The Queen, being exposed to Liz Truss on September 6, looking frail but not moribund.
Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era
- Thread starter mARTinSky
- Start date
The Queen, being exposed to Liz Truss on September 6, looking frail but not moribund.
President Donald Trump, who was the USA's Head of State, but unlike the Queen was also the head of the Executive, talked of "clearing the swamp" but here we are today and the swamp is alive and thriving. Just as powerful forces derailed Trump's attempts to clean house in America, I suspect similar forces would have intervened to stop any similar action that may have been taken by the Queen.
That being said, there is a conspiracy theory (which may have more than a ring of truth to it) that Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, had been involved in secret talks to stage a coup d'état against Harold Wilson's Labour (Socialist) Government in 1968. The plot was designed to replace the government with a coalition to unify the country in what Lord Mountbatten regarded as a time of national crisis. Apparently, the Queen talked Mountbatten out of it as she thought it was rank treachery.
That being said, there is a conspiracy theory (which may have more than a ring of truth to it) that Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten, had been involved in secret talks to stage a coup d'état against Harold Wilson's Labour (Socialist) Government in 1968. The plot was designed to replace the government with a coalition to unify the country in what Lord Mountbatten regarded as a time of national crisis. Apparently, the Queen talked Mountbatten out of it as she thought it was rank treachery.
See: Queen 'talked Lord Mounbatten out of plot to overthrow Labour'
Mountbatten had been a naval commander during WW2 and was appointed the Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia. In March 1947, he became the last Viceroy of India and oversaw the Partition of British India into India and Pakistan.
In 1979, he was killed when the IRA blew up his yacht at his summer home, Classiebawn Castle, in Mullaghmore, a small seaside village in County Sligo, Ireland. Whether the IRA did this purely of their own volition or were directed by the dark forces the Queen mentioned to Paul Burrell is open to debate. Perhaps Mountbatten was not forgiven for his role in the mooted coup d'état and this was payback?
For present purposes though, it is important to note that Lord Mountbatten was not only King Charles' great uncle but also his chief mentor.
In 1979, he was killed when the IRA blew up his yacht at his summer home, Classiebawn Castle, in Mullaghmore, a small seaside village in County Sligo, Ireland. Whether the IRA did this purely of their own volition or were directed by the dark forces the Queen mentioned to Paul Burrell is open to debate. Perhaps Mountbatten was not forgiven for his role in the mooted coup d'état and this was payback?
For present purposes though, it is important to note that Lord Mountbatten was not only King Charles' great uncle but also his chief mentor.
Ironically, given what happened later, the title of Defender of the Faith was awarded to Henry by the Pope for his defence of Catholicism. Even as he lay dying, Protestant heretics, as he viewed them, were being burned at the stake.
I tend to agree with your analysis. The toppling of the Stuarts (I would admit to a certain bias here as I am descended from Charles II and my father's family were ardent Jacobites) was indeed a staged coup. The fact that James II's daughter Mary and his Dutch son-in-law seized the throne in place of Mary's father and her baby brother's prior right of succession may indicate that the "Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines" that the C's spoke of could have been a reference to the Stuarts.
The Glorious Revolution was triggered by seven Members of Parliament writing to William of Orange to invite him to seize the British throne, the so called 'Immortal Seven', which included Charles Talbot, 1st Duke of Shrewsbury, who just happened to own Alton Castle, in the grounds of which Alton Towers would be built over a century later.
As Wikipedia states, Stuart political ideology derived from James I, who in 1603 had created a vision of a centralised state, run by a monarch whose authority came from God (the Divine Right of Kings, which links with what the C's spoke of as the pre-ordained activity of the Royal Blood Lines, i.e., to control) and where the function of Parliament was simply to obey. Disputes over the relationship between king and Parliament led to the War of the Three Kingdoms and continued after the 1660 Stuart Restoration. Charles II came to rely on the Royal Prerogative since measures passed in this way could be withdrawn when he decided, rather than Parliament. However, it could not be used for major legislation or taxation.
