SOTTREADER
The Living Force
From lawyers of light, a UK group of lawyers that has been fighting for the rights of the elderly during the last 3 years. This is in relation to the care homes.
Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era
- Thread starter mARTinSky
- Start date
SOTTREADER
The Living Force
My personal view is I am of course not happy the queen is deceased but I recognise she lived a good and long life. Not many people can say the same and most don't get much attention, if any, when they die. I still find it difficult to detach her role "i.e. the queen" from what happens officially within her so-called "kingdom". Her, the person, seems to be perceived as decent and I can see why. Nonetheless, the muck that surrounded her is hard not to see.
I'm personally not swept by the wave sweeping the country and world as I remain wary of what the BBC and wider establishment say we should think and feel. For the human, the lady who was born and became a queen, I do acknowledge her passing as I would any other human in the world but I am certainly not elevating her above other humans. Her family, friends and perhaps fans are obliged to but I don't feel it applies to everyone including strangers who had never made her acquaintance. This is certainly not to say she doesn't deserve adoration - each person feels different. Not all are compelled to feel the same about this event.
I'm personally not swept by the wave sweeping the country and world as I remain wary of what the BBC and wider establishment say we should think and feel. For the human, the lady who was born and became a queen, I do acknowledge her passing as I would any other human in the world but I am certainly not elevating her above other humans. Her family, friends and perhaps fans are obliged to but I don't feel it applies to everyone including strangers who had never made her acquaintance. This is certainly not to say she doesn't deserve adoration - each person feels different. Not all are compelled to feel the same about this event.
I think you are correct. The bruising may be evidence of broken capillaries:
Capillaries are very thin and fragile, moving blood along a single blood cell at a time. Broken capillaries under the surface of the skin can appear as bruises or spider veins. There are many potential causes of unsightly, and sometimes unhealthful, broken capillaries in the legs, including injury and circulatory disorders.
I recognise them as my 90 year old mother, who is on strong blood thinners, has similar bruising on her legs. We should not forget that at 96, the Queen was a very old lady when she died. Although she enjoyed good health for most of her life, even she could not escape the ravages of time. As we say in England though, she had a very long innings.
Oddly, Ark's first reaction was that someone poisoned her. I asked why he would say that and he said that she was obviously in the way or someone knew that she would get in the way of something upcoming.
I dunno. Chuckie is clearly a libtard/Leftist/Greenie and full supporter of WEF and all that nefariousness.
The Queen, being forbidden by the constitutional monarchy from any sort of political interference, may very well have had in mind some sort of last hurrah. Seeing the people she sacrificed her life for being led into a trap, she may very well have had the idea to say something that might have led to a general revolt against the current government.
What is striking is that her last meeting was with Liz Truss... and then, she died. In addition to being worn out by COVID, damaged by vaccines, still mourning Philip, talking with Truss may have been the last straw. Maybe she just gave up at that point. Maybe Truss was a poisonous character and her effect on the Queen was lethal.
I think that your "reality reading" instrument is a bit out of alignment. As I wrote elsewhere: "I wish people would leave that poor woman and her family alone. They are pawns and puppets and Burrell let the cat out of the bag by quoting what the queen said to him and then back-tracking big time. She knows that she's little more than a dog and pony show."
And what Burrell said the Queen said was this: "Be careful, Paul, no one has been as close to a member of the Royal Family as you have. There are powers at work in this country of which we have no knowledge. Do you understand?"
Elizabeth, like the rest of us, was programmed to do and be exactly what she was. And just like any family, some of them might be psychopaths, and others normal and empathic. I think the Queen was normal and empathic, but like everyone, trapped in her own programming/reality.
You have to remember, this is a woman who came to her job BECAUSE her beloved father died, and she was brought up to do her duty and had a clear idea of what it was because of the way she was raised. You can learn a lot about this by reading about their activities during WW II. It was widely understood that it was the stresses of being king that killed her father, so she never forgets that, either, I'm sure. She was so angry at her uncle who abdicated, forcing her father to be king when they were just living a happy, normal life, that she never received him as long as he lived. The world has changed under her feet and the fact that she managed to keep her balance at all is remarkable.
