you.
Let's get to it...
Welcome, friends. Welcome to another edition
of The Corbett Report. I'm your host, James Corbett of corbettreport.com,
coming to you, as always, from the sunny climes of Western Japan
here in December of 2025 with Episode 488 of The Corbett Report
podcast, "The
Royal Family's Pedophile Problem."
Now, students of history have long recognized
the British royal family as heirs to a monarchical institution
that has presided over debauchery, devilry, and deception for
hundreds of years.
From
the Gunpowder Plot false flag to
the Lusitania false flag to
the murder of Diana, the history of the British crown has
been a history written hidden in blood and bejeweled with lies.
And now the general public is at long last
beginning to learn the extent of this regal depravity.
Now that Andrew has been stripped of his title and evicted from
his residence, the public is finally beginning to
realize that the royal rake, once popularly known as "Randy
Andy," was not just a buffoon but in fact a truly depraved,
Epstein-connected, sex-addicted monster.
But even the royals' biggest detractors would
have a hard time comprehending the level of perversion that King
Charles and his family have been steeped in all their lives.
So first, the latest on the prince formerly known
as Andrew. Sidebar for those who are interested:
Andrew is now
formally known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
For all these royal
nerds who keep track of such things, he was stripped of his title... he no longer is allowed to use Windsor as his... blah, blah, blah... whatever.
Anyway, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. If you want
to know more about him, I guess you could read
Entitled - The Rise and Fall of the House of York by
Anderw Lownie.
And while I did do so in preparation for
this episode, I'm not sure I could wholeheartedly recommend this
biography. I am sure that it is an incredibly well-researched and
meticulously documented book.
And I'm sure that the facts stated in
there are stated truthfully - or at least as truthfully as we can
possibly get them from the outside.
But, having said that, I'm not sure that it
really tells the whole story of Andrew. And I think there's probably
a much more interesting - salacious, yes, but actually
informative - biography to be written about Andrew in the future by
someone who is probably less afraid of being sued by the royal
household.
That, I would assume, is the reason why this
book - although it meticulously documents page after page about how
much Andrew and Sarah were spending on this or that house that they
never lived in... or this or that ski trip to some exotic location... etc. etc... the influence peddling and other such things that have
marked the career of formerly Prince Andrew - actually [supplies]
surprisingly scant details about Andrew's connection to
Epstein.
Epstein is in the book, to be sure, and
some of the details are there.
But, given how important
that particular piece of this tapestry has been in the overall story
of the fall of the House of York, you would expect there to be a lot
more information. And I would suspect that the reason there
is not is because of some sort of threat of being sued or
lawsuits or what have you.
Fair enough. Just go into the book knowing what
it is and what it isn't.
There are only two revelations - are they even
revelations? - regarding the Andrew/Epstein connection of any interest
that I found in the book.
One is that, as the book documents, Epstein
said - or at least one of Epstein's associates said - that
Andrew was, quote, "my
Super Bowl trophy" and that he was selling Andrew's intel to
Mossad.
So, that is documented in the book. Again, that is coming
from an Epstein associate who is saying what Epstein had said to
him.
So, that is at least documented in there in black and white.
That's something.
And then the other interesting thing about the
book is actually something that didn't make it into the book
exactly. In fact, it made it into the first 60,000 printed copies of
the book, but was then, after threat of lawsuit, removed by the
publisher.
So, subsequent editions of the book will not have this
fact printed in them. And it was not in the one that I obtained. So,
anyway, take that for what it's worth.
But now we know, at the very
least, because Andrew Lownie has gone on record to say what was
taken out of the book, we can now document it.
ANDREW LOWNIE:
So here we
are with him [Prince Andrew] in Mar-a-Lago, as you see, with
Epstein, a woman called Gwendolyn Beck - who Andrew took to the
island - and Melania.
I had various references in my book to Melania Trump.
Epstein had actually been her lover before Trump,
but Trump didn't like that in the book, so he ordered it to be
taken out of the book after about 60,000 copies had been
printed.
So, it seemed to be a pretty pointless gesture.
But
anyway, my publishers did it. But I keep spreading the word.
SOURCE:
Prince Andrew's biographer says Melania was sleeping with
Jeffrey Epstein before she met Trump
Indeed, a spicy little tidbit. And it does raise
that joke that is going around these days:
"Did Melania come to the
US on an Einstein visa or an Epstein visa?"