When James II became king, succeeding his brother Charles II, in February 1685 he enjoyed widespread support, for many feared that his exclusion would lead to a repetition of the 1639–1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Over the next three years, he alienated his supporters by suspending the Scottish and English Parliaments in 1685 and ruling by personal decree. Hence, we see like, his father before him, James acting as an absolute monarch. However, historians argue that James failed to appreciate the extent to which Royal power relied on support from the Landed gentry in his kingdoms, the vast majority of whom were Protestants unlike the Catholic James.
It was noticeable, therefore, on Saturday morning at St James' Palace in London that King Charles III, when ascending the throne under the current British constitution deriving from the 1689 Bill of Rights, required the assent of the Privy Council (comprising ministers from the House of Commons and former prime ministers) and senior members of the Anglican and Church of Scotland communions, which was given by their signing the proclamation authorising his majesty's ascent, and the consent of the Corporation of London acting through the the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, representing the various Livery Guilds (which unsurprisingly supported Parliament in the two English Civil Wars) too. This shows you where the real power has shifted since 1689.
Attractive as an absolute monarchy may seem in protecting the people against a ponerized oligarchy, the problem I guess is that you can end up with an absolute psychopath like Henry VIII who killed tens of thousands of his subjects. Therefore, you still need some checks and balances.
The Glorious Revolution was triggered by seven Members of Parliament writing to William of Orange to invite him to seize the British throne, the so called 'Immortal Seven', which included Charles Talbot, 1st Duke of Shrewsbury, who just happened to own Alton Castle, in the grounds of which Alton Towers would be built over a century later.
As Wikipedia states, Stuart political ideology derived from James I, who in 1603 had created a vision of a centralised state, run by a monarch whose authority came from God (the Divine Right of Kings, which links with what the C's spoke of as the pre-ordained activity of the Royal Blood Lines, i.e., to control) and where the function of Parliament was simply to obey. Disputes over the relationship between king and Parliament led to the War of the Three Kingdoms and continued after the 1660 Stuart Restoration. Charles II came to rely on the Royal Prerogative since measures passed in this way could be withdrawn when he decided, rather than Parliament. However, it could not be used for major legislation or taxation.
When James II became king, succeeding his brother Charles II, in February 1685 he enjoyed widespread support, for many feared that his exclusion would lead to a repetition of the 1639–1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Over the next three years, he alienated his supporters by suspending the Scottish and English Parliaments in 1685 and ruling by personal decree. Hence, we see like, his father before him, James acting as an absolute monarch. However, historians argue that James failed to appreciate the extent to which Royal power relied on support from the Landed gentry in his kingdoms, the vast majority of whom were Protestants unlike the Catholic James.
It was noticeable, therefore, on Saturday morning at St James' Palace in London that King Charles III, when ascending the throne under the current British constitution deriving from the 1689 Bill of Rights, required the assent of the Privy Council (comprising ministers from the House of Commons and former prime ministers) and senior members of the Anglican and Church of Scotland communions, which was given by their signing the proclamation authorising his majesty's ascent, and the consent of the Corporation of London acting through the the Court of Aldermen of the City of London, representing the various Livery Guilds (which unsurprisingly supported Parliament in the two English Civil Wars) too. This shows you where the real power has shifted since 1689.
Attractive as an absolute monarchy may seem in protecting the people against a ponerized oligarchy, the problem I guess is that you can end up with an absolute psychopath like Henry VIII who killed tens of thousands of his subjects. Therefore, you still need some checks and balances.
When my wife and I heard the news of Queen's death, our initial reaction was that this is the beginning of something really terrible and the queen checked out at the right time. She was probably not "in it" 100% since her husband died and it was only a matter of "when" not "if". As a response to some of the posts in this thread against the queen; peeps need to imagine themselves in others' shoes first. It wasn't easy for her, given the kind of evil she was surrounded with. In a no-win situation such as hers, it's often better to do whatever required to hold onto the power (even as a figurehead) and try to influence some positive outcomes whilst working within the system. Its similar to playing the stalking game with forbearance, holding your own in the face of insurmountable odds.
