DEAR MAGA: TGIF Open Thread 20220909

In deference to the announced passing of the Queen of England (and on the Solemnity of the Nativity or birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary, too), please enjoy the food of high tea, and the London Gin beverage of choice.

Tanqueray on the rocks this evening so long as the Couch Commando leaves me alone. (Brothers)

Okay, so before the show started on Thursday with the “death watch and rushing to the queen’s side” of the Mountbatten offspring, something caught my eye:

Really? According to James Corbett’s 9/11 Trillions; Follow the Money, the EXACT SAME THING happened on September 10, 2001.

And then Patriot Charlie started rapid fire tweeting after quite a while being quiet to sporadic.

https://twitter.com/PatriotCharlie1/status/1567836643763134466

Not that one. This one:

https://twitter.com/PatriotCharlie1/status/1567873178524962817

Yes, the ANNOUNCEMENT of the queen’s death, whenever it actually happened since multiple “insiders” claim she’s been gone two or three years, is a marker.

In addition, something else curious popped up. It seems Jorge Bergoglio, aka Francis the talking mu…, uh the guy in white, has nothing on his calendar after September 30 according to a traditionalist Catholic who is really rather a normie.

Hmm….

And to top it off on 9-10 and 9-11 there is a full moon.

All of this is SEEMINGLY unrelated…and then one looks at the deltas of the “Red October” XVII drops:

2287

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: afc7a5 No.3224714
Sep 27 2018 22:56:59 (EST)Q !!mG7VJxZNCI ID: afc7a5 No.3224486
Sep 27 2018 22:47:55 (EST)

Justice K confirmation
Goodbye, Mr. Rosenstein
DECLAS
POTUS Alert-Test
RED OCTOBER?
Q

>>3224486
RED OCTOBER>>>
MIDTERM ELECTIONS
RED WAVE OR RED TSUNAMI?
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
Q

2301

Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.311
Sep 30 2018 14:53:45 (EST)

RED OCTOBER
STAY TUNED AND WATCH!
Q+

There are about a dozen in all. Almost all of them are between September 27 and October 8.

Are we there? Stay tuned.

I’m just going to clear the tabs, etc., and toast the truck mechanic who drove herself to Church regardless of what the conspiracy sites had to say about the Queen over the years. I mean, she gave birth to Prince Edward at home without pain killers. That says something about the woman.

Can the United States Stop the March to Self-Destruction?

REVEALED: US & EU PLANS TO PLUNDER UKRAINE

Deep State ‘Catch-22’ Trap of General Flynn

AP tries to destroy General Flynn…

Trump’s Gone Full QAnon. There’s No Point in Denying It Anymore.

Gov. Tom Wolf allows 7 state agencies to provide voter registration forms

The elites want you to eat bugs while they fly private jets to steak dinner parties. Here are 21 things they don’t want you know 

Why Is California Being Forced to Go Through yet Another Historic Nightmare?

Social Media Giant ‘Accidentally’ Hands GOP Voter Information to Democrats

Feds reeling from new vax study, lawsuits on social media censorship and COVID stat manipulation

Democrats Starting To Panic About Stacey Abrams’ Chances In Georgia Governor Race

Peter Schweizer: ‘My Son Hunter’ Makes My Investigation of Biden Family ‘Three-Dimensional,’ Shows Its ‘Human Nature’

Tweety Tweets:

That’s the Irish guy who went to prison over the man/woman reality thing.

Nothing like a leader praying with his people.

I’m not elderly, and that is too cold for me.

I haven’t been to California since 2003, and was at Lake Tahoe, so….

Great thread on a SPECTACULAR artistic feat. (I wrote about this in sixth grade, and FINALLY saw the sculpture when I was thirty.)

Mmm…. This is not the only complaint of its sort.

https://twitter.com/WhiteRabbitNew2/status/1567962502318944256

LONDON Bridge, not the Tower Bridge. Know the difference.

MEME STASH:

No crown in 2022?????????

https://youtu.be/NVIbCvfkO3E

And now for the business portion of the post borrowed from Tuesday:

Guidelines for posting and discussion on this site were outlined by our host, WolfM00n. Please, review them from time to time.

The discourse on this site is to be CIVIL – no name calling, baiting, or threatening others here is allowed. Those who are so inclined may visit Wolf’s other sanctuary, the U-Tree, to slog it out. There is also a “rescue” thread there for members of the Tree to rendezvous if the main site goes kablooey. A third site has been added for site outages of longer duration.