As we have learned, on a very small scale compared to her life, having any kind of public presence means there are always going to be detractors and destroyers making assumptions and telling lies for all kinds of pathological reasons. People do the same thing about us here, post baseless speculation from idiots and spread it around before anybody even bothers to check things out or THINK, for god's sake. And we have suffered a great deal from that sort of irresponsible behavior.
And, let me quote Joe on the topic:
The British royals are surely puppets of the real British establishment, although they are clearly pretty disfunctional, although that just makes them similar to many British families. If the queen ever thought about abdicating or otherwise ditching the whole Monarchy thing, she undoubtedly came under serious pressure from the establishment with reasons why it was not good for the country to do so. For the real rulers of the UK, the monarchy is very useful in generating 'patriotic' feelings which can then be used for all sorts of evil things like generating public support for war and keeping the people blind to the real intentions of the elite.
And here, I will quote the Cs:
Cs 4 Dec 1999 said: A: It is just as dangerous and just as useless to "see" conspiracy in everything as it is to "see" conspiracy in nothing. We tire of conspiracy "buffs." They are nutty, and serve as perfect false sponsors to those who really DO seek to conduct widespread mental/psychic manipulations and control.
Just keep in mind the endless nonsense propagated by that whacko Icke and so many others.
I think that most of us can agree that Princess Diana was "gotten rid of" because she had way too much influence over the public mind and it was feared she might use it against war-mongering (forget all that crap about whether or not she would or would not marry Dodi or have a child, etc.) The same is true for a goodly selection of other public icons who were done away with, including John Lennon.
A lot of people suggest that the date and place of Diana's accident were important symbolically speaking. I'm not sure I agree with that, I expect that the deed was done based on the preparation and opportunity. I also don't think that the royal family had anything to do with it even if Diana was writing letters that her husband might do away with her. I expect that she WAS being followed and watched, but I expect it was by those same "dark forces" that the Queen mentioned to Paul Burrell. And of course, those dark forces are perfectly happy to let the family (the Queen) take the rap in the conspiracy theories - it's a distraction from the real culprits.
Our objective here is to deal with some facts and not make wild speculations without so labeling them.
Having said all of the above, the very idea of a "monarch" is so archaic and counter-human that a rational mind can hardly grok it as being accepted or acceptable to anyone. But humans are not rational, it seems, not even the Queen or her family. They are as mechanical as everyone else, trapped in their own illusions and programs. If she one day woke up completely rational, she would announce that the monarchy will be abolished and all her family members will be required to get real jobs.
Who knows? Maybe she had that in mind and had to be gotten rid of quickly.
Could you give us some sources supporting this ?
For Epstein a quick research gave this :
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell pictured lounging in Queen Elizabeth’s estate
While undated, the photo appears to have been taken in 1999, when Prince Andrew was known to have hosted the pair and their entourage — which allegedly included a model in her 20s.nypost.com
For Saville I suppose it's well known ?
Source ?
Murdered daughter-in-law : Diana Spencer ?
I suggest the source may be David Icke who believed, and has written in his numerous books, that the Queen was a shapeshifting lizard being. As the monarch and head of state, she had to mix with all sorts, including no doubt numerous psychopaths and sociopaths (including quite a few of her prime ministers) who are naturally drawn to power. That doesn't reflect on her but was just a natural consequence of her position.
As for Saville, he completely pulled the wool over many people's eyes. He was a highly skilled psychopath who, as a high profile TV personality, a sham philanthropist and charity worker, knew how to use and manipulate his high-powered connections, including Prince Charles. As regards Epstein, many of the Queen's estates are open to the public, so it wouldn't be hard to take a picture in one of them. Epstein's main contact point to the Royal Family was Prince Andrew, whose choice of associates is now a source of great embarrassment to the royals. I suspect that his brother, King Charles, will ensure that he never re-enters public life again.
