Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era

Adobe said:

JORDAN PETERSON COMMENTS ON THE QUEEN'S PASSING​


If you watch this, there is JP critiquing that could be done, but I’m just going to post it, and leave it at that. (14 minutes long)


www.bitchute.com

Jordan Peterson Comments on the Queen's Passing

Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: https://utm.io/ueSXh Queen Elizabeth II passed away hours before Dr Jordan B Peterson would give a public lecture. At this event, he was asked, “how could the death of the Queen affect the boundaries between English communities...
www.bitchute.com www.bitchute.com
Click to expand...
As usual, when Jordan is asked to comment on something, he gives the most thoughtful reply! :-D
 
Poise and dignity comes to mind for me when I think of Queen Elizabeth II.

In start contrast, the one time popular Prime Minister of Finland, who in some circles here was maybe thought of as a "queen", by recently allowing herself to be videoed partying like an out of control teenager, showed she could not even hold on to even a bit of "poise and dignity" while serving her short term in office.
 
With talk of the Mongols, Ghengis Khan, appeaser king, and Nostradamus, it brought to mind Prince Philip. He was a military commander by the time he left service. And is now slated to be king.

Churchill gives his definition of an appeaser as someone "who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last". With relation to the point made by the queen that there are forces at play for which they (the royals) have no knowledge of, leads me to think of them as sort of clueless on the direction the world is heading. This hidden source of dark power renders the royal family as mere pawns in their shadow. If they don't know how to deal with it (i.e. lack of knowledge/awareness and their simple roles as royals, which their standing puts them in a more direct position with these forces), they are more susceptible to manipulation and psyops.

In Prince Philip's speech at the climate summit almost a year ago, he notes that leaders must be on a "warlike footing" due to climate change. With him being king, perhaps things will step in that direction, for which only time will tell.


Maybe King Philip, given his entrenched position in climate change affairs, he knows in some part, that present darkness and realizing his own powerlessness against them, appeases these forces hoping they would spare him and his family if he were to just tow the line.
 
Last edited:
Most people that are so convinced about how ''evil'' Elisabeth is or was have always zero knowledge or awareness about anything related to how deep ponerology is rooted in governments and how much poison psychopathy has affected on generations of people.

It's very easy to blame someone, but very hard to understand why things are the way they are.
 
Laura said:
I bet you blame others and the world in general for your bad luck and sorry life.
Click to expand...
hollenoaea said: I am trying to understand why there is a need to see her as a kind human being when she was not that at all. She didn't even try to become one ...

My two cents: most people see her as a dutiful and approachable lady who was raised to a station she neither wanted nor desired. Her whole life belonged to others. We can see her as kind or otherwise depending on how we approach the subject of who she was, what she was and how she got there. What do you do when you have a job thrusted in your face that you have no clue how to deal with? She had that problem when she was newly queen: she had to learn like everyone else and she did it to the best of her ability. Remember that she could neither express an opinion, nor be involved in any political arena, her speeches were done for her whether she approved or not and a whole tower full of rules and regulations she had to comply with on top of all that. I agree there was an awful lot of great perks being in this job and her gilded cage was by far the nicest any of us would want! And who could be indifferent to all the bling's and sparkles they owned! Boy, what i would give to own one of those tiaras!:love:
Yes, she was super rich and yes, her background certainly was impressive with all those rich nepotist people around her! But despite all this, she tried! She knew full well that she was an image to be controlled and directed every which way that Parliament wished!
My question to you all is: how many of you would wish to have that kind of job? Look at William and Harry: Harry escaped and he was extremely candid about not wanting the role at all. He stated that William does not want it either but he is stuck to it - despite all the perks and money. Now, imagine if Margaret had the luck to have been born first? Now, what remarkable life would she have lead?????

Elizabeth Regina 2 may not have been kind, but at least she was remarkable, reliable and she held the public's affections to the best of her abilities. Diamond Jubilee over - now comes the coal and the sh........:headbash:
 
To be fair - it is understandable that some people may not be a big fan of her given her position and essentially what went on during her rein. In her position, a good chunk of people would have seen her as having real power. Naturally they would then expect her to have influence on events. People blame her the same way they blame politicians. As leaders, people can't help but have expectations. Of course, the truth is none are leaders - her position is symbolic and a politician is simply a figurehead. However, does this mean that people can't have expectations? People can't dare dream that these are true leaders and therefore should be held to those standards?