Overall, this world is a poorer and sadder place to be now that she is gone, not the other way around. May her soul rest in peace and finally get some rest!!
Overall, this world is a poorer and sadder place to be now that she is gone, not the other way around. May her soul rest in peace and finally get some rest!!
Interesting piece. Nothing would surprise me. Even in terminal decline, it isn't usually so quick a death. I'm guessing that (once all the dust settles) Charles 3 and his House/institution will not have nearly as much support from their subjects.The Queen, being exposed to Liz Truss on September 6, looking frail but not moribund.
Although you are right in that sense, the probability of that happening is way inferior than having the constant fantasy of a democracy where psychopaths already have control on every institution and they not end up just killing their own population because of stupids decisions (deliberated or not) but other’s countries population as well. On top of that, a ponerized population it’s easier to develop in that model compare to a monarchy. Nevertheless, there are many factors in play as well, take for example Saudi Arabia where the monarchy is something similar to a cancer to that country, with their religious interpretations of the law and all that.
I think the British monarchy is the only one that could work in a modern world. Because technically is the only thing that add value and identification to the united kingdom. It represent their religion as well, compare to other monarchies where the religious factor is not attached to the figure of the crown, for example; Thailand and Spain, which Buddhism and catholic Christianity has nothing to do with their king/queen. They may say “that monarch is elected by God” or whatever, but is not the same as the British. Same example for the one mentioned before; The Arabia, same for Japan, etc. Perhaps some African countries has something similar to the British monarchy but definitely not as influential.
Basically, in short, the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom because of the monarchy. Obviously of course, but you know what I mean.
Well, me too.
Immediately I heard she was under medical supervision suddenly after having just seen footage of her meeting with Liz Truss, I felt absolutely, someone has intentionally 'interfered' with her health, (aside from the Covid jabs) whether it was very recent or over a period of time more recently; it feels to me 'they' had an 'expiry date' set for her.
I wondered if this was a pivotal point in the 'agenda' where perhaps they intended or 'needed' to initiate Charles into his role at a specific date for specific reasons? I don't know enough about Freemasonry and the deeper workings of the 'consortium' at all and have not read anything about this, but for myself there was a very strong feeling that it was not a natural passing and perhaps it was always part of the 'plan' (perhaps, if the Covid jab didn't have the desired effect in a specific timeframe). I think there is no question that she deteriorated considerably after the vax but particularly upon the passing of Prince Phillip. I also feel if she had not had the vax she may well have lived for quite some considerable time, and perhaps that is exactly what those 'dark forces' did not want.
Perhaps the things the Queen did not openly act upon, or bring some kind of influence to situations openly, was possibly more from an acute awareness that there were boundaries or 'rules' around that sort of thing, and I guess it would not be hard to intuit that if you stepped beyond them, there would likely be a terrible price to pay. She seemed a devoted mother and wife, so I would not be surprised if she had to navigate her way through her role very carefully with the utmost diplomacy and discretion, not only to protect those closest to her, and herself, but also to do her best to have some kind of 'unseen influence' when it came to the welfare of others where possible. When I look at her life, it seems she was damned if she did and damned if she didn't. Someone clearly had informed her about these dark forces and the consequences of stepping 'over the line' in any way, shape or form.