This site is a celebration of the natural rights endowed to humans by our Creator as well as those enshrined in the Bill of Rights adopted in the founding documents of the United States of America. Within the limits of law, how we exercise these rights is part of the freedom of our discussion.

Fellow tree dweller the late Wheatie gave us some good reminders on the basics of civility in political discourse:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

And Auntie DePat’s requests:

If you see something has not been posted, do us all a favor, and post it. Please, do not complain that it has not been done yet.

The scroll wheel on your mouse can be your friend. As mature adults, please use it here in the same manner you would in avoiding online porn.

_____________________________________________________

LUKE 6:39-42

39He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher. 41Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 42Or how can you say to your brother, `Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.

SATIRE!

https://youtu.be/lYOtkXlyRxo

Have a great weekend.

https://youtu.be/HUB6zRY3Xak
5 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
425 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

TheseTruths

the queen’s death, whenever it actually happened since multiple “insiders” claim she’s been gone two or three years

No.

cthulhu

How could she have been in the spot with Paddington Bear?

TheseTruths

Shhh. It was a body double that looked and spoke and moved exactly like her. Or maybe they used some kind of computer graphics program to make it look as if she were moving and talking — which is exactly what would have had to be done in every single circumstance since the *supposed* date of her demise. Recent example: Someone else did the ceremonial duty of installing a new prime minister a couple of days ago. And the whole world was fooled by it. Because some person on the internet has an “inside source” who says so.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

This is a GREAT opportunity for us to clean up the Q world. A *LOT* of cruft can be sliced off now.

TheseTruths

Yes, please. It seems to me that it can best be done by people posting rebuttals immediately, as this stuff is said, and calling people out. (For example on social media sites where people post blatant untruths as true.) It can be done calmly but firmly. This needs to stop. It’s not what Q is about.

People do it with religion and spiritual matters, too, to model them according to their own imaginations. They use numerology, which is expressly forbidden in Scripture, to “interpret” Scripture and make things more mystical. Similarly, we don’t need to go beyond what Q is and was, to make it so mysterious that we have to believe anything, no matter how improbable or even impossible.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Great point about the numerology. This really points to infiltration by the other side.

OH – and that’s a GREAT point. The difference between “canon” deltas and CRUFT deltas.

When people started noticing the relationship between Q posts and Trump posts, Q played along with the whole “delta” thing, because that was an example of logical thinking, and people being intelligent and analytical about social media – and it was also relevant to “is Q close to Trump?”

But what the other side did was start pushing BIG deltas instead of the small ones, and THAT was the entry into numerology. The Big Deltas were basically OUIJA BOARD – I mean, seriously – that’s what this stuff almost is.

I tell you, these satanists are SMART and TRICKY.

TheseTruths

That’s a great point about the deltas. They were originally related to “is Q close to Trump,” not predictions about what was going to happen on certain dates or at certain times that were years away, as if Q had a crystal ball or was in control to that degree.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Exactly. Yearly, biannual, and other “big” deltas are basically horoscopes. If the mind can finish a dodgy relationship, they’re a “hit”.

barkerjim

Just like Nostradamus believers!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

“Meaning will find a way.”

Valerie Curren

Project Lookingglass???

TheseTruths

I searched the Q posts for “looking glass” and “lookingglass.” I found two entries:

Oct. 29, 2017:

D’s formed the KKK.

HRC’s mentor is who?

What happens if the truth about Haiti is released? Do D’s lose majority of the vote?

Through the looking glass.

They rely on the MSM to keep the narrative going but tech is entrenching on their controls. They missed this in 2016 and desperately attempting to censor now due to CIA cash infusions. This will fail.

Q3585

Project Looking Glass?

Going Forward in Order to Look Back.

Q

I will ask these things of anyone:
●What is the defnition of “looking glass” in this context”?
●What do you know about it?
●What do you think Q meant when it was referenced?
●Can we separate out what Q actually said from people’s own interpretations of it?
●Do you believe there is a device through which people can read the future?
●Do you ascribe such powers to Q, so that we can look back four years and state that he predicted what was going to happen, almost to the day?

Q said “going forward in order to look back,” not “looking forward to predict what will happen.”

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I’m positive that Q used “Through The Looking Glass” in the original literary sense, based on the story. It’s about “everything is backwards”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

GOOD. We nailed some cruft right there, IMO.

Valerie Curren

I hope your comment generated some discussion amongst people with active knowledge of Q &/or Q followers (when it was fresh). I have always been Q “Agnostic” & never followed Q, so don’t feel qualified to answer your insightful questions personally.