Look at Putin, he's a perfect example of a leader. He doesn't appear symbolic to me, he appears the real deal. I expect Russians see him that way.

The UK has truly done some really evil stuff during her 70 year rein. Unspeakable stuff. All under her watch. Yes, she couldn't have done anything to change the course of events but I suppose, for a decent chunk, it doesn't look at least outwardly that she ever tried to do something. Diana for example looked like she tried to do something - she paid the price but in the end, she deserved her adoration. God forbid, if Putin was to meet an untimely end due to his ability to not merely be symbolic, he would get adoration from the masses but of course, he'd be vilified by the establishment. People would celebrate his life in private whilst in public condemn him. If you spoke to a decent chunk of Brits, the majority are either indifferent or don't really care, in public though, of course, they'd pay lip service because they don't want to go against the narrative.

It's truly an interesting situation that befell this queen, this person who was in this position. One can see why she would be adored but it's also surely easy to see why she wouldn't. The worst from the latter are those who held expectations, expectations of a leader, they didn't know she was only symbolic. There are also those who don't believe in royalty and would in fact celebrate if the institution ceased to exist. This group of course wouldn't exactly be playing along to the tune of the BBC and the like on this matter. They'd simply ask - what makes her more special than an equivalent 96 year old lady who died without much fanfare in a care home. Did she create art like some famous artist long celebrated after their passing, make some invention that changed the world, discovered something profound, stood up to evil etc. Maybe her gift was in being able to maintain a sense of being noble and "normal" despite the abnormal situation she found herself in? Or at least maintaining this appearance, only those who knew her would actually know her true character.
 
Last edited:
It is very difficult to be a Queen or a King, that is obvious. Read “les Rois Maudits” by Maurice Druon (the Accursed Kings) to understand a little this strange and mysterious world. So you shouldn't judge. In my opinion, the world of kings and queens is obscure, scabrous, difficult. But above all obscure. Dark…

I don't have to judge the Queen. Many people are mourning her departure, that is also strange. My king is the sun, my queen is my inner guide. But people need myths, legends, fairy tales, heroes to accept this reality that they have difficulty in seeing as it is. In fact, if they cry maybe it is because the fairy tale has ended, and it has ended badly, the Queen is dead. In principle, queens in legends never die…

People have a mentality of a kid of 5 years, it is a fact.

What is interesting is, for me, the reaction of the people, this collective and almost religious hysteria, fanatical hysteria, which will take over these days. That's really something to study.
 
loreta said:
It is very difficult to be a Queen or a King, that is obvious. Read “les Rois Maudits” by Maurice Druon (the Accursed Kings) to understand a little this strange and mysterious world. So you shouldn't judge. In my opinion, the world of kings and queens is obscure, scabrous, difficult. But above all obscure. Dark…

I don't have to judge the Queen. Many people are mourning her departure, that is also strange. My king is the sun, my queen is my inner guide. But people need myths, legends, fairy tales, heroes to accept this reality that they have difficulty in seeing as it is. In fact, if they cry maybe it is because the fairy tale has ended, and it has ended badly, the Queen is dead. In principle, queens in legends never die…

People have a mentality of a kid of 5 years, it is a fact.

What is interesting is, for me, the reaction of the people, this collective and almost religious hysteria, fanatical hysteria, which will take over these days. That's really something to study.
Click to expand...
I would say that being a king or queen may be one of the loneliest jobs there is. Who do you turn to in times of personal crisis? Indeed, it seems that some of her prime ministers in fact turned to the Queen for a shoulder to cry on when they were struggling. Yes, she was born to wealth and privilege but would you like to live a goldfish bowl existence. One reason for her going to Balmoral was that this was one of the few places she could be herself for a while. Indeed, she would happily drive around the local countryside on her own with no bodyguard or escort. Could you imagine Joe Biden doing that?