Whilst watching some footage of Charles signing documents (after his rude, irritated condescending display toward staff regarding the dish of pens. What a complete ass. Clearly he never learned much about basic, quiet dignity from observing his mother!). As he signed the documents, there was a bit of a 'smug' expression on his face; I felt he was having to contain his delight. After this, when he was standing in front of the group present, having signing the documents, I observed a 'smirk' on his face and I wondered if it was in response to a particular person in the room, rather than just everyone in the room generally. It seemed like there was some kind of energetic exchange with someone in particular that elicited this response, perhaps I am imagining this, but I was watching trying to just observe and be objective, it was as if for a moment he was 'basking' in the reality of what had just happened. Then it was as if he snapped himself out of that and a 'mask' came back into place. I felt physically ill at that moment. For someone so 'bereft' over his mother passing, he certainly was not demonstrating what seem like normal emotions / facial expressions. I know people grieve in different ways, but I would have thought he would feel such terrible heartbreak and genuinely NO happiness at all over such a terrible situation; instead that momentous occasion would be a great deal more sombre and deeply emotional (and we would all feel/sense/witness that energy within him) if his so called love for 'Mummy' was as sincere as he suggests. I felt his speech was not heartfelt at all, instead carefully contrived and crafted. I can't help but feel deep down that under all that 'love' is actually a deep resentment toward his mother, and that he has been waiting for this 'opportunity' for all the wrong reasons, and that deep down he has some major 'mummy issues' that perhaps even the Queen was unaware of.
I recall that the Queen had said that if she had been able to do anything she had wanted (assuming she did not have to take on the role of Monarch due to her father passing) that it was her dream to have been a horse breeder. Her love of animals, nature, family, the simple things in life was clearly evident to many. I most certainly understand why she loved Balmoral and Scotland so deeply, and felt so happy and at peace having an almost 'normal' life with those she loved, if only for fleeting periods.
I am glad to know she passed on there, whether perhaps from being 'handled' ensuing she was a bit more 'out of sight' of others, so it was easier for them to 'manage' the situation, or whether it was her own choice... I hope the latter. I feel she was at least, somewhere that held many immensely happy memories for her personally; the frequency of that land, and her love of it, felt like it was a fitting place to bless and grace her departure.
May she rest long and well...
may she find great peace and deeper awareness of 'the big picture' beyond this density.
(Do they have popcorn in 5D? Well at least we know she always has a marmalade sandwich in her handbag just in case
)
fifty_five
Jedi Master
The same thing goes for Chucky, given for assumed ancestry which is never said, only the mother knows and sometimes not even that
. However, given the ponerization in place (and woke thing is a ponerization ) I don't see why the title and pronoun should be changed. I mean I think Charles III should be a queen. And proud of it.
That's what Ark said. It was just a sort of instinctive thing when he said it, but he is sometimes astonishingly accurate with such things.
Yeah. All things to consider and which may have played a part. But still, the timing was just odd.
Yes. There is always the "protect those close to you" factor in such situations. It not just a case of deciding to make a martyr of yourself because those dark forces do NOT play fair. They go after your kids...
All I've ever seen of heard of him from sources that were close to him and not doing propaganda for him, reveal him to be a slimy, disgusting, entitled pr*ck. The way he treated Diana was heinous. And that floozy he's married to now is no better.
Anyway, great post, thanks!
Rare footage from 1946 of the then princess being initiated in Wales as a Druidic Bard.
Though public and obviously by then principally a pageant, one does wonder whether there were other 'initiations' that took place in her early life that made it clear to her from a young age how the world really functioned.
Though public and obviously by then principally a pageant, one does wonder whether there were other 'initiations' that took place in her early life that made it clear to her from a young age how the world really functioned.
Very good picture! Your mom was a good photograph.
When I first heard about the amount of mourning, my immediate reaction is "Why so much hysteria" for the people who professed "Democracy" as a "civilizing" people for centuries. I can understand the "stability" factor that gets stronger as more time passes( in this case many centuries) even if it meant a ceremonial position. But, I can relate it to the Indian situation.
The nation was young after painful process of fighting against British Raj and piecing together of 500+ little princely states with broader land. No body has faith in opposition that got once in lifetime chance in 1977 and squabbled to become invisible little pieces with in 2 years. And suddenly no body (who majority of people can agree - at least in theory) exist to rule? But all this went "poof", when her son Rajiv Gandhi was announced as the leader with in a day or two. This taught me one thing - how ever symbolic or real the position is, people needs some reliable head to trust on. After all the life itself is painful with all sorts of surprises and this trust ( god or king or ruler) is a sort of psychological anchor to walk through the challenges.
