What rubbish, Taki.  Your mind is well and fully addled. 

Do you have the intelligence and insight of a true conservative commentator, Cal Thomas, who wrote recently on his site and the International Herald Tribune, and I quote:

Greer says that in adulthood Diana became “more, rather than less, devious.” It is a character assessment her adoring disciples are prepared to overlook. And then Greer writes this explosive line: “The story of how she emerged from her dowdy chrysalis to become the people’s princess is often told, but what is seldom assessed is just how much of a performance this was.”

We are prepared to believe lies if they affirm our deepest desire to feel good, if not about ourselves, then about a goddess statue that can be as devoid of spiritual power as the false gods created by pagan peoples. How many women believe the old lie, “Of course I’ll respect you in the morning,” before climbing into bed with a man who doesn’t even respect them in the evening?

A measure of the power of the beauty cult can be found in the answer to a question. Suppose Diana had been the mistress of Prince Charles and Camilla were his first wife. If Camilla and not Diana had been killed in that Paris tunnel a decade ago, would the outpouring of grief from people who never met her have been as great? Surely not.

No one celebrates or elevates plainness; less so, goodness. Where is the stadium event for Mother Teresa, who died the week after Diana? The media were forced to cover her funeral lest they be condemned as too superficial. That didn’t last long.

The link to the Thomas essay:

http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=1483

or

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas082907.php3

taki with all due respects since you seem to be trolling for garbage....who gives a shit about some hillbilly family from the hills of britain..

One final remark - you fail to understand the purpose of a memorial service.  Of course, the debacle was to make it public, and for HRH Prince Charles to yield to Ms. Monkton, Richard Kay, and their ilk, and probably his mother, and to abandon his wife to further time on the cross!

As Steven Glover writes today in, of all places, the Daily Mail, Camilla should have gone.

You are concerned about adultery now, are you, with all your past “essays” declaiming your alleged prowess, and your long suffering wife?  Or has it all been in your imagination?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=478652&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=244

How depressing the tenth anniversary of Diana’s death is becoming.

I know it is not supposed to be a celebration, but surely we should hope that something positive and forwardlooking might have come out of the occasion. As it is, the dead Princess remains as divisive as ever.

We do not seem to have moved on at all.

For one thing, those who say that the Duchess of Cornwall should not have gone to the service tomorrow - and are therefore delighted that she has been forced to pull out - are fighting yesterday’s battles.

Why shouldn’t she be there? Are divisions and differences to persist in death as they did in life?

At most memorial services, there are a number of people present who in life were at odds in some measure with the person who died.

They come in a spirit of reconciliation, even recompense. The things that set them apart in life are put on one side in death. So it should have been with Camilla and Diana.

No one pretends that Camilla Parker Bowles, as she was, actively promoted Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles.

On the other hand, there are lots of reasons for supposing that it would have fallen apart for reasons other than their adultery.

So Taki was sure that Diana did not sleep with that Egyptian playboy? Because she TOLD him, convincingly, so?

Aaa-ha-ha-ha-ha! That’s a good one.

Gee, talk about being naive.

After having bedded and courted so many women, the guy hasn’t learned anything about female nature.

Well, here’s a little secret I’d like to share: Women do LIE. And frequently so. Perhaps even more often than they speak the truth. And they lie particularly much about their supposed chastity.

Hope this didn’t shock you.

And what’s with this Diana hysteria anyway? Was there something special about her? She wasn’t too pretty, just a standard English horseface with some added glitter.

The women of most other european countries look way better.

I also think this article is too harsh on Prince Charles. Despite the ears, despite the imposed whimpiness, despite being so meaningless, he’s after all a guy.

He has needs and no one of us can really know what tricks that Camilla of his can perform. In bed or otherwise. All you guys out there who have had or have an active sexlife know how it can be. Sometimes an ugly bitch do things that a mama’s princess won’t.

So give the guy some slack.

Taki, you quote as facts statements from a woman whose veracity has been proven suspect time and again, the biggest whopper that she had nothing to do with Morton’s book.

You then are convinced her relationships with protection officer Mannakee, Lord Pembroke, Oliver Hoare, and Will Carling were all “platonic”, are you, all these married men?  Their wives’ feelings—ah, not to worry!

Even Rupert Murdoch’s The Times has printed articles.  This essay, The regrettable legacy of Diana, indicates the irreperable damage she has done.

(And then why complain about Murdoch’s ‘vulgarization’, or ‘Neocon’ views, then?)