Interesting. Well, more to the point for today's
purposes, though.
I did read another book that is slightly more
detailed along these lines of Prince Andrew and his activities,
specifically
Nobody's Gir
- A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice
by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.
[Her] name should be familiar to people in my
audience, because, of course, I have talked about Virginia Giuffre
and her story several times in various episodes, including, of
course, my conversations with Nick Bryant of
Epstein Justice.
We talked shortly after her death earlier this
year - her suicide, her death, her murder, whatever that was. At any
rate, we have talked about that in the past.
So hopefully you're
aware that
Virginia Roberts Giuffre was one of the most famous
victims of the Epstein criminal enterprise.
There is, of course, the famous photograph of
Prince Andrew holding a underage Virginia Roberts, back in 2001.
And
how do we know that? Well, we know that specifically from her
posthumously published memoir, Nobody's Girl.
And, unlike
that AI-generated deepfake "confession" video - that is actually
audio - the nonsense that is being distributed among the more unseemly
parts of the so-called erstwhile alternative media, this memoir contains Virginia's
actual account of, amongst
others, her encounters with formerly Prince Andrew, including this
passage from the book.
When Prince Andrew arrived at the townhouse
that evening, Maxwell was more coquettish than usual.
"Guess
Jenna's age," she urged the prince, after she introduced me.
The
Duke of York, who was then forty-one, guessed correctly:
seventeen.
"My daughters are just a little younger than you," he
told me, explaining his accuracy.
As usual, Maxwell was quick
with a joke:
"I guess we will have to trade her in soon."
As we chatted in Maxwell's entryway, I
suddenly thought of something: my mom would never forgive me if
I met someone as famous as Prince Andrew and didn't pose for a
picture.
Excusing myself, I ran to get a Kodak FunSaver from my
room, then returned and handed it to Epstein. I remember the
prince putting his arm around my waist as Maxwell grinned beside
me. Epstein snapped the photo.
We went to a restaurant for dinner and
afterward to an exclusive London nightclub called Tramp. The
prince went to the bar and came back with a cocktail for me.
Then he invited me to dance.
He was sort of a bumbling dancer,
and I remember he sweated profusely. I had another drink, and
the prince did too. We then headed back to Maxwell's, again in
two cars.
On the way, Maxwell told me,
"When we get home, you are
to do for him what you do for Jeffrey."
Back at the house, Maxwell and Epstein said
goodnight and headed upstairs, signaling it was time that I take
care of the prince.
In the years since, I've thought a lot about
how he behaved. He was friendly enough, but still entitled - as if
he believed having sex with me was his birthright, I took him
first to a bathroom, where I drew him a hot bath.
We disrobed and got in the tub, but we didn't
stay there long because the prince was eager to get to the bed.
He was particularly attentive to my feet, caressing my toes and
licking my arches. That was a first for me, and it tickled. I
was nervous he would want me to do the same to him.
But I
needn't have worried. He seemed in a rush to have intercourse.
Afterward, he said thank you in his clipped British accent. In
my memory, the whole thing lasted less than half an hour.
Absolutely wretch-inducing.
And one of the many
things that makes that so particularly skin-crawlingly disgusting is
that, yes, Virginia Roberts Giuffre - at that time, Virginia
Roberts - was indeed underage when that event took place, documented
by the fact that the photo developer printed the date of the
development of the photo on the back of the photograph itself,
something that would be trivial to prove or to disprove if that
photograph were ever to emerge from the FBI evidence vault, where it
has been locked away since the FBI took it off of Virginia many
years ago.
But anyway, that being what it is, of course none
of this can be true because, as we all know, the formerly Prince
Andrew has a hitherto unknown-to-medical-science condition in which
he is physically incapable of sweating.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So,
you're absolutely sure that you're at home on the 10th of March.
She was very specific about that night. She described dancing
with you and you profusely sweating and that she went on to have
baths, possibly …
PRINCE ANDREW:
There's a
slight problem with the sweating, because I... I...
I have a
peculiar medical condition, which is that I don't sweat - or I
didn't sweat at the time, and that was - oh, actually, yes, I
didn't sweat at the time - because I had suffered what I would
describe as an overdose of adrenaline in the Falklands War when
I was shot at and I simply... it was... it was... it was almost
impossible for me to... to sweat.