About the Royalty as Privilege: It may be privilege for some for few years and all powerful universe always teaches them their place (or lessons). This is obvious in every celebrity's life you can find every where. This Nehru-Gandhi family is one example. To day, the show still continues with Indian Bojo Rahul Gandhi still the reluctant contender, goofing up the basic facts to become the entertaining material of BJP's simple and effective campaign material.
Some times, you feel sorry for the family- family who can't live simple peaceful life they crave for despite all the money/power/fame one can have, running around giving political speeches which they themselves detest (from their body language). If they go out of politics, they will end up in Jail, because their own lackies who used their power will make sure that. This quote is appropriate.
With destruction of opposition party in 1979, every Indian at that time know that Indira's younger son Sanjay Gandhi (considered as ambitious rogue) is in the line. But he died in air plane crash in 1980 ( rumors exist that she is responsible for the death). There were enough rumors' that Indira arm twisted her dis-interested -elder-pilot-son Rahul Gandhi( and her Italian born wife) to come into politics.
In fact, Rajeev Gandhi down to earth( or call it middle class approach) showed sense of hope for few years (1984-1986) started removing the barriers of "License Raj" his mother created. Inexperience caught up with him to discredit him and the mess he created the left vs right paradigm still exist. If he had survived his assassination in 1991, probably he would have done corrected it. But, that is not meant to be and as he was assassinated to gave a rare chance to family outsider to run the country for 5 years and open the economy ( which was unthinkable at that time).
The Family ( Italian born widow Sonia Gandhi and Family) could have gone out of country ( in 90's), but they know better ( family sins will come back in the form of corruption charges). She stayed back, raised the children to be next PM's, kept the puppet prime minister ( Manmohan Singh who ruled for 2004-2014) until they are ready. Sonia couldn't become PM because of label of "Italian Born" is acceptable for her coalition partners.
Even after literal no body named Modi became PM with consistent 90% approval ratings for 8 years ( ridiculously high for diverse nation), there is some desperation in his slogan "Congress Free India". He can give REAL protection to judiciary to prosecute the family and hear the voices "How can you prosecute Gandhi Family". That is the extent one can go. People can fall back to Congress if he does any mistake and people are scared of politicians that pull the fabric of nation like dogs for petty instant gains. That is nature of reality.
The diverse nations need to have some thing to hold on to keep it united. It is that name "Gandhi" that came out of no where 100 years back (1917) when M.K Gandhi came to India from South Africa and became trusted name in 2 years with his first stint against British in India in 1917. It is hard to shake off. Is this trust of a people is a privileges' or Curse? It depends.
Why can't people move on instead of holding on to these names?
For some reason, Caesar's comment on "People are selfish and fickle" resonates with me w.r.t masses. No one leader can solve every citizen's need. So the democracy and periodic elections exist. Politics became so corrupt all across the world. Even if politicians are not corrupt, people always compete for one thing or other, fair or unfair making the political selfish groupings inevitable.
Often, I wondered why people who look at their family with best intention they can have and see the complexities of the situation, but fail to see what is good for the nation (or polity). May be people are not mature enough and I wonder whether it is related to 50% of the world population belong to OP's.
I felt this type of grief the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. Noisy-crazy-busy streets became empty and silent (As if there is a curfew) and few people walked were crying as if they lost in their family , fear of what will happen next is on the air. In theory, it is a democracy. No body has any good impression of Indira- particularly about her "demockery" ( Ruling what is good for her is good for her party and the nation, imposing the emergency to stay in power( 1975-77), her crucial role in splitting the opposition to miniscule pieces (1979)) of the governance.