You remark on the collective reaction of the British people and see their grief as some form of religious hysteria. I think this is a bit unfair. You really need to read British history and understand the psyche of the British people to see why the loss of a long reigning monarch so affects them. Their was a similar outpouring of grief when Queen Victoria and King George VI died so it certainly is not unprecedented. The British monarch in many ways is the embodiment of the people. That's why our national anthem is about the monarch (God Save the King) rather than the country itself, as is the norm for most nations. The British are, I think, also unique in labelling their epochs by the names of their monarchs. Hence, you have the Elizabethan era, the Georgian period, the Victorian age and the Edwardian. Our own epoch will be known as the New Elizabethan age. When other countries face a crisis the people may look to their President (assuming he is not the cause of the crisis) for reassurance. The British look to their monarch instead. Governments may come and go but the monarch is always there. Indeed, the Queen was always the one constant in public life and was really more of a matriarch than a head of state. Like God is in his heaven and all is right with the world, the Queen was always there. Now she isn't. Hence, this is a time of quiet introspection for the British people, a period of uncertainty until the new monarch beds in. In some ways the British monarch can I suppose be said to perform a similar role to that of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, who were tasked (as semi-divine beings) with preserving balance (the concept of Ma'at) within the kingdom. It doesn't help that we now have both a new monarch and a new prime minister at the same time as we are facing a cost of living crisis.

Yes, there are those in this country who would like to abolish the monarchy and turn the country into a republic. Would the country be better for it - who knows? However, it may be a case of being careful of what you wish for. Would having a Joe Biden or Emmanuel Macron as head of state really be an improvement? For a brief period in our history, England was a republic under a fascist dictator, Oliver Cromwell - the man who abolished Christmas - who called himself the Lord Protector (a king in all but name). He came to power after a brutal civil war and the execution of the monarch, his son and successor being driven into exile on the Continent. Not surprisingly, the English people readily welcomed back the monarch once Cromwell died. That painful period left a deep mark on the people's psyche.

I recognise that as a constitutional monarch, the British King or Queen has very little real power but they can still give a lead by their example and make a difference. Benjamin Disraeli, one of Queen Victoria's prime ministers, who was also a novelist, gave the game away in his book Coningsby as to who really ran the show behind the scenes. In that book he talked about the 'hidden hand', which described the power that the bankers wielded over the government. In the book, the principal banker figure was called Sidonia, who was reputedly based on Lionel de Rothschild. Disraeli said "governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand". Today we call this the "deep state".

Nathan Rothschild, the wealthiest of the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (the founder of the banking dynasty), reputedly said in the early part of the 19th Century that: “The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” The Rothschild family has been instrumental in British royal history since Nathan became banker to the Prince Regent, later to become King George IV, an inveterate gambler and notorious spendthrift. The Rothschilds royal involvement continued when Princess Charlotte, daughter of George IV, married Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. The Rothschilds worked for Leopold Saxe-Coburg and his nephew Albert, who would become Queen Victoria’s prince consort. The Rothschilds and the Saxe-Coburgs (the current prevailing British dynasty) were thus two extended German families that would rise from obscurity to power and glory in the course of the nineteenth century. They had an almost “symbiotic” relationship during the century that would see them become two of the most important families in the world.

And nothing has really changed since that time:

1662760626697.png​
After looking at this picture, who would you say was really the king?

As to Forum members opining that the Queen was not a kind person - I would like to ask what source(s) they have for this opinion. It may surprise people to learn that the Queen actually quite enjoyed mixing with the plebs. For example, the Gillies balls at Balmoral were for the royal servants but the Queen and Prince Phillip happily joined in on the dance floor letting their hair down in the process. She could be a pretty down to earth sort of person who had a good sense of humour and was renowned for putting people at their ease, whoever they were. Generally, when a rich and powerful person ill treats their servants or minions, word eventually leaks out (think of the Duchess of Sussex who has experienced a large turnover of staff and Prince Andrew who has a dreadful reputation with the royal servants and guards). However, insofar as I am aware, royal servants have always spoken highly of the Queen and many have spoken of her acts of private kindness towards them. She certainly had high standards but what is wrong with that. She was also very good with children, whether they were her own children, grandchildren and great grand children or other people's children - you can always detect whether a woman has the maternal instinct or not. You may say this might have just been an act on her part but it would be very hard act to maintain over 70 years without the mask slipping at some stage.