Along with mourning sickness, the writer points out there is emotional correctness, truly a ‘conservative concept. 

# # #

Emotional correctness: The reaction to Diana’s death was not entirely spontaneous. It was shaped by those in politics and the media determined to make an emotional connection with the public – by insisting that only one emotional reaction be allowed. Emotional correctness was everywhere, from Tony Blair’s speech anointing Diana “the people’s princess”, to the two-inch high tabloid headline before the funeral commanding “Be Silent All Britain”. We had seen the roots of it before, as when Kate Adie was criticised by BBC bosses for being too “forensic” in her reports from Dunblane. We have witnessed it since in response to other tragedies, from Soham to the Algarve.

I’m no fan of royalty.  I think it’s ridiculous that anyone is born into this world to have taxes paid directly to them.  That is preposterous, and I couldn’t care less if the entire British royal family were sent packing by the people they oppress, however low that tax might be.

But my feelings concerning this Diana nonsense are encapsulated perfectly by the fictional queen depicted by Helen Mirren in last year’s film.  At the funeral, with the wild applause ringing out after Diana’s brother’s eulogy, she touches her finger to her forehead in the hopes of stopping an onrushing migraine.  Amen to that, sister.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas082907.php3

The slander against Diana is sickening, and unabating even 10 years after she was killed.

Why the jewish hate against Diana? What did she ever do to you (or to anyone)?

brmerrick wrote <<I think it’s ridiculous that anyone is born into this world to have taxes paid directly to them.>>

Then would you agree that “landlordship” is ridiculous?

After all, what is land rent, other than a “tax”?

A. Capp, get back to me when someone has invaded or acquired your land, using “eminent domain” perhaps, and then starts charging you rent, and see whether you think it’s “rent” or a “tax.” If the British royals simply inherit wealth, that’s one thing.  If HRH thinks she “owns” all of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc., and that the inhabitants of these lands are “renters,” then she’s madder than her ancestor King George III.

I don’t care that it isn’t much in terms of real dollars.  By the same argument, why shouldn’t each of my fellow Americans pay one cent in tax per year to me?  It isn’t much, is it?

@brmerrick

<<A. Capp, get back to me when someone has invaded or acquired your land, using “eminent domain” perhaps, and then starts charging you rent, and see whether you think it’s “rent” or a “tax.”>>

My point exactly.  There’s no difference between a “landlord” and the
government.  Both “set the rules”, and if you choose to live, then
you must play by thier rules.  The rent you pay a landlord is no
different than the taxes you pay a government - both are one and the
same.  To complain that the Queen of England simply sits around and
receives tax money is the same compaint about a landlord who simply
sits around and receives rent.

Both the Queen and the landlord provide the same service: NOTHING.

Both the Queen and the landlord provide the same service: NOTHING.

Wrong.  The landlord is a private citizen who rightfully owns the land he rents out.  The contract between me and my landlord is not forced upon me.  Either the landlord or I can end the private contract at any time, with prior agreed-upon financial penalties on either side.

The queen provides little to no service, collecting taxes from people who owe her nothing, based on law enforced at the point of a gun.  She does not own the land on which these people live.  She governs over it by birthright only, and the law is forced on the British people, whether they are willing or not.  The differences between a landlord who purchased (or inherited) his property from someone else, and a monarch who collects taxes from unwilling subjects, are staggering.  That you seem unable to comprehend these differences is even more so.

<<The landlord is a private citizen who rightfully owns the land he rents out.  The contract between me and my landlord is not forced upon me.  Either the landlord or I can end the private contract at any time, with prior agreed-upon financial penalties on either side.>>

Uh, what is the service the landlord provides?  The service of being
paid rent to?  That’s a laughable response.

Admit it: landlordism is no different than queenship - as a matter of
fact, they are one in the same - only the Queen has an absolute
monopoly on the land, whereas the landlord has an absolute monopoly
on that particular location, and the landlords, as a whole, have
a collective absolute monopoly, no different than the Queen.

How does one “rightfully own” something that has not been
purchased from it’s Maker?  That is, how can one own land that he has
not purchased from God?  Do you claim that God sold or deeded all the land in
the world to Adam?  Is our toil under landlords and governments simply
a result of the Fall?

@Andy Capp

Of course, the Queen is the Landlord of England. She owns
it by right of conquest, her ancestors having killed or
chased away the previous owners.

Which is more or less the basis for land ownership anywhere.
Right of conquest, pure and simple

Ask the Indians how we got our land property…

@Adriana

Exactly.