The nation was young after painful process of fighting against British Raj and piecing together of 500+ little princely states with broader land. No body has faith in opposition that got once in lifetime chance in 1977 and squabbled to become invisible little pieces with in 2 years. And suddenly no body (who majority of people can agree - at least in theory) exist to rule? But all this went "poof", when her son Rajiv Gandhi was announced as the leader with in a day or two. This taught me one thing - how ever symbolic or real the position is, people needs some reliable head to trust on. After all the life itself is painful with all sorts of surprises and this trust ( god or king or ruler) is a sort of psychological anchor to walk through the challenges.
About the Royalty as Privilege: It may be privilege for some for few years and all powerful universe always teaches them their place (or lessons). This is obvious in every celebrity's life you can find every where. This Nehru-Gandhi family is one example. To day, the show still continues with Indian Bojo Rahul Gandhi still the reluctant contender, goofing up the basic facts to become the entertaining material of BJP's simple and effective campaign material.
Some times, you feel sorry for the family- family who can't live simple peaceful life they crave for despite all the money/power/fame one can have, running around giving political speeches which they themselves detest (from their body language). If they go out of politics, they will end up in Jail, because their own lackies who used their power will make sure that. This quote is appropriate.
How did a Democracy became reliance on Dynasty?
With destruction of opposition party in 1979, every Indian at that time know that Indira's younger son Sanjay Gandhi (considered as ambitious rogue) is in the line. But he died in air plane crash in 1980 ( rumors exist that she is responsible for the death). There were enough rumors' that Indira arm twisted her dis-interested -elder-pilot-son Rahul Gandhi( and her Italian born wife) to come into politics.
In fact, Rajeev Gandhi down to earth( or call it middle class approach) showed sense of hope for few years (1984-1986) started removing the barriers of "License Raj" his mother created. Inexperience caught up with him to discredit him and the mess he created the left vs right paradigm still exist. If he had survived his assassination in 1991, probably he would have done corrected it. But, that is not meant to be and as he was assassinated to gave a rare chance to family outsider to run the country for 5 years and open the economy ( which was unthinkable at that time).
The Family ( Italian born widow Sonia Gandhi and Family) could have gone out of country ( in 90's), but they know better ( family sins will come back in the form of corruption charges). She stayed back, raised the children to be next PM's, kept the puppet prime minister ( Manmohan Singh who ruled for 2004-2014) until they are ready. Sonia couldn't become PM because of label of "Italian Born" is acceptable for her coalition partners.
Even after literal no body named Modi became PM with consistent 90% approval ratings for 8 years ( ridiculously high for diverse nation), there is some desperation in his slogan "Congress Free India". He can give REAL protection to judiciary to prosecute the family and hear the voices "How can you prosecute Gandhi Family". That is the extent one can go. People can fall back to Congress if he does any mistake and people are scared of politicians that pull the fabric of nation like dogs for petty instant gains. That is nature of reality.
The diverse nations need to have some thing to hold on to keep it united. It is that name "Gandhi" that came out of no where 100 years back (1917) when M.K Gandhi came to India from South Africa and became trusted name in 2 years with his first stint against British in India in 1917. It is hard to shake off. Is this trust of a people is a privileges' or Curse? It depends.
Why can't people move on instead of holding on to these names?
For some reason, Caesar's comment on "People are selfish and fickle" resonates with me w.r.t masses. No one leader can solve every citizen's need. So the democracy and periodic elections exist. Politics became so corrupt all across the world. Even if politicians are not corrupt, people always compete for one thing or other, fair or unfair making the political selfish groupings inevitable.
Often, I wondered why people who look at their family with best intention they can have and see the complexities of the situation, but fail to see what is good for the nation (or polity). May be people are not mature enough and I wonder whether it is related to 50% of the world population belong to OP's.
happyliza
The Living Force
I too thought the Queen did not look frail or inactive enough to die so quickly. I think Ark may well be right. For everyone to be summoned despite there being no known illness, or being bed-ridden as far as the public knew.