Hence, there was her royal face, as Britain's head of state with all the sombreness that goes with such a role, and then there was another face as a wife, mother and grandmother. The Queen was also a Londoner and could effect a good cockney accent when she wanted to. She also enjoyed a good knees up in private and loved ballroom dancing to the accompaniment of a big band. In other words she was not a 'prig'. If people can point to specific acts of meanness on her part, please feel free to post examples.

Yes the British royal family is in reality just a show but then the Queen certainly knew how to put on a good show.​
 
MJF said:
I would say that being a king or queen may be one of the loneliest jobs there is. Who do you turn to in times of personal crisis? Indeed, it seems that some of her prime ministers in fact turned to the Queen for a shoulder to cry on when they were struggling. Yes, she was born to wealth and privilege but would you like to live a goldfish bowl existence. One reason for her going to Balmoral was that this was one of the few places she could be herself for a while. Indeed, she would happily drive around the local countryside on her own with no bodyguard or escort. Could you imagine Joe Biden doing that?

You remark on the collective reaction of the British people and see their grief as some form of religious hysteria. I think this is a bit unfair. You really need to read British history and understand the psyche of the British people to see why the loss of a long reigning monarch so affects them. Their was a similar outpouring of grief when Queen Victoria and King George VI died so it certainly is not unprecedented. The British monarch in many ways is the embodiment of the people. That's why our national anthem is about the monarch (God Save the King) rather than the country itself, as is the norm for most nations. The British are, I think, also unique in labelling their epochs by the names of their monarchs. Hence, you have the Elizabethan era, the Georgian period, the Victorian age and the Edwardian. Our own epoch will be known as the New Elizabethan age. When other countries face a crisis the people may look to their President (assuming he is not the cause of the crisis) for reassurance. The British look to their monarch instead. Governments may come and go but the monarch is always there. Indeed, the Queen was always the one constant in public life and was really more of a matriarch than a head of state. Like God is in his heaven and all is right with the world, the Queen was always there. Now she isn't. Hence, this is a time of quiet introspection for the British people, a period of uncertainty until the new monarch beds in. In some ways the British monarch can I suppose be said to perform a similar role to that of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, who were tasked (as semi-divine beings) with preserving balance (the concept of Ma'at) within the kingdom. It doesn't help that we now have both a new monarch and a new prime minister at the same time as we are facing a cost of living crisis.

Yes, there are those in this country who would like to abolish the monarchy and turn the country into a republic. Would the country be better for it - who knows? However, it may be a case of being careful of what you wish for. Would having a Joe Biden or Emmanuel Macron as head of state really be an improvement? For a brief period in our history, England was a republic under a fascist dictator, Oliver Cromwell - the man who abolished Christmas - who called himself the Lord Protector (a king in all but name). He came to power after a brutal civil war and the execution of the monarch, his son and successor being driven into exile on the Continent. Not surprisingly, the English people readily welcomed back the monarch once Cromwell died. That painful period left a deep mark on the people's psyche.

I recognise that as a constitutional monarch, the British King or Queen has very little real power but they can still give a lead by their example and make a difference. Benjamin Disraeli, one of Queen Victoria's prime ministers, who was also a novelist, gave the game away in his book Coningsby as to who really ran the show behind the scenes. In that book he talked about the 'hidden hand', which described the power that the bankers wielded over the government. In the book, the principal banker figure was called Sidonia, who was reputedly based on Lionel de Rothschild. Disraeli said "governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand". Today we call this the "deep state".

Nathan Rothschild, the wealthiest of the five sons of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (the founder of the banking dynasty), reputedly said in the early part of the 19th Century that: “The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.” The Rothschild family has been instrumental in British royal history since Nathan became banker to the Prince Regent, later to become King George IV, an inveterate gambler and notorious spendthrift. The Rothschilds royal involvement continued when Princess Charlotte, daughter of George IV, married Leopold of Saxe-Coburg. The Rothschilds worked for Leopold Saxe-Coburg and his nephew Albert, who would become Queen Victoria’s prince consort. The Rothschilds and the Saxe-Coburgs (the current prevailing British dynasty) were thus two extended German families that would rise from obscurity to power and glory in the course of the nineteenth century. They had an almost “symbiotic” relationship during the century that would see them become two of the most important families in the world.