Sorry it took me so long to reply…I was using a tablet when out of town & having computer problems when returning home…today I’m on a public library computer so it’s a bit easier to “write”…

I thought “Project Looking Glass” was something that allowed imaging of possible futures, like in the movie “Paycheck”. I don’t know exactly where I got this impression, but it was from seeing multiple references online but I couldn’t vouch for their reliability nor my recollection.

I’ve Never been an “Anon” & do not have deep research skills, just healthy skepticism, a biblical worldview, a patriotic heart, & a passion for Truth to be revealed in All its forms.

Best Regards 🙂

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

An enormous amount of “Q-world cruft” is being demonstrated, and for those of us who can maintain the slightest degree of skepticism, stripped off right now. It’s a great lesson in how effectively the enemy was able to “drag the Q world too far” into irrational interpretations.

Many Q posts (e.g., the above, explicitly about chess) were clearly about the chess moves of the while hats in defending Trump, but they’re being replayed now as numerology “deltas” that become increasingly artistic and diminishingly relevant.

Patriot Charlie is STILL pushing “JFK Jr alive” stuff, even after Q tried to put out that fire.

It’s a cottage industry. Perfect CIA style. Total CIA MO.

TheseTruths

Some of it is bound to be true.

I don’t see why we are obliged to believe that some of “it” — whatever “it” is — is bound to be true. Someone could fabricate something and make it spread. That doesn’t make one iota of the story true.

Q said JFK Jr. is dead. Are we now supposed to think that was a psyop within a psyop? Which leads me to my original point, that if we can’t believe anything, we are stuck, which is a very unhealthy and even dangerous place to be in under certain circumstances.

Gingersmom2009

He never used the Jr when writing articles for George Mag.

TheseTruths

Interesting. Do you think there is some significance to that?

Gingersmom2009

With regard to Q cryptic-ness, yes. He didn’t refer to himself as Jr.

holly08

There’s speculation that Jr. chose the name George for his magazine because he knew who had his father killed.

Aubergine

TT, I honestly believe this is the way some people are “coping” with the disaster of the last 20 months.

I know this lady who is a big Trump supporter. She thinks a lot along the same lines as many of us here. But she is not a “strong” person. Her terror (literally) of living through very hard times is obvious to me.

But she says to this day that everything happening right now is NOT REAL, that we are in a “movie,” and it’s all “planned.”

I just don’t think she could function day-to-day if she didn’t hold on to that belief.

TheseTruths

Possibly. IMO, to the extent that others are led into those coping beliefs, our side is damaged. That’s the point I’m making.

Aubergine

I get it.

TheseTruths

Coping by believing the unbelievable, improbable, and impossible, then spreading those things all over the internet and influencing others to believe and spread them, do not help. Your friend is probably not doing that, but there are “influencers” who are. If they are that traumatized, we need to help them come out of that and find another way to cope that is more based in reality, IMO.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

The term copium is rapidly becoming as useful as the term hopium. I’m OK with it. Not everybody got buffalo jumped. Nothing wakes one up faster than realizing that a huge chunk of our alleged white hat allies are nothing of the kind. And yet, that realization creates knowledge of a new dynamic, in which WE create hope.

GA/FL

She lived long enough to welcome the new PM – Liz Truss. There were photos and videos of the event.

These conspiracies get weird….

TheseTruths

Regarding this Monica Matthews tweet:

I see a lot of love for the Queen at the moment. How do you go from The Crown is part of the global agenda- incl trafficking- while paying homage to a “graceful” & “honorable” Queen? Someone help me out.

Here’s some “help” for Monica in the form of things to consider:
Does Monica have proof of the Queen’s personal involvement in trafficking?
Does Monica think the Queen provided a voice of reason in the midst of insane times, or not?
Did Monica read Pres. Trump’s statement upon the death of the Queen? What would she have had him say?
Does Monica think it a good idea to trash a beloved monarch who ruled for 70 years and whom people all over the world are mourning, including all of her family, or does she perhaps think statements could be made when and if evidence might be presented to the world?

scott467

A lot of people don’t understand royalty worship, i.e., fawning over tyrants whose sole claim to position is based entirely on their own (or their ancestors’) willingness and ability to murder all of their competitors for power.

TheseTruths

I don’t think the day of, and days following, the death of a monarch — and respect shown to those who are grieving and the changes that countries are undergoing — have anything to do with royalty worship.