Also I too saw how smug Charles looked as soon as he has signed the papers, as if he was thinking to himself ' my time has finally arrived, I waited long enough for this moment'. Despite rumours a few years ago, that Prince William may have become king.
He did have a quick smirk on his face. And he acts like a spoiled brat,a not particularly intelligent person whose tantrums most probably held him mum around his little finger.
He has no consideration or empathy for other people, as his hidden agenda with Camilla, and treatment of Princess Diana firmly prove.
One thing that tptb may not have considered though is that, for once, all the tributes and reporting on BBC and everywhere else, of all the profound and beautiful descriptions of Queen Elizabeth and her steadfastness to duty, service to others, her devotion to God an her faith, her devotion to Prince Philip and her children, dogs and horses, and many more superlatives, are the foundations of an STO character.
For once, I enjoyed watching BBC! A total rarity. But positive energies were briefly offsetting all the negativity, as well as reminding people what a good role model actually is all about. Sadly brief that they may last since we now have the epitome of an STS character as King. And the Patriarchy continues again.
Re my comments of a Goon show and Monty Python, they just came to me as apt descriptions but I did not consciously know about Charles' connection with them.
Sad Prince William also parrots his dad's dreams of reset too.
I did like the words said by Sir Keir Starmer on two occasions in memory of The Queen. I found them very refreshing for a politician.
Regarding Charles' speeches and others, I wonder how many actually wrote them themselves.
I see no hope for monarchy now, now much use for it feeling it has obviously passed its 'sell by' date. Yet also no hope of any chance of a genuine republic either. Unless this may be the time that STO peeps come to the fore - wishful thinking though. With regards to wisdom and the necessary knowledge of objective reality, faith, character, philosophy and contacts, that only leaves Vladimir Putin and those he trusts left.
Perhaps Russell Brand should run for office lol. But even he actually has connections with the Banker families.
So that leaves the people only to deal with the Deep State and hunt them all down - perhaps administering their own lethal vax poisons to them!
Hope is that the C's did say the evil cabal are losing thankfully. Hopefully they will also let us know what really transpired in Balmoral too.
There also seem to be far fewer peeps on the forum now. Is it my imagination or has there been a steady decline over the last year for some reason. Quite sad to notice this for a while now, perhaps I have missed something?
Very rocky bumpy times ahead folks. Very cold, hungry, destitute, for so many, while all about us crumbles as they gleefully rub their hands to exert their Reset. Unless wet and rocky have other connotations.
Stay cool as the show progresses.
Also I too saw how smug Charles looked as soon as he has signed the papers, as if he was thinking to himself ' my time has finally arrived, I waited long enough for this moment'. Despite rumours a few years ago, that Prince William may have become king.
He did have a quick smirk on his face. And he acts like a spoiled brat,a not particularly intelligent person whose tantrums most probably held him mum around his little finger.
He has no consideration or empathy for other people, as his hidden agenda with Camilla, and treatment of Princess Diana firmly prove.
One thing that tptb may not have considered though is that, for once, all the tributes and reporting on BBC and everywhere else, of all the profound and beautiful descriptions of Queen Elizabeth and her steadfastness to duty, service to others, her devotion to God an her faith, her devotion to Prince Philip and her children, dogs and horses, and many more superlatives, are the foundations of an STO character.
For once, I enjoyed watching BBC! A total rarity. But positive energies were briefly offsetting all the negativity, as well as reminding people what a good role model actually is all about. Sadly brief that they may last since we now have the epitome of an STS character as King. And the Patriarchy continues again.
Re my comments of a Goon show and Monty Python, they just came to me as apt descriptions but I did not consciously know about Charles' connection with them.
Sad Prince William also parrots his dad's dreams of reset too.
I did like the words said by Sir Keir Starmer on two occasions in memory of The Queen. I found them very refreshing for a politician.
Regarding Charles' speeches and others, I wonder how many actually wrote them themselves.