All property in land is theft.

This article and most of the comments make me sick.  Prince Charles is a good man who made some mistakes in his personal life but who is far more thoughtful and insightful in his public contributions than most politicians. 

I wonder how Taki’s alleged friend King Constantine, Prince William’s godfather, feels about him trashing the Greek king’s cousin the Prince of Wales.

I’ve had it with “conservatives,” neo, paleo, whatever.  If the Right will not defend Monarchy, the oldest and best form of government, incomparable embodiment of tradition and heritage, which resonates with the deepest needs of the human psyche, what good is it?  What Europe needs--badly--is its kings, not only Windsors, but Bourbons, Habsburgs, and Romanovs, not politicians of any stripe.  As far as I’m concerned, anti-royalist “conservatives” are no better than leftists--maybe worse.  A plague on all Roundheads, Jacobins, and Bolsheviks, whatever they call themselves today.

To accuse the Queen of doing “nothing” can reflect only stupidity or willful ignorance.  HM has tirelessly served her country for more than half a century, providing a focus for continuity and natural unity, bringing the magic of monarchy--without which there would have never been a Princess Diana--into so many people’s lives, representing the UK with dignity and grace abroad, acting as fount of honour, advising prime ministers, and heading the greatest institution in the world, whose pageantry and splendour have brought joy to millions.  She and her family deserve more respect. 

God Save the Queen, and God Bless the Prince of Wales!

By the way, this article confirmed my intention not to renew my subscription to “The American Conservative.” After all, I guess as an unreconstructed Tory monarchist who prefers George III to George Washington (let alone George Bush) I’m really not one…

If the Right will not defend Monarchy, the oldest and best form of government, incomparable embodiment of tradition and heritage, which resonates with the deepest needs of the human psyche, what good is it?

Mr. Harvey,

Change the above to the subjective, and I’m with you.  Don’t judge this site based on SOME of the responders who are Brown, not Blanc.  The sponsor and editors have just recently made gesture to show their contempt for the Browns.  Stick with us Authentics and keep reading and posting.

@Theodore Harvey

Indeed the Queen does NOTHING.  Well, besides being the head of a
heretical “church”.

I agree - we need to put ourselves under a Monarch, that Monarch being
Christ the King.  And, as Christ established His Church, and gave the
Authority of that Church to St Peter, we must all convert to the One
True Faith - the Faith we call “Catholicism”.  Anything less is to
rebel against the One True Monarch, Jesus.

To support such heretics as the Queen of England is to oppose the
True Monarch Himself.

Either convert to the One True Faith, or remain a rebel against
The King.

Good day, sir.

Sorry, Mr. D; you almost had me convinced until I actually read
Cal Thomas’ essay.  I did not realize that when “Greer says,” it
was Germaine Greer talking. Frankly, I thought she was dead, too.
I know feminism is dead except among intellectual morons but
let’s leave that for another evening. My immediate question is quite
simple: did Germaine Greer really know Diana personally to make
such judgments about her character? Because if she did not, then
her statements are nothing more than the opinions of an aged feminist
who makes even Camilla look good.

And as for the beauty cult diatribe, oh, c’mon, loosen up a little.
Everybody, including ugly people, really do prefer beautiful or
attractive men or women. I don’t know if it’s a micro- or a macro-
evolutionary thing but when I see a beautiful woman, such as my wife
(who is much younger than yours truly), or horsey Diana, or Audrey, or Grace,
I am captivated. Of course, when the unknown beauties expose their
not-so-surprising limitations —except for my wife who is sweetly
superintelligent and an exemplar of humility and kindness—well,
there are always trade-offs in life. Both Diana and Charles made a trade-off:
each got something which they neither expected nor necessarily deserved.
And we, who have twenty-twenty hindsight, should learn from their ordeals
just how lucky we are to be who we are and where we are in the scheme
of things.

PostScript: Bravo Mr. Capp!

brmerrick,adriana and andy capp,

It would appear that none of you are students of John Locke (Second Treatise on Government).

His view was that individuals should take as much land as they could for their own use (tilling, rearing of animals) as long as they left as much and as good for others.

If they took more than they could use, that was pointless and wrong.

It is the invention of money that has facilitated the accumulation of property and wealth.

It was this fascinating treatise which, along with Montesquieu’s L’Esprit des Loix, which provided the theoretical foundation for the American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

@Anthony

What Locke said, is one thing.

How it happens in the real world is another thing.

Can you point to any possession of land that does not
trace to a conquest?