That there is royalty worship going on, I don’t dispute. But I find Monica’s apparent expectations to be crass and not well considered (and that’s a gross understatement of what I really think).

scott467

“I don’t think the day of, and days following, the death of a monarch — and respect shown to those who are grieving and the changes that countries are undergoing — have anything to do with royalty worship.”

__________

Why does anyone grieve the death of a ‘monarch’?

It’s a serious question.

What kind of psychological process has to take place, in order to grieve for someone who ‘rules’ over people by force?

I understand there are many propaganda fables about ‘royalty’ designed to portray monarchs as benevolent.

Precious few of those fables were concocted by the ‘subjects’ of any ‘monarch’.

Last edited 3 months ago by scott467
TheseTruths

Did QEII rule over people by force?

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

She’s a symbol. Like, in many ways, the POTUS.

TheseTruths

So she didn’t rule over people by force.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

There IS force behind her. The English monarch no longer rules, but instead lends “booster power” to a popular government.

I mean, look at Charles. He was basically used for “green” symbolism. Even the communists now use the royalty. And they did in Spain, too, in the Spanish Civil War.

They’re not really a power any more, but they’re silver plate on the steel of the rifle barrels.

TheseTruths

Yes, that’s the way it’s set up. My point is that she was not dictating that certain things had to happen or sending certain people to prison or commanding that certain people be taxed more, etc. She, as an individual, did not rule over people by force.

As for “force” being behind her, and Charles being used by greenies, that is no different than the people in power here. There are forces behind them and they allow themselves to be used. They seize power and, through legislation, policies are forced on us. And in every instance, the people suffer. But QEII was not personally ordering beheadings or business closures and the like. And because I don’t think people connect the evils of their situation personally to her, they don’t see her as ruling over them by force. Many see her as a beloved matriarchal figure who wasn’t responsible for bad things that happened to them. And that answers Steve’s question about why people grieve the death of a monarch.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

In fact, that’s a great point, and explains why people admire the Queen, and NOT the politicians who cause all the problems.

She DOESN’T have power, she’s NOT responsible, and she’s more like a “sacred hostage”. People like her precisely because she has no real power and didn’t cause all the problems! LOL!

cthulhu

Very “The Golden Bough” and all that….

ROBERT BAKER

With all the money the royals have they certainly have the ability to influence political policy makers. At that level there is only a small difference between power and influence. I am not saying the Queen was responsible for the problems of the West but I disagree that she had no real power.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

That money disappears at the whim of the Cabal.

IMO the royals are pretty much a skin suit worn by the banksters, on the take for their hefty salary and fancy digs.

They’re a symbol of the elite that people are made to love as a form of nostalgia and national pride – the happy face on a class system – but now in alliance with a communism that was always the same – created falsely and bought off from the beginning – AGAIN by the banksters.

The royals’ power is granted now, by the real powers in Europe. The ‘slims are just one more knife at the throat of the royals – “spew the climate lies, or we let our Muzz slit your institutional throat, old girl.”

What was she going to do – tell them “no”? They already destroyed stupid Andrew. Who was next? Harry? Oh, yeah – already snagged and doing what was needed.

“BEND THE KNEE, queen for as long as we allow it” saith the Cabal. “You remember what we did in Russia, no? By the way, Ghislaine would like a nice sleepover. See to it.”

Sure, they’re collaborators. But by that reasoning, so was Trump, and me, when we went along with their vaccine plot, even unknowingly.

The world is a mess. The real power is not what it appears to be, IMO.

Cuppa Covfefe

Look up the “Mandarins”, the landed gentry and self-perpetuating bureaucracy that has been strangling Great Britain since the 1700s or before.
Even Gilbert and Sullivan wrote an operetta about them: “The Mikado”.

One thing the Queen could (and did) do was moderate what could have happened, despite her ever more limited powers in the face of political idiocy and intransigence.

And those who yell royal worship would do well to look at their own fanning and fawning over sports teams, film/TV/stage/YouTube stars, music stars, college teams, and all the rest of the noise out there… bread and circuses…

scott467

“And those who yell royal worship would do well to look at their own fanning and fawning over sports teams, film/TV/stage/YouTube stars, music stars, college teams, and all the rest of the noise out there…”

__________

Who is doing that?

Extremely few role models in college or professional sports, essentially none in film or TV, or music.

And none of those people murdered their way into position and power, and none of them extract money from their ‘subjects’ or require an oath of boot-licking fealty.

On a fundamental level, the difference is an imbalance of power relationship, like an abusive adult with a child.

The monarch has power.

The people don’t.

The monarchy is involuntarily funded and supported by the people.