I see no hope for monarchy now, now much use for it feeling it has obviously passed its 'sell by' date. Yet also no hope of any chance of a genuine republic either. Unless this may be the time that STO peeps come to the fore - wishful thinking though. With regards to wisdom and the necessary knowledge of objective reality, faith, character, philosophy and contacts, that only leaves Vladimir Putin and those he trusts left.
Perhaps Russell Brand should run for office lol. But even he actually has connections with the Banker families.
So that leaves the people only to deal with the Deep State and hunt them all down - perhaps administering their own lethal vax poisons to them!
Hope is that the C's did say the evil cabal are losing thankfully. Hopefully they will also let us know what really transpired in Balmoral too.
There also seem to be far fewer peeps on the forum now. Is it my imagination or has there been a steady decline over the last year for some reason. Quite sad to notice this for a while now, perhaps I have missed something?
Very rocky bumpy times ahead folks. Very cold, hungry, destitute, for so many, while all about us crumbles as they gleefully rub their hands to exert their Reset. Unless wet and rocky have other connotations.
Stay cool as the show progresses.
The last time we had a thread about the monarchy, I basically commented that although in a perfect world elections would be the most sensible thing to do, there's a major problem with how we do them. In practice it seems like it creates an "in" for psychopaths, whereas with monarchies it's more of a roll of a dice if it's a family thing, and psychopaths have to influence from the sidelines like Rasputin and hope for the best. You could get an Elizabeth, could be a Charles, could be a Caesar. The reason electoral systems seem doomed to failure the way we do them now is that although "the best of us" should be our representative, there are a few problems:
1. Nobody knows who the best of us are, we are all so isolated from our communities now.
2. Even if we did, we don't know how to get them in front of 300 million people for everyone else to get to know them, evaluate them, and trust them like you might.
3. Everybody has a fantastic neighbor Bob who they think can be a great president.
4. Those who do have the resources and clout for massive ad campaigns tend to be the "baddies". So those who CAN get themselves in front of 300 million people are often suspect, and even then, it's just ads, no one knows who they really are. You don't get to know the product from the company's ad. And there are few Caesars and Putins who pop up.
So good guys being elected seems to be even more unlikely than good guys being born into monarchy families. So maybe that's why it was helpful to have both - it's a way for people to hedge their bets, a type of "checks and balances" which unfortunately still relies too much on luck of the draw. You could have a jerk monarch and a jerk prime minister and people would have no recourse at all for a while.
So I keep coming back to what Laura said years ago, maybe in the creating a new world thread, that we have too few trying to represent too many. 300 million people will never be able to get to know, evaluate, appreciate, and trust the same person in a meaningful way. But a village or community can! Except as I mentioned earlier, even at the local level, communities hardly exist anymore thanks to hyper individualization of society where everyone is a lone wolf, no one knows their neighbors anymore never mind the rest of the town. This is intentional of course, but this is what needs to be fixed at the very least or we will always be stuck at the mercy of chance, or worse, just unmitigated corruption. Republics/Democracies only work if people are informed, but how can 300 million people be truly informed about any one person? It's hard enough to know who's good/bad in our own circle of friends without serious prolonged observation and thinking with a hammer, so it just seems like an impossible task at that scale.
So although monarchies served their purpose as a workaround for an otherwise broken electoral situation, and certainly they were better than relying on that corrupt system alone, I do think that a better approach is to simply bring back communities where families know other families, and a natural leader (or even better, a group of wise trusted elders, because a network is always better than an individual) is "in charge" so to speak. And no more federal government that even attempts to represent 300 million people. Maybe something like this works on 4D where everyone can read everyone's minds so everyone can truly be on the same page about a single person or a group, but until then, it's just no bueno.
And of course any sort of world government, again without some kind of "social memory complex", is also contraindicated and would be the pinnacle of "terrible ideas" for humanity.
Last edited:
Trending content
-
-
J
-
-