And nothing has really changed since that time:

View attachment 63772​
After looking at this picture, who would you say was really the king?

As to Forum members opining that the Queen was not a kind person - I would like to ask what source(s) they have for this opinion. It may surprise people to learn that the Queen actually quite enjoyed mixing with the plebs. For example, the Gillies balls at Balmoral were for the royal servants but the Queen and Prince Phillip happily joined in on the dance floor letting their hair down in the process. She could be a pretty down to earth sort of person who had a good sense of humour and was renowned for putting people at their ease, whoever they were. Generally, when a rich and powerful person ill treats their servants or minions, word eventually leaks out (think of the Duchess of Sussex who has experienced a large turnover of staff and Prince Andrew who has a dreadful reputation with the royal servants and guards). However, insofar as I am aware, royal servants have always spoken highly of the Queen and many have spoken of her acts of private kindness towards them. She certainly had high standards but what is wrong with that. She was also very good with children, whether they were her own children, grandchildren and great grand children or other people's children - you can always detect whether a woman has the maternal instinct or not. You may say this might have just been an act on her part but it would be very hard act to maintain over 70 years without the mask slipping at some stage.

Hence, there was her royal face, as Britain's head of state with all the sombreness that goes with such a role, and then there was another face as a wife, mother and grandmother. The Queen was also a Londoner and could effect a good cockney accent when she wanted to. She also enjoyed a good knees up in private and loved ballroom dancing to the accompaniment of a big band. In other words she was not a 'prig'. If people can point to specific acts of meanness on her part, please feel free to post examples.

Yes the British royal family is in reality just a show but then the Queen certainly knew how to put on a good show.​
Click to expand...
Thank you for all this information, that gives another way to see the Queen. Very interesting.

I didn't want to insult the British, that was not my intention. In fact, I feel sorry for them, for their sadness and suddenly their solitude. The word hysteria was not correct, maybe passion is a better word. The passion for the Queen. I can understand that because I see this from outside. And also because I know what is passion. These next days will be very sad for the British that love the Queen.
 
cassandra said:
Yes, may she rest in peace, which she fully deserves. I think she has chosen a very good moment to leave and her death, quite literally, marks the end of an era. What a sombre day for Britain!
Click to expand...

happyliza said:
What a very very SAD day for all who loved and respected our Queenie. for the incredible role model that she has been in relation to her faith, duty and Service to others.
Despite all the derogatory reports.
Personally I find it hard to believe if one's faith is so strong, that only ignorance, of objective reality, would lead one to veer from that path unconsciously.
I truly believe that her intention for her role was genuine. Few people remain steadfast in their duties to others in such cases, whatever personal things are going on in their lives simultaneously.
The loss of her husband, who she obviously loved very much, must have deeply contributed to demise. However, like others, I feel she held on to see the continuity of yet another prime minister, regardless of what she must have personally thought about the calibre of many of them recently!
Although expected, I am personally totally gutted about the loss of our Queen and the stability she represented, even though she can not intervene in the running of the country etc per se.
Sadly we have a very weak King now, and I feel this is an awful opportunity for 4D STS to now run amok. As I feel she held the energy and the boundaries together by her presence - if you will.
The outpouring of sadness, grief and tributes for Diana affected practically the whole world energies. The death of The Queen will be the same. Most of us in Britain and the Commonwealth FWIW, have unconsciously, always had royalty/ The Queen around as a kind of stabilizing constant and factor our whole lives! That in itself will leave a huge gap and a kind of inner instability/confusion/loss, for quite a while for many.
I also do feel she had the Cosmos/Universe on her side due to her faith and the vital importance of her role. This now represents the end of legitimate monarchy as we know it, for our world/planet IMO. Those who were properly groomed or bred for serving their realm/s.
Also remember that her State Funeral will be a prime time due to the distraction for 4D STS to utilize. Perhaps using the portals or whatever elsewhere in the world.
I am also aware that there are many negative activities etc that the Monarchy has been accused of, but I am not aware of any proof/discussion here on the Forum. I keep an open mind on such. There is certainly a lot I have heard about.
But either way this is a vital turning point IMO, especially for the West and UK. And presently I am not too confident that we will witness a change for the positive as reality seems to point to everything going to hell in a hand-basket. Even close to home with one relative of mine, thanks to the liberal attitudes to gender and sex change!
Luckily, thanks to the C's we do know to expect things to become worse before they have the chance to become better. Thank goodness we still have Vladimir Putin, who is doing a sterling job towards a multi polar world and is winning, despite all the obstacles they can think of to throw at Russia and those close to his team.
For everyone who feels similar to this, I send you my blessings and hopefully networking here will help alleviate the loss and confusion you feel. We know the future for those with eyes and ears will hopefully get better thanks to all the knowledge we can do our best to put into practice here. But it is a big blip in our inner serenity nevertheless. :-)
Click to expand...
I agree with You 👍
 