The people are not funded or supported by the monarch.

The monarch is the law, and above the law.

The people are under the law, and subject to the law, just as the people are subject to the monarch.

There is a pattern to be seen here, for the discerning reader… 😁

scott467

“So she didn’t rule over people by force.”

________________

Was she elected?

Can she be fired?

Or does she stay and extract wealth from the serfs, until or unless the serfs overthrow her?

This is what I mean, most people really don’t seem to ‘get’ the relationship between the ‘ruled over’ and the ‘rulers’.

Try stepping out of line.

F&^% around and find out.

TheseTruths

Can you provide an example of her issuing a ruling that negatively affected the people?

Aubergine

Boris Johnson.

“The Queen’s role in appointing a prime minister is one of her remaining prerogative powers. These are residual powers remaining with the Sovereign that have not been placed elsewhere. The majority of those powers are exercised on her behalf by her ministers, but the power to appoint prime ministers remains with the Queen”

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/appointment-prime-ministers

TheseTruths

That’s a power granted to the queen, not a ruling she personally made of force against the people, like former kings and queens who ordered beheading and the like.

scott467

“That’s a power granted to the queen,”

___________

This is what I mean, a fundamental misunderstanding exists, and most people share it.

The queen is SOVEREIGN.

What does ‘sovereign’ mean?

…………….
sovereign
noun
1) One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as.

2) A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.

Sovereign is a title which can be applied to the highest leader in various categories. The word is borrowed from Old French souverain, which is ultimately derived from the Latin superānus, meaning ‘above‘.”
…………….

Above the people, above the land, above the law. Above all, because anything which is not below a ‘sovereign’ is a mortal threat to the sovereign.

.

…………………….
What Countries Is The Queen Of England Sovereign Of?
What Countries Is Queen Elizabeth Sovereign Over?

Currently, Britain is a member of 15 Commonwealth states, including the Queen’s reign. As well as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, these nations are listed under this group.
…………………….

.

Just as the created is not greater than the Creator, no one is greater than the Sovereign.

To ‘grant power’ necessarily requires the party doing the ‘granting’ to be a greater power than the person who is receiving.

In America, We the People grant power to the POTUS, he is POTUS by consent of the governed.

We the People created the Constitution, and the Constitution authorizes the creation of the government. That makes We the People at least to full levels of Authority above the government.

It doesn’t work that way in practice, because we blew it, we allowed criminals to take over without a fight, but that’s not how our country and Constitution are designed.

In our system — as designed and intended and laid out in our Founding documents — We the People are Sovereign, and grant power to leadership under very specific circumstances with myriad restrictions, checks and balances on that power, with the intent that it never be abused or used to USURP the power and authority of the Sovereign People.

As far as I am aware, that is UNIQUE in the world.

It’s certainly not how the UK was founded or run.

Who is a higher power in the UK than the monarch, such that they can ‘grant’ anything (much less power) to the monarch, i.e., to the Sovereign?

Who has power or authority over the king (or queen)?

If there is anyone you can think of, then that person is the actual sovereign monarch — not the person being granted power by the monarch.

Nobody has the ability to ‘grant power’ to a sovereign.

Why?

Because in order to grant power to someone, one must be a greater power than the recipient of it… and there is no (indeed there cannot be any) higher authority than a Sovereign.

Last edited 3 months ago by scott467
TheseTruths

ANOTHER straw man. You are having a discussion with yourself at this point.

scott467

That’s just dishonest, you’re running away from the discussion, labeling whatever I say as a “straw man” without ever backing it up.

If that’s how you do it, you can use that to defeat any argument.

That’s a straw man!

And that’s a straw man!

And that too is a straw man! 😂

It’s not a ‘straw man’ just because you say it is.

Show it, prove it, make your case. Nobody wants to know more than I do 😁

TheseTruths

I’ll spell it out for you.
“A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.”

You have taken my argument, distorted it, substituted your own argument instead, and then pretended to knock down my argument by “defending” your own. All this while failing to answer a basic question I presented. It’s classic straw man.

I have now made my case that you are using a straw man in various ways. There is no rebuttal that you can make because it is true and obvious. If you can’t or won’t see it, that’s your misfortune.

I have responded to your haranguing comments and attempts to take my focus off of my point and onto yours with politeness and patience. And since you have no argument left and I’m not playing your game, you sink to accusing me of dishonesty and running away. It’s quite revealing.

You can spare the laughing emojis. They are predictable at this point.