Either you conquered it, your ancestor conquered it, your
ancestor paid money to the one who conquered it, or you
paid money to the one who conquered it.

The basic title to any land property is an act of violence.

Deal with it.

Teachem,

Have you read what Greer wrote to judge?  You ignore the truth if the mouth it comes from is not to your liking?

The Spencers were courtiers; Diana was not a ‘lamb to the slaughter.

As Bishop Chartres movingly said, there is darkness and light in every soul.

But the dissension she has sown still remains.

And you admire Miss Teen South Carolina and the bubble headed Fox News anchors, not people of accomplishment.

People like a lot of wrong things; people become mobs, that doesn’t make the choices ‘right’

Your DNA is the same in your hand as in your heart; ‘materialsim’ doesn’t explain a great deal, another ‘lie’.

Read Rupert Sheldrake.

And read Greer:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2326662.ece

EXCERPT:

Lady Diana Spencer was not a princess in her own right, as have been most of the princesses of Wales, but an English aristocrat. Though the aristocracy is sometimes referred to as the nobility, there is very little that is noble about it. In England it cannot be said that “noblesse oblige”. English aristocrats are usually poorly educated, vulgar and ostentatious in their tastes, and extravagant and licentious in their personal behaviour.

Diana grew up in the company of louche young lordlings and ladies, one of the most flamboyant of whom was her elder sister, Lady Sarah Spencer, the original flame-haired temptress. Diana was chosen precisely because she was shy and backward.

Though Diana pretended to have been an innocent at court, describing herself as a lamb being led to slaughter, her family were courtiers, thoroughly versed in the ways of the Firm, as the royals like to refer to themselves.

Interestingly enough, Diana was so close to the British people, because
her family was AUTHENTICALLY English, while the “Windsors” are really
almost totally GERMAN, quite alien and aloof from the British.

The story is the “British Royal Family” was really Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
of the German house of Wettin combined with the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg line of the Germany House of Oldenburg. The name was changed
at the start of WWI with Germany, as a PR gimmick to fool the British
people into supporting the war, which was really about preserving the
British Empire, and depriving Germany of it’s colonial possessions.
I’ve heard that up until after WWII, that english was the second language
of the British “Royal Family”, and that they had to prohibit the King
from public speaking because his english had such a German accent.

Of course, it’s not surprising that Edward was carted off to the
Bahamas during WWII by Churchill, as he was playing footie with Hitler,
and by raising, pre-disposed to sympathy toward Germany.

Charles, in all his sick sexual needs with Camilia repeats Edwards
same sexual proclivities toward older, controlling women...Charles’s
sexual and emotional dependence on Camilia is much like Mrs. Simpson,
it’s spooky.

In some ways Elizabeth and her obnoxious, self-absorbed son, Charles
were the inevitable consequense of the sickness of European Royalty,
involved in the sort of disingenuous intriques behind Europe’s bloody
history that George Washington warned America against.

Bravo to Taki for his kind words toward Diana, Britian’s only REAL royal
princess!

My impression of Diana is the same as Mr. D’s , shallow and uneducated.
That she didn’t sleep with Dody, we have only Taki’s word. She was going on drinking binges with him trouogh night clubs, but that, according to our puritan Taki, didn’t ever end up in a bed.
The ‘People’s Princess’ was caught on Mallorca, sunbathing without any clothes on, on top of the deck of Dody’s yacht.
Does that mean anything? yachts do have beds but- we also have Taki’s word.
It is obvious to me that Camila is Charles’ love of his life (Taki wouldn’t know anything about this) whether somebody likes it or not. He has sacrified a lot his image because of his love for her (does anybody still doubts that?) and I think that should be respected.
Frankly, what choice do we have, the whole affaire is none of our business.

Princess Diana was a descendant of King Charles II, “prince” Charles is not.

She was the only royalty in the House of Windsor, by blood and by class. She had more right to be Queen of Great-Britain than her mother-in-law.

WFH sed: “Princess Diana was a descendant of King Charles II, “prince” Charles is not. She was the only royalty in the House of Windsor, by blood and by class. She had more right to be Queen of Great-Britain than her mother-in-law.”

The “Windsors” are among the worst examples of the excesses of
European aristocracy...I agree that Diana was a REAL British Princess,
and it showed in the way she behaved, the way she related to everyday
folks, and even the charities she supported.

Mr D sed: “Though Diana pretended to have been an innocent at court, describing herself as a lamb being led to slaughter, her family were courtiers, thoroughly versed in the ways of the Firm, as the royals like to refer to
themselves.”