As for Saville, he completely pulled the wool over many people's eyes. He was a highly skilled psychopath who, as a high profile TV personality, a sham philanthropist and charity worker, knew how to use and manipulate his high-powered connections, including Prince Charles. As regards Epstein, many of the Queen's estates are open to the public, so it wouldn't be hard to take a picture in one of them. Epstein's main contact point to the Royal Family was Prince Andrew, whose choice of associates is now a source of great embarrassment to the royals. I suspect that his brother, King Charles, will ensure that he never re-enters public life again.
I got the sense when I heard the news that the last threads of sensibility in Anglo-American 'world management' will die with Elizabeth Windsor. As in, there is now NOTHING stopping full-blown pathocracy. But perhaps I overestimate her 'good influence' on the 'nobles'.
I think the conflicting emotions we feel about her passing speak to the peculiar role Elizabeth Windsor was trapped in. She was an innocent whose name was used by agents of the British Crown for global (and, typically, evil) schemes. She couldn't do anything to rein them in because of the strictly symbolic position * British monarchs were left with following the total victory of 'parliamentary sovereignty' in the English Civil War and subsequent 'Glorious Revolution'.
[ * Actually, that's not really true. King Edward VII, QEII's great-grandfather, was so involved in British imperial schemes leading up to WW1 that he was the de facto British Foreign Minister. Whenever British monarchs work for the interests of the permanent 'deep state', their political involvement is welcome. Whenever they so much as look askance at said schemes, their 'loyalty is in question' and they had better keep to cutting ribbons, 'or else'...]
And thus we ought to separate the woman from the 'job'. She could have used her position to 'do a Diana' and begin campaigning against land mines and weapons sales, but she would swiftly have been brought down by the 'war cartel' in London in some contrived 'disgrace' - or worse, suffered Diana's fate. Diana's butler Paul Burrell claims Elizabeth once told him: "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge," something she no doubt became aware of early in her reign.
Many admire her self-sacrifice to 'duty'. I concur, although not with her 'duty' of saying and doing whatever Crown agents told her to do in order to 'maintain the illusion of royal power' and advance their material and pecuniary interests. Rather, the life of duty she modeled to ordinary people through her religious faith. If her 'subjects' were going to look up to her for inspiration, then she was going to show them that she 'looks up to God' for hers. As such, she was the complete opposite of today's would-be 'gods' who have no compunction with 'the masses' looking to them as 'the all-knowing masters of the universe'.
An earlier post tried to link QEII to Elizabeth I through genealogy, and while there may be some connection, it overlooks the serious usurpation that took place in the UK following the above events of the 17th and 18th centuries, which brought in first Dutch and then German monarchs. The 'Hanoverian Succession' of 1714 was so extreme in its break with 'hereditary succession' that 57 contenders better placed to succeed Queen Anne were overlooked - ostensibly because they were Catholic but I suspect that something more akin to 'psychopathic selection' was taking place. Even 'anti-papist' English subjects at the time recognized this to be a gross act of foreign, 'proto-globalist', political subterfuge and duly rioted in dozens of towns and cities.
The bittersweet irony then of 'King Charles III' succeeding QEII is that this is what Charles Edward Stuart ('Bonnie Prince Charlie') was for a time recognised as in Catholic Europe, particularly in Ireland, France, Spain and Italy. The British regime mocked him as the 'Young Pretender' (to the throne), but this was successful 'black propaganda' that obscured the fact that a.) he very nearly succeeded in taking back the British monarchy in 1745 through an uprising with both military and popular support, and b.) it was not until the 19th century that popular hope in the restoration of a British monarch in Britain faded away.
Anyway, the 'king over the water' is all 'water under the bridge' now. King Charles III is finally upon us. And he couldn't be further removed from the 'original' King Charles III.
Klaus Schwab must be happy. "Ve haf finally penetrated ze Krown!"