Last edited 2 months ago by TheseTruths
scott467

Anyone appointed by the queen is indebted to the queen and serves at the queen’s pleasure.

She put him in, and she will put in his successor.

No power there

Just choosing the national puppet to be the face of government to the people… 😂🤣😂

Be like queen Hitlery choosing who our president will be. I’m sure there would be no inappropriate influence or quid pro quo though, she’d keep it fair… 😂 🤣 🤣 🤣

TheseTruths

😂 at the continued straw man arguments.

scott467

Where is the straw man in what I said?

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

She’s simply trying to explain why a lot of people liked Queen Elizabeth, and you’ve been haranguing her and everyone else about how monarchies suck. Irrelevant to her point, she’s not claiming monarchies don’t suck, so why are you badgering her?

scott467

Because I wanted you to defend her, obviously.

Thanks for playing along… 😂

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

All this trouble on account of me? Wow, I’m flattered.

OK, no not really, more just wondering if you have a life.

scott467

“All this trouble on account of me? Wow, I’m flattered.”

_____________

You would be.

You really have no sense of humor at all, do you… 😂

SteveInCO · Thermonuclear MAGA

Sometimes the best response to having someone pull your leg is to let them think they succeeded in pulling it off.

scott467

“Sometimes the best response to having someone pull your leg is to let them think they succeeded in pulling it off.”

____________

True…

On the other hand, sometimes its best not to pull someone’s leg, when they’re in the middle of a bar fight 😂

scott467

“OK, no not really, more just wondering if you have a life.”

____________

So on Saturday evenings, you spend your time wondering about the lives of people on the Internet…

And then you question whether they have a life?

😂

Last edited 2 months ago by scott467
kalbokalbs

There is no choice.

Brits are brainwashed AND KNOW their place.

Aubergine

Well, let me ask you a question.

Could a commoner touch her? I mean, what would happen if a common person in a reception line kindly reached out and patted her little-old-lady shoulder?

That’s force.

I’m not a “royal hater” but I don’t have any use for monarchy, either. “superiority by birthright” is just stupid in my opinion.

TheseTruths

I’m not talking about British protocol and am not defending their system and the like. I would have to look up the rules about touching her. But if someone had touched her, do you think she would have immediately said, “Off with their head”? Of course not. The lady herself was not seen as oppressive, and that is why people loved her. It’s a simple concept. I’m just saying that we should be able to see why people liked her. PDJT liked her, and I don’t believe that was fake.

Last edited 3 months ago by TheseTruths
Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

To borrow from the other thread, the Queen is not an irreducible complexity! And neither is the POTUS. Trying to analyze either one by their paper “power specs” is not going to be fully explanatory.

scott467

Let me try this and see if it works:

That’s a straw man!

😂🤣😂

TheseTruths

Some rules about touching the queen/king:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40668579

They are the rules of a monarchy, which we don’t have here, which I do not advocate for, and which I am thankful that we fought to be free from. (I hope that covers that straw man that people are bringing up.) Those rules have nothing to do with my point.

You can see examples in the article of people having breached the rules. Michelle Obama is one of them. MY POINT IS THIS: QEII did not order Michelle to be banished from the room or locked up or beheaded.

Cue up the next argument: Of course she wouldn’t do that with the wife of a foreign head of state. Fair enough. Find me one example of her giving such orders about anyone else, including commoners. (And even if one could be found, that was not her normal pattern of behavior.) Can anyone here think of one example of the Queen acting in that manner, without looking it up?

In this article there is a video account of the Queen being handed a camera by unknowing Americans so she could take their picture. She never told them who she was, and she didn’t make them uncomfortable.

The Queen herself was a gracious and likeable person, and that’s why people liked and even loved her. Why people fail to see that is beyond me.

scott467

“She’s a symbol.”

______________

A symbol of parasitism, maybe.

An expensive one.

This may be why it was so hard to start the Revolutionary War, much less to win it, because so many of the people didn’t understand what tyranny was, or what was so bad about living under it in the first place…

scott467

“Did QEII rule over people by force?”

_____________

How did her family get into power?

How do they stay in power?

Is that kind of wealth and power available to anyone who simply asks?

Are all those castles and lands and wealth and titles the result of doing especially well on a TV game show?

The most recent info I could find show the inbreds cost the serfs $119,000,000 per year.

Officially, of course…

TheseTruths

I’m asking about one person, Queen Elizabeth II. Can you name a ruling that she personally made in her 70 years that negatively impacted the people?

scott467

“I’m asking about one person, Queen Elizabeth II. Can you name a ruling that she personally made in her 70 years that negatively impacted the people?”