And it's only because I have
done a number of things in the recent past that I'm starting to
be able to do that again. So, I'm afraid to say that there's a
medical condition that says that I didn't do it.
So therefore...
SOURCE:
Prince Andrew & the Epstein Scandal: The Newsnight Interview
- BBC News
What is this? Who could be expected to believe
such twaddle? Is this a cartoon? Is this some sort of South Park
parody?
Is this, even worse, the actual OJ Simpson case? One can
imagine Johnny Cochran getting up there with the perspiration defense.
"If he can't perspire, he can't conspire," or something like
that.
Anyway, if you can stomach you those types of
stories about people like that, then there are many more such
stories in Nobody's Girl.
So, I will commend that to your
attention as a book of interest, at the very least, for people who
want more details - not only about the abuses, of course, but about
Virginia's life story and also how and when she chose to step
forward and start pursuing this, and everything that ensued from
that:
the ABC News cover-up, of course, that we know about with
Amy
Roebuck and the hot mic and that incident, and the countersuits and
lawsuits for defamation, and the settlement with Andrew, etc.
All of
that information is there from Virginia Giuffre's perspective.
But yes, long story short, Andrew is not being
stripped of his title and cast out of the royal family, or at least
the royal line of succession, because he spent too much taxpayer
money, as the
Entitled biography might lead inattentive
readers to surmise.
No, he is being cast out because, of course, he
has been credibly accused - with photographic evidence and other types
of evidence - of being a child predator and having a documented
relationship to known child sex trafficker Epstein for years after
Epstein's conviction for those crimes.
And Epstein, who, by the way, bragged about
Andrew as his "Super Bowl trophy," and bragged that he was selling
Andrew's intel to Mossad.
So, yes, it's not even that which
is the ostensible reason he's being kicked out.
No, it's because the public found out
about all of that, and eventually the excuses stopped working and
the public wanted wanted blood.
So, they have thrown Andrew under
the bus - and just like that, I guess we're expected to believe,
"Oh, good, the royal family has cleansed itself of this stain on
their royal bloodline, and they can move on with their duties
and business of ruling the world."
I mean, after all, did you see that "viral
moment" when Andrew attempted to speak to Prince William - and William
politely nodded?
Wow. Well, if you didn't see that viral
moment, don't worry.
The establishment press will shove it in
your face yet again. Wow. "Prince
William and Prince Andrew's Viral Awkward Moment Has Resurfaced Amid
the Disgraced Royal's Recent Drama."
This is proof positive that
the royal family has really and truly had enough of Andrew and
they're not putting up with him anymore. So, they're the
good ones.
And in a way, throwing Andrew under the bus
publicly like this, throwing him out of the royal line of
succession, is actually good PR for the Windsors at this point.
See,
they're a sensible British family. Yes, they'll put up with quite a
lot from their relatives, because blood is thicker than water and
all of that stuff.
But, at a certain point, once this true extent of
someone's depravity is revealed, like they have been with Randy
Andy, he will be tossed out on his posterior, right? And there you
go. The royal family maintains its cleanly image...
But of course that narrative is bunk. Not only
because the royal family has known about Andrew and his
predilections and what he gets up to behind closed doors for far
longer than the general public has known that.
But secondly, what is his punishment exactly?
Oh, he's being stripped of his title and won't be
able to profit off of HRH and Prince and Duke of York and all of
that.
Well, hmm...
But is he going to prison? No, hardly.
Is all of his property and goods that he has
acquired over the course of these decades of his royal duties - is all
of that being seized? No, of course not.
Is he being banished to a foreign country in
exile to live in shame? No.
He's getting banished alright, but it's not to
some swamp in the middle of nowhere.
It's to... Sandringham...
JOE ROGAN:
He is now
excluded from royal duties and public life, and his status has
been dramatically reduced.
His status has been reduced.
Loss of titles and status. Eviction from royal lodge. Relocation
to Sandringham Estate.
So, he's relocated to an estate in the
countryside. Look at this. Financial support. The king will
provide for Andrew's basic needs. Poor guy. That's so sad.
That's so sad.
They made him stay in that castle. Look how
beautiful that place is. That is so nuts that this guy got
kicked out of there.
BRIAN SIMPSON:
Bro.
ROGAN:
He got kicked out of
wherever the f*** he was - the royal lodge.