View attachment Schwab_Charles_WEF.webp
I think the conflicting emotions we feel about her passing speak to the peculiar role Elizabeth Windsor was trapped in. She was an innocent whose name was used by agents of the British Crown for global (and, typically, evil) schemes. She couldn't do anything to rein them in because of the strictly symbolic position * British monarchs were left with following the total victory of 'parliamentary sovereignty' in the English Civil War and subsequent 'Glorious Revolution'.
[ * Actually, that's not really true. King Edward VII, QEII's great-grandfather, was so involved in British imperial schemes leading up to WW1 that he was the de facto British Foreign Minister. Whenever British monarchs work for the interests of the permanent 'deep state', their political involvement is welcome. Whenever they so much as look askance at said schemes, their 'loyalty is in question' and they had better keep to cutting ribbons, 'or else'...]
And thus we ought to separate the woman from the 'job'. She could have used her position to 'do a Diana' and begin campaigning against land mines and weapons sales, but she would swiftly have been brought down by the 'war cartel' in London in some contrived 'disgrace' - or worse, suffered Diana's fate. Diana's butler Paul Burrell claims Elizabeth once told him: "There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge," something she no doubt became aware of early in her reign.
Many admire her self-sacrifice to 'duty'. I concur, although not with her 'duty' of saying and doing whatever Crown agents told her to do in order to 'maintain the illusion of royal power' and advance their material and pecuniary interests. Rather, the life of duty she modeled to ordinary people through her religious faith. If her 'subjects' were going to look up to her for inspiration, then she was going to show them that she 'looks up to God' for hers. As such, she was the complete opposite of today's would-be 'gods' who have no compunction with 'the masses' looking to them as 'the all-knowing masters of the universe'.
An earlier post tried to link QEII to Elizabeth I through genealogy, and while there may be some connection, it overlooks the serious usurpation that took place in the UK following the above events of the 17th and 18th centuries, which brought in first Dutch and then German monarchs. The 'Hanoverian Succession' of 1714 was so extreme in its break with 'hereditary succession' that 57 contenders better placed to succeed Queen Anne were overlooked - ostensibly because they were Catholic but I suspect that something more akin to 'psychopathic selection' was taking place. Even 'anti-papist' English subjects at the time recognized this to be a gross act of foreign, 'proto-globalist', political subterfuge and duly rioted in dozens of towns and cities.
The bittersweet irony then of 'King Charles III' succeeding QEII is that this is what Charles Edward Stuart ('Bonnie Prince Charlie') was for a time recognised as in Catholic Europe, particularly in Ireland, France, Spain and Italy. The British regime mocked him as the 'Young Pretender' (to the throne), but this was successful 'black propaganda' that obscured the fact that a.) he very nearly succeeded in taking back the British monarchy in 1745 through an uprising with both military and popular support, and b.) it was not until the 19th century that popular hope in the restoration of a British monarch in Britain faded away.
Anyway, the 'king over the water' is all 'water under the bridge' now. King Charles III is finally upon us. And he couldn't be further removed from the 'original' King Charles III.
Klaus Schwab must be happy. "Ve haf finally penetrated ze Krown!"
View attachment Schwab_Charles_WEF.webp
Last edited:
I seem to recall that William Bramley in his book The Gods of Eden suggested that the role of king was a legacy of the the Gods of Eden, i.e., the STS Lizard beings. Indeed, it is quite possible that the Lizards themselves have their own royalty, as has been suggested by some ufologists. The C's did in fact comment on the role of royalty in the following session:
Session 4 December 1999:
Q: I have two last questions: at one point you said to note the "struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines." Now, of course, I made the remark about usurpation of a throne, but later I realized that we don't really know what the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines really are. They don't necessarily have to do with a secular position, they could be a function. What are the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines?
A: Control.
Q: Control of what? People?
A: Close.
Q: Control of the reality in some sense?
A: Not as close.
Q: Control as in STS domination?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there any other pre-ordained activities?
A: Need there be?