__________

Why are you playing their game for them?

The monarchy doesn’t publicly issue rulings, once that sort of thing fell out of favor, and parliaments were created as front organizations.

Are you really going to pretend she’s like the ‘innocent’ mafia don, wandering around in his bathrobe, muttering to himself?

Take a look at the “oath of office” for the Canadian PM, the Australian PM, the New Zealand PM.

Who thinks those words and oaths are accidental, as opposed to being drawn up by the best lawyers monarchy could buy?

And why would they do that? Why go to the trouble? Why publicly humiliate the so-called ‘elected leaders’ by making them lick your boot and swearing fealty?

Who thinks they’re just quaint references to a bygone era that is just for ceremony and nostalgia?

Take a look ‘n listen to the oath.

These are real words, and they have real meaning.

They’re NOT *&^%ing around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA92oPwKK70

TheseTruths

The discussion has gotten way off track, you have not answered my quesion, and my views are being distorted. It’s a very simple matter that is being avoided.

scott467

I did answer you question, even though your question was moot.

“The monarchy doesn’t publicly issue rulings, once that sort of thing fell out of favor, and parliaments were created as front organizations.”

What that has to do with the price of beans in Tijuana is unclear.

RAC

Or positively impacted the people?

TheseTruths

I can think of many ways her actions would make the people like her.

BillBeakman

One can like the Lady & despise the office.
It might even be said that a beloved monarch helps to sustain the monarchy thru inept inheritors with dubious values.

TheseTruths

Yes, that’s a good distinction.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

A nice partner to respecting an office and not being enamored with the occupier!  😉 

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I am forced to admit, that the distance between crying over Elizabeth, and those North Koreans crying over Kim Jong Un, is not all that far apart, psychologically.

That’s actually kinda interesting.

kalbokalbs

In both cases, UK & NK, the folks have no choice.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Stockholm syndrome. And we’re not immune.

Half of America – loving their world of fake elections, managed thoughts, and fake morality dictated by Fake News and Fake Entertainment. Observe, a pre-Covidian.

https://youtu.be/wDYNVH0U3cs

kalbokalbs

Sadly, yes.

mollypitcher5

It doesn’t seem like worship to me but love and respect. She represented stability, old school tradition, manners, strength, a constant in an increasingly tumultuous world.

TheseTruths

This. It’s very simple.

mollypitcher5

LOL…well apparently it isn’t from the temperature of the room!
For a woman thrust into a position of power who kept dignity and decorum for 70 years…it’s impressive to me and I admired her.
Also it’s my belief that in the coming months/years we will see the amount of stability she lent to the govt there slip away. MOO

Last edited 3 months ago by mollypitcher5
TheseTruths

I agree.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Chuckles will bring WAY more cabal into things, IMO.

TheseTruths

Yes. I am dreading his reign. I think he will be much more involved in the political side of things than she was, in order to infuse “cabalism.”

wowohwow1528

He’s a putz

kalbokalbs

Following is Not a polite analogy. but, it is the first that came to mind AND fits.

Sorta like putting lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.

Of course queen was not a pig. <<< That is not the point.

Stability, old school tradition, manners, strength, don’t hold a lot of water, when I think of the royals.

  • ^^^ But, it has been the approved narrative for decades (hundreds of years?) AND IS being carried forward. Why, I can NOT understand.
RF121

Hey Scott. Fuck off!

scott467

Always the drama queen… 😂 🤣 😂

What’s your problem now, RF?

What kind of a juvenile reaction is that to a perfectly good question?

RF121

Let me explain some more. Fuck off!

scott467

Sorry, I should have said a younger foul-mouthed juvenile, like maybe 11… 😂 🤣 😂

kalbokalbs

^^^ S E R I O U S L Y, Dude? ^^^

Last edited 3 months ago by kalbokalbs
scott467

Try to go easy on him, it’s the best he can do 👍😁

kalbokalbs

SMH. The post stunned me. Then he doubled down. Hope he has a better day tomorrow.

cthulhu

IIRC, the throne rooms at Windsor were a series of five rooms, each smaller than the next. The smallest room had the actual throne — which, due to forced perspective, looked like the monarch was twelve feet tall from the larger rooms. Each of the rooms was furnished with the usual gilt and paintings…..and weapons, almost treated as wallpaper. There was no question that force of arms sustained the monarchy.

cthulhu

The Grand Staircase features a timbered lantern ceiling which provides plenty of light and a stone base comprising of four stone arches. Located on the landing of the Grand Staircase is a large marble statue of King George VI by Francis Chantrey and several artfully arranged military weapons hanging on the walls and suits of armor displayed. 