While the Spencers were part of the aristocratic classes, it is hard
for anyone to believe that Diana herself was anything but a shy, naive
innocent in that family. Sure, she learned the ways of the “Firm”, and
developed the political adeptness that you speak of. That fact is to
her credit, btw. Her real talent was relating to the everyday working
family, and in that she was a REAL princess! The fact that she was more
popular then the “Windsors” (a fake name) is her legacy.

As bad as you might believe the Spencers were, they were
at least ENGLISH in culture and breeding. The REAL courtiers, sneaks
and thieves were the “Windsors"---a fake name for a cunning,
self-indulgent bunch (The largely German Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg famlies) that by fate and cunning took the throne
of England for themselves, and ruled it with self-indulgence and
detachment.

God Bless Diana, the authentic British monarch, the best of what the
aristocracy should be to the people of England.

Somebody sed: “It is obvious to me that Camila is Charles’ love of his life (Taki wouldn’t know anything about this) whether somebody likes it or not. He has sacrified a lot his image because of his love for her (does anybody still doubts that?) and I think that should be respected.”

Shades of Edward and Mrs. Simpson more like. A sublimated homosexual,
a self-indulgent effete piss-ant, whose “love” was more like a pyscho-sexual
obsession, the love of a “Mommy” that he never had.

We can see Edward in Charles, in both his selfishness, his psychlogical
dysfunction, his complete concern with himself.

Please remember that this so-called ‘Royal Family’ is not even British.  They are the Battenbergs, minor German royalty who changed the family name to Windsor during WWI to make them look less like the enemy.

They are jumped up Germans and Greeks, if we are to believe their birth certificates for parents.  Given the Battenberg’s history, I’m sure there are many crypto-parents.

According to Wiki, the “Windsor” is indeed a fake name,
they are Germanic, not really even Greek. The main line is Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
of the German house of Wettin (Elizabeth), combined with the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg line of the German House of Oldenburg (Phillip).

The Spencers are authentic British aristocracy. Charles and Phillip
look so Germanic, as does the Elizabeth.  Diane on the other hand,
looks English, and fortunately her looks can be seen especially in her
eldest, hopefully the future King. I’m hoping that Charles NEVER sits
on the throne.

It’s always been amazing how many English are completely unaware of the origins of their so-called “Royal Family”. It’s such a fraud, it’s hard to believe.

I have been thinking seriously about Mr. Harvey’s comments
and the more I thought about them, the more convinced I am
that he has made some excellent points. I have been a
conservative and traditionalist my entire life but NEVER an
antiroyalist. In defending the monarchy Conservatives and
traditionalists are doing themselves and their culture an
immense favor: they are conserving tradition and preserving
history. Antiroyalist fervors lead to the so-called
Enlightenment and look where it got us. Of course, the heresies,
apostasies, freemasons, and others didn’t exactly help either
but let’s stick with the fundamentals.
And if we’re going to restore monarchs to their rightful place, they will have to do something to restore their legitimacies: kneel before the Vicar of Christ to receive their crowns and their authority. At least then, they can claim authority by “divine right.”

Deal with it.

Posted by Adriana on Sep 01, 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dah, dah!

As an American and an Irishman, I can never be confused for a monarchist – especially that of the British royals.  (Still a little tense about their behavior over last 400 years in Ireland.) But I can appreciate some of the arguments raised here that monarchy in theory upholds tradition and is a stabilizing force of culture – which has value, especially when juxtaposed against the manifest shortcomings of modern U.S.-style pseudo-democracy.)

But, when it comes to Diana, short of celebrity worship, I fail to see what made her so great.  What did she ever do?  Why was her name raised to such heights? – was it her bloodline, or who she married (or screwed), or her somewhat feminine attractiveness?  Or did she possess intellect or leadership, and actually do something material and remarkable?

I’m stumped.

***

As for Taki, who I find very entertaining and enjoy immensely, a thought:  He’s got to be the world’s biggest name dropper, at least the biggest in the Conservative media.