SIMPSON: Unless they tell me
his punishment is like - they give you that estate, but they take
all the servants.
ROGAN:
Bro, look at the
gardener's house.
That's the gardener's house. That's where the
gardener lives. That f****** place is beautiful.
Oh, yes. Oh, poor Andrew. Oh, my God. How will he
put up with it...?
It is laugh-not-to-cry-level satire that is
masquerading as reality. But here we are.
Yes, Andrew and Sarah are
being kicked out of their spacious, accommodating mansion, Royal
Lodge. And they're being forced to go to the late queen's favorite
retreat,
Sandringham Estate, which, yes, is literally,
"an estimated 20,000-acre estate with 600 acres of royal
parkland and some 150 properties."
But it's "roughly 100 miles north of London."
So,
I guess this is just the price that has to be paid as penance for
Andrew's crimes.
Now, to be fair, let's correct the fake news.
It's not that Andrew and Sarah are going to move into Sandringham
House. No, that's, of course, where the current king and queen like
to lodge when they're visiting Sandringham.
But one of the other 149
properties on the estate:
York Cottage, perhaps, or Gardens House,
or The Folly, or one of these other incredibly beautiful mansions
that most people in Britain would work their entire lives and still
not be able to afford anything near this level of luxury.
But, here you go, just by virtue of being born
with the right blood in the right family, Andrew and Sarah Ferguson
get to live this life. So, there you go. That's what's really
happening.
Don't believe the lying liars of the mainstream press.
"Oh, boy, they're really sticking it to Andrew, guys. He's really
going to have a hard life now."
Yeah, I'm sure he'll be boiling his
own eggs for breakfast every morning, right? Something along those
lines.
Anyway. That's what's really happening behind
this PR mess. But you know what? OK, yeah, we get to see William
basically not talking to Andrew. Wow, what a snub...
But what about Charles?
What about King
Charles?
Why is it that the British press, to the extent that they talk about
the royalty, seem to not even want to acknowledge King Charles'
existence?
Maybe it's because he is an immensely and
intensely unlikable human being who people do not have any affection
for - with his sausage fingers, you know, trying to beckon his staff
at a moment's notice, etc.
But beyond that, there are some very
interesting and important questions that, if there were something
approaching a real independent press in the UK, which we know that
there is not, but if there were, they would be asking some very
uncomfortable questions to Charles - not just about Andrew and
Epstein, but about Charles himself and some of his
connections.
Hopefully, I would assume most of the people in
my audience and even some proportion of the general public will know
at least one of the names that would come up in such an
investigation.
Because, of course, anyone who was actually paying
attention when
Jimmy Savile - a.k.a., the most prolific child predator
and necrophile in the history of the world - was being exposed shortly
after his death just over a decade ago, it was found that "Sir" Jimmy Savile, OBE, KCSG, didn't just have a passing acquaintance with the
royal family.
No, he was actually a close personal friend and an
advisor to the current king.
***
The public got a hint of what really goes
on behind the royal family's closed castle gates when the Jimmy
Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago.
If you are able
to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might
recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile
rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was
considered the stuff of total conspiracy lunacy.
You might also recall that the royal family's
relationship to Savile was certainly "problematic" (to use the kids'
lingo).
But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other
people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the
course of his career.
Sure,
the Queen had knighted Savile back
in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was
awfully chummy with Charles.
Yet perhaps knighthood was to be
expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his
life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the
way.
In fact, the first hard questions about who knew
what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly
did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting
abuser finally died.
JON SNOW:
One of the things
that's really interested me there was your view about Jimmy Savile and your knowledge at the time that it was going on.
JOHN LYDON:
Yeah.
Unfortunately, I think all of us - what we call "the peoples" - knew
what was going on with the BBC.
SNOW:
As bad as we now know
it was?
LYDON:
Yeah, we knew. We all
knew.
SOURCE:
John Lydon on Jimmy Savile and BBC
But over the years the "who could have known?"
routine used by the Windsors' defenders has become increasingly
insupportable.
First, there was the revelation that Savile was so
close to the royal family that he was almost
made Prince Harry's godfather.
Then came the increasingly
damning reports on Savile's close personal friendship with Charles,
culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that
the now-King of England regularly sought
Savile's advice on sensitive political matters.