After descending the Grand Staircase, visitors enter the Grand Vestibule with a beautiful plaster fan vaulted ceiling accented with foliage and angels created by Francis Bernasconi. To the left is a large marble statue of Queen Victoria depicted with her collie named Sharp, the statue is by J.E. Boehm. 

Also displayed in the Grand Vestibule are more military arms and positioned against the walls are several Gothic-style cabinets displaying another military collection including the lead bullet that killed Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson in the Battle of Trafalgar which established the naval supremacy of Britain during the eighteenth century.

Last edited 3 months ago by cthulhu
cthulhu

This didn’t get quoted and linked appropriately because my browser decided to mess with me at the time, and now the links are gone.

Cuppa Covfefe

Just like the Bushes, the Klintoons, Piglosis/Newscums/Gettys/Browns, Daleys, Kennedys, etc., etc., etc….. eh…

Oh, and Gates, Finks, Dimons, Schwabs, Sauri (Soroses), etc…

kalbokalbs

^^^ Exactly. ^^^

Sadie Slays

Well, I can’t speak for Monica, but under this “beloved Monarch,” the UK is vaccine-injured and on the brink of freezing this winter. Under her reign, the native British population declined to 40% while Muslims took control of London and police ignored organized Muslim rape gangs. And that’s before getting to all of the pedos invited into Queen’s royal estates and protected like her own Prince Andrew. And where was this beloved Queen while the British people were suffering and being harmed? Did the Queen use her power and voice to speak out against any of this? No, she didn’t. Because her own subjects are nothing more to cattle to her. Good on our Founding Fathers for dumping her ancestors 246 years ago because clearly nothing has changed in that family.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sadie Slays
TheseTruths

What would you have people like Pres. Trump say upon the death of QEII? What would you say on the world stage, knowing that her family and others are grieving, and perhaps remembering what it has been like for you to lose a loved one, especially in the hours and days after the death? How would you address the world at this moment?

Sadie Slays

President Trump is our duly elected President, and it’s his job to say nice things when horrible people die. The President did the same thing for HW and RBG, even though they certainly didn’t deserve it, either. I have no such obligations, and I’m certainly not getting a Presidential-size paycheck to lie and say nice things about people who don’t deserve the false praise. What I’m giving the Queen’s surviving royal family is far more consideration than they have ever given the British people, which is to say, I’m not trying to harm them with genocidal injections or ethnic cleansing. To the Queen’s surviving family, I toast our American Founding Fathers for being 246 years ahead of their time in dumping their genocidal asses.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sadie Slays
Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

it’s his job to say nice things when horrible people die.

I’m not saying that for sure Elizabeth was horrible, but yeah, that is part of the job. He had to try to make peace with horrible people like Kim Jong Un.

TheseTruths

It’s a difference of point of view. Some people — even those who agree with some or most of your points — can find things in the Queen’s 70 years of reign that were good or even praiseworthy, while you apparently cannot. Some people can separate out the humanity of even those they consider to have acted wrongly, and grieve with them and hope they recover when they are ill, while hoping, praying, and wishing they would change their ways. That is part of what loving our enemies is about.

I brought up Pres. Trump because, while he is honor-bound, as a public figure, to say nice things, I don’t think he has the anger, in private, that comes across from Monica and you. I think he had a genuinely friendly relationship with the Queen and that he was fond of her. He knows that people need to make changes and step up to the plate and do more, but that there is a bigger picture to be acknowledged. Being in his position, he knows that much more keenly than we do. He stands for the truth while still showing kindness when appropriate. IMO it’s a good example to follow.

Sadie Slays

These same enemies welcome your death from an injection-induced stroke in your freezing flat while Muslims rape your child as the police look away. You plead for “separating out the humanity,” but they will never see you as human, they will never defend you the way you are defending them now, and never forget that.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sadie Slays
TheseTruths

I think you misunderstand. I am not defending anyone, nor am I defending actions that are indefensible.

Sadie Slays

And you misunderstand that I “cannot” find anything “good or even praiseworthy” about a monarch who led her people into genocide over the course of her 70+ year reign. No, I’m perfectly capable of it. The key here is that I’m not even attempting to do so because the Queen has not done a single thing to earn that kind of effort. 

TheseTruths

Then I have not misunderstood anything.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

But IS this the Queen’s stuff? I find it hard