Всем хай,Уважаемые пользователи Интернета!
Резанный Интернет,теперь не проблемма !!!
Вот отличный способ сменить IP!!!
Заходите на сайт ,регистрируетесь, оплачиваете и юзаете.
Сам пользуюсь пол года ,нареканий нет всем доволен.
Хочу заметить, сервис уникален тем, что вы в любое время суток можете купить или продлить оплату своего VPN,
Т.к весь сервис автоматизирован. Вы сами управляете своим счётом, без участия суппорта.
Всем советую - secretsline.com!!!
VPN вам необходим если:
Ваше соединение с интернетом ограничено несколькими приложениями Почта,ICQ а вам необходим полный доступ к сети.
Рекомендую использовать,если в вашем оффисе ограничен доступ интернета, провайдером или директором.
Вы цените безопасность соединения. Вам необходимо скрыть свой реальный IP-адрес,чтобы сохранить анонимность в сети.
Вы выходите в сеть через прокси сервер,но необходимый сервис в интернете не работает через прокси.
Вам необходим доступ к ресурсам имеющим ограничения в зависимости от IP-адреса.
Ссылка Анонимность,Безопастность,Шифрование,Ограниченный интернет,Смена IP
С наилучшими пожеланиями!

Добро пожаловать в наш Инвестиционный проект.
В поддержке Loyal Bank мы организовали нашу инвестиционную компанию, которая успешно работает сегодня. Мы набрали лучших профессионалов в сфере инвестиций. Широкий опыт и профессионализм брокеров помогли нам устойчиво работать на рынках инвестиций. Сотрудничая с частными инвесторами, мы смогли достигнуть больших успехов. Это помогло работать сегодня с крупными компаниями, которые увеличивают капиталы вместе с нами.

Авторитетные аналитики делают опытные суждения и дают рекомендации нам. Полученные данные помогают нам работать успешно на международных и мировых рынках и получать максимальную прибыль. Поэтому сильная команда, которая готова стать вашим надежным личным советником в области сбережений и увеличения капитала, была сформирована.
Ваши деньги будут работать с лучшими аналитиками и брокерами. Работая с нашей компанией вы
получаете максимальную прибыль, постоянную стабильность и безопасность ваших капиталов.

Мы предлагаем Вам четыре различных вклада:
Легкий - удобный и практичный для инвесторов, которые имеют очень маленький капитал, но желают увеличить быстро свои доходы.
Обычный - для инвесторов, которые имеют капитал, но не в состоянии работать с ним, помогает понять сущность инвестиций и научиться распределять свои капиталы.
Стандарт - ежемесячный вклад - для большинства инвесторов.

Easy - 3% after 2 days
Usual - 12% after 1 week
Standard - 50% after 1 month
Hard - 165% after 3 months

Мы принимаем: E-bullion,Pecunix,Liberty Reserve и E-gold.
Сайт тут
С Уважением, Всем С наилучшими пожеланиями!
Главный администратор г. Мати Маа

Добрый вечер,Уважаемые пользователи Интернета!
Резанный Интернет,теперь не проблемма !!!
Вот отличный способ сменить IP!!!
Заходите на сайт ,регистрируетесь, оплачиваете и юзаете.
Сам пользуюсь пол года ,нареканий нет всем доволен.
Хочу заметить, сервис уникален тем, что вы в любое время суток можете купить или продлить оплату своего VPN,
Т.к весь сервис автоматизирован. Вы сами управляете своим счётом, без участия суппорта.
Всем советую - secretsline.com!!!
VPN вам необходим если:
Ваше соединение с интернетом ограничено несколькими приложениями Почта,ICQ а вам необходим полный доступ к сети.
Рекомендую использовать,если в вашем оффисе ограничен доступ интернета, провайдером или директором.
Вы цените безопасность соединения. Вам необходимо скрыть свой реальный IP-адрес,чтобы сохранить анонимность в сети.
Вы выходите в сеть через прокси сервер,но необходимый сервис в интернете не работает через прокси.
Вам необходим доступ к ресурсам имеющим ограничения в зависимости от IP-адреса.
Ссылка Анонимность,Безопастность,Шифрование,Ограниченный интернет,Смена IP
Всем Счасливо!

Hello,Dear
Just found an amazing site.
Wanna get free ringtones now? Any phone and carrier supported. Download Now For Free. Tons of Music. Millions of MP3’s.
Come on in: http://www.ringtone-i.net
BYE!

The wedding of Charles and Diana was, I believe, entirely orchestrated by Camilla.  Camilla chose Diana, because Diana could be manipulated and as the bearer of Charles’ children.  She knew that Charles would never fall for Diana, and that her place in his affections was safe.

Camilla, does not deserve to be Queen.  She is an adulterer, and had a hand in Diana’s fall from grace.  Both Camilla and Charles, as far as I am concerned, can swirl around, and around in the toilet bowl of life.