***
That, of course, was a small clip from my
Episode 443 on "Meet
King Charles, The Great Resetter," which, if you have not yet
seen, I suggest you do.
I think it's highly relevant to our
exploration today.
And while you're at corbettreport.com, you
might want to check out my previous edition of The Corbett
Report podcast on "Political
Pedophilia," where - back a decade ago at this point [April 16,
2015] - I was talking about the Savile scandal as well as the Epstein
scandal and how it ties into the heart of the British aristocracy...
But let's continue this exploration because, as
remarkable as it might seem, Jimmy Savile wasn't Prince Charles'
only close personal friend, mentor, advisor who happened to be a
pedophile. There are several to go through...
Let's take a little inventory of the ones that we
know about who are widely and totally acknowledged openly in even
the establishment media.
Let's see what we come up with. Let's see
how many pedophiles King Charles has been associated with over his
life.
We could start, for example, with his spiritual
guru and someone that he looked up to all his life and great uncle
of his, who he very much admired. And that was Lord Mountbatten.
And
if that name rings a bell, it might be because some of the FBI files
that have come out on him recently to expose a little bit more about
his life and his predilections than were known previously.
Specifically, we have this March 18, 2022,
article from Irish Central:
"FBI
files allege Lord Mountbatten, murdered by the IRA, was a pedophile,"
[subtitled] "FBI files on Prince Charles' uncle, Lord Mountbatten,
killed by an IRA bomb 41 years ago, describe him as 'homosexual
with a perversion for young boys'."
Quote:
Throughout Lord Mountbatten's life and in the
years after he died in an IRA bombing on August 27, 1979, rumors
swirled about his extramarital affairs.
An FBI dossier on
Mountbatten, released in 2019, thanks to a Freedom of
Information request, reveals shocking information about the
royal who was a mentor to his grandnephew, Prince Charles.
The
75-year-old intelligence files describe Louis Mountbatten, the
1st Earl of Burma, and his wife Edwina as "persons of extremely
low morals" and contain information suggesting that Lord
Mountbatten was a pedophile with "a perversion for young boys."
You can continue reading that report all the way
down to the bottom, where it notes that,
"Prince Charles, who
described Lord Mountbatten as 'the grandfather I never had,' visited
the site of his assassination in 2015″ - to pay his respects, no
doubt.
Lovely...
And more details on Mountbatten and
what kind of person he was. You could find, for example, from TheJournal.ie.
Again, completely establishment media sources: "New
claims Mountbatten sexually abused children from notorious Belfast
boys' home."
Quote:
A new book claims that boys were taken from a
notorious Belfast children's home to Lord Louis Mountbatten's
home in Co Sligo, where he then sexually abused them.
"Kinkora: Britain's Shame" alleges that MI5
and the British political establishment have attempted to cover
up his involvement in a paedophile ring which operated out of
Kinkora Boy's Hostel in East Belfast in the 1970s.
[…]
According to the book, five people claim that
they were sexually abused and raped by Mountbatten, who was a
great uncle to King Charles III.
And again, you can read more about Charles'
reverence and his affinity for Mountbatten, the person whom he very
much looked up to.
But guess who Mountbatten just happened to be
besties with? Oh, that's right. Of course, Sir Jimmy Savile...
From this report,
The Mountbatten Dossier:
Savile was a friend of Mountbatten.
He once
boasted:
"Whenever it came to doing anything, he [Mountbatten]
would say, 'I'll cut the ribbon, but get Savile down. He can
do the speeches.
He does it better than me'."
Savile claims his handling of the press
during inquiries about the purchase of expensive chandeliers by
the Royal Marines so impressed Mountbatten that he decided he
was an asset who should be embraced by the royal family.
This is
difficult, if not impossible, to believe. It is far more likely
that their mutual pedophilia was the connecting glue.
And maybe some investigation into Savile and any
relation he might've had with the Kinkora Boys' Home would be a
starting point for that particular investigation.
But anyway...
Moving on from there, how much further does it
go? Oh, it goes much further.
We're already at two close personal associates of
King Charles who have been exposed as pedophiles posthumously.
Why not a third?
Here we go from The Guardian,
2001:
"Secret
life of royal guru revealed," [subtitled] "Laurens van der Post,
revered by Margaret Thatcher and Prince Charles, hid the fact he
fathered a child with a girl of 14."
Quote:
The official biography of Sir Laurens van der
Post, the South African writer and late spiritual mentor of
Prince Charles, is to reveal a life full of political intrigue,
colorful fantasy, and the growing fear of scandal.
[…]
Documents found by the biographer J.D.F. Jones
have confirmed allegations that Van der Post had a secret child
after an illicit affair with a 14-year-old girl.
You can read about the more details on that, or
you can turn to the Irish Times, which has this post on "S.
African author Laurens van der Post dies in London," which talks
more about the relationship.
In recent years, he was known as Prince
Charles's spiritual guru and helped to develop his interest in
alternative lifestyles and non-Christian religions.
In "alternative" lifestyles.
He was godfather to Prince William [GODFATHER
to Prince William], the eldest son of Prince Charles and
Princess Diana. He was reported to have more influence over the
prince than any other person.
A spokeswoman for Prince Charles
said [upon Laurens van der Post's death]:
"His Royal Highness is
very saddened by the death of Laurens van der Post, who has
been a dear friend for a very long time."
Hmm. Interesting...
So, yeah. What's the tally now?
Yes, we're now up to three.
Three close personal friends, advisors,
mentors, people who guided Prince Charles. The godfather to his
firstborn son, the future king of England, also happened to be a
pedophile. Interesting...
Can we keep it going? Oh, yes. Yes, we can.
How about this one from the Daily Mail
just six years ago: "Paedophile
priest called a saint by the Establishment and victim by Prince
Charles, who gave him cash after police caught him."
-
Peter Ball is suspected of preying on more
than 100 boys and young men
-
He made his young victims roll in the snow
naked or stand in freezing showers
-
But when he faced investigation for abuse,
judges and public school headmasters wrote to prosecutors
protesting his innocence
-
Prince Charles said disgraced bishop had
been the victim of 'monstrous wrongs'
-
During enquiry, he [Charles] kept in contact
with Ball and gave him small gifts of money
Quote:
He was a predatory pedophile bishop who for
decades enjoyed the patronage and protection of the
Establishment.
Sadistic Peter Ball is suspected of preying
on more than 100 boys and young men in a 20-year reign of abuse.
[…]
[T]his included his highest-ranked
friend, Prince Charles, who told the disgraced bishop he had
been the victim of 'monstrous wrongs.'
Etc., etc...
You can read more about this bishop
and the disgusting practices that he was involved in.
Again, a close personal friend, the person who
took on the post of Charles's spiritual guru after Laurens van der
Post shuffled off this mortal coil, also happened to be a prolific
pedophile.
Interesting, isn't it? Not one, not two, not three, but
four prolific pedophiles happen to have been best friends, mentors,
advisors to the current king of England...
And yet, despite the fact that, oh, you see how
they've castigated Andrew [and banished him] from the family for his
association with Epstein, but, oddly enough, we're not hearing very
much about Charles and his scandals.
I wonder why that would be...
Well, obviously, of course,
Britain is a
completely controlled and locked-down country in which freedom of
the press is completely and utterly a pie-in-the-sky fantasy.
And yet more evidence of that has just been
reported on by the Gray Zone, which has a new report, "Files
expose Britain's secret D-Notice censorship regime" about the
notices that the British government and military and intelligence
are able to issue to squelch stories before they are published.
And
how often they are used in order to stop important information from
getting out to the public.
But anyway, to have one close personal friend and
mentor who just happens to be - just turns out to be - a pedophile may
be a poor lapse of judgment on your part.
To have four
seems like a pattern that deserves to be investigated.
So, perhaps there is more with regards to the
royal family and its protection of prolific political pedophiles
operating at the highest rungs of society. Perhaps there is more to
that connection than we have been led to believe hitherto.
What do
you think...?
Of course, as always, I exhort you not to take my
word for any of this. No, all of the notes, all of the links,
everything that I have cited today will be in the show notes.
Please
do go and start researching this information for yourselves.
I think
there is some important information here, but I'd like to hear your
thoughts. And if you are interested in sharing them, please go to corbettreport.com, where you can leave your comments in this
particular episode of the podcast.
On that note, we're going to leave today's
exploration here. I'm sure we will be returning to this subject,
unfortunately, in the future as more details emerge.
But that's
going to do it for today. I am James Corbett of corbettreport.com
thanking you for investing your time in this investigation.
And I'm
looking forward to talking to you again in the near future...