I once proposed that the struggle out of sequence may have been the toppling of King James II, who may be viewed in British history as the last absolutist monarch (i.e., one effecting absolute rule under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings). James's throne was usurped by his daughter Mary Stuart and her Dutch husband William of Orange in what has become known to British history as the 'Glorious Revolution'. This proved to be the start of Britain's constitutional monarchy that survives to this date. However, James II had a young baby son who should have been the king after his father on the basis of primogeniture (the first born legitimate son taking precedence as heir). Hence, it can be said that Mary and her husband usurped her brother's legal right of succession when her father abdicated (if in fact he did). No doubt STS forces played a major part in engineering this.
One man who certainly played a key role in toppling James II was John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough, Britain's greatest general of the time. Intriguingly, when his descendant, Sir Winston Churchill, came to write about this episode in his four-volume history of Britain, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, he would say that he could come to no other conclusion other than the fact that his ancestor was a traitor to his king.
One man who certainly played a key role in toppling James II was John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough, Britain's greatest general of the time. Intriguingly, when his descendant, Sir Winston Churchill, came to write about this episode in his four-volume history of Britain, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, he would say that he could come to no other conclusion other than the fact that his ancestor was a traitor to his king.
Except that the Monarch was basically symbolic of a deity. Elizabeth was, in essence, the goddess on the throne, worshiped in one form or another throughout most of known human history.
Compare and contrast with Charles' slur about Putin being 'Hitler'.I have no formed opinion about Queen Elizabeth II.
I can only wish her a smooth transition.
On the other hand, I very much like V.Putin's statement.
Russian MFA 🇷🇺
✍️ President of Russia Vladimir Putin to His Majesty King Charles III Your Majesty, Please accept my deepest condolences on the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty's name is inextricably linked with the key events in the contemporary history of the United Kingdom. For many decades...t.me
Prince Charles's Putin-Hitler comparison is outrageous, says Russia
Foreign ministry says future monarch's use of media to spread propaganda against Russia is unacceptable and low
Well, in the eighth month of 1999, Putin became prime minister of Russia, and there is something very 'Ghengis Khan-like' about all he has done since.
The other day, the prime minister of Myanmar all but hailed Putin as today's "Great Khan!"
Anyway, this is side-tracking from the topic at hand, although it does bring into question what it is that makes someone a 'king/monarch', and what ordinary people's expectations of such roles are.
Just found this on the internet.
The video of the state banquet welcoming Putin to UK (in 2003) in Buckingham Palace with speeches by Putin and the Queen.
Interesting speeches - and the Queen even honored Russian sacrifices in WWII in defeating Hitler. How times have changed, as i dont think any Western leader would even acknowledge it in the current state of affairs.
www.c-span.org
The video of the state banquet welcoming Putin to UK (in 2003) in Buckingham Palace with speeches by Putin and the Queen.
Interesting speeches - and the Queen even honored Russian sacrifices in WWII in defeating Hitler. How times have changed, as i dont think any Western leader would even acknowledge it in the current state of affairs.
British State Dinner for President Putin
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Queen Elizabeth II made remarks at a state dinner held for President Putin at Buckingham Palace. President Putin's state visit to Britain marked the first state visit by a Russian leader since Tsar Alexander II in 1874.
In my youth, i too struggled a bit to accept the rationality of a monarch. Growing up in Malaysia; where there were 9 royal families didn't really help. The royal families were rulers of their states and the Federation of Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy - where the King of Malaysia is "rotated" every 5 years between these families. In my view their behavior was nothing exceptional and definitely didn't make the case for monarchies as there were countless scandals surrounding their behavior.
Then one day in 2003, i found myself in the Tower of London - in the room displaying the Crown Jewels - there was video screen repeating the coronation video of Elizabeth II. She really looked regal and Goddess like and when you looked into her eyes and demeanor in the video, you could see that she felt the weight of responsibility and she cared. The video had an impact on me and it changed my mind.
As posted earlier in this thread, with her passing; it definitely feels like an end of era. The end of the era where the "Protective Goddess" of the west is "removed" - now it definitely feels like the globalists have a free rein to continue with their plans to decimate the west.