Queen Elizabeth II..
Maybe I don't know much about the English Monarchy because I'm from México ..but I always looked to Queen Elizabeth like a Very Nice lady , what I felt and sense was a Very good person, despite all the Bad things that she was supouse to be , I mean all that thing around reptiles etc etc...annunakis, and blood line...I don't know , but maybe she was,but You can also feel something else in that woman and it wasn't evil ...at all...
 
The passing of Queen Elizabeth II is sure to be hard for many, as it is a time of grief and reflection. One issue that comes to mind is the idea of privilege that is part of the woke ideology. By this ideology, Queen Elizabeth II would be close to the top of such a privilege hierarchy, but a few minor notches down for being born female.

She didn't choose to be born into that kind of privilege, just as none of us chose our birth. I wonder if she did enough with that privilege and knowledge of inner circle conspiracies to make a difference with the influence she was endowed with. It's easy for me to say she didn't, that she could have done more, that she could have been closer to Diana and come out against the pathocracy that appears to have flourished during the time of her reign.

Her coronation oath was to the "Crown". Some say that is the highest Office of people, the Christ of whom she derives authority, as Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith. Did she defend the faith, live by the golden rule, and stand for the people as JC (real or mythical one)? It’s a tall order for sure to really live true to such an oath. I cant say I could have lived more true to such an oath if ever in her position. And I can’t say how much her oath was real or ritual either.
 
Last edited:
I think there are at least two issues at hand. One is having one's mind polluted with the idiotic notions of shape-shifting lizards and whatnot. The second issue is putting one's self in another person's shoe, and that doesn't apply only to the queen but to everyone one could come across with in life. What is it to be in that position for so long? What is it to live one's whole life within the confines of that system? It is surely different than a politician who is "in the world", on stage and behind the scenes at will, with more latitude to make "informed" decisions.
What are the levels of liberty in acquiring real information? Is the information controlled and filtered? By whom or what, and how and about what? It is easy to assume that someone in that position can freely have access to information about what's happening in the world or about what happens behind the scenes, but is it necessarily true or are they living, as a symbolic figurehead, in a version of the Truman Show?
It is too easy to have empathy for someone who shares our lifestyle and familiar struggles, it's another story to have empathy for someone who lives a life so alien to ours, but maybe it's a good exercise to give it a try. However, without the knowledge about the life, the choices, and the motivations of another person (royal or otherwise), assumptions are pointless and if wrong, can only bitter the soul.
 
Hollenoaea - just try to imagine, I mean really try, what life would be like if you were born into the situation that she was. The position of power over people that you are describing simply didn't exist. She could have martyred herself by pushing against the real power surrounding her, but perhaps she was just a normal person. Flawed but with value. Who could really say that they would have done better? If anything I believe that in her situation I could be driven insane by guilt, frustration or boredom. You have to find a way to cope, and the 'easy' path is what ordinary people take.

People usually start pointing to their vast wealth as a reason to withhold any kind of sympathy for the royals (or people in prominent positions in general). At the same time, they probably would acknowledge that money doesn't make you happy. So, would you change places with them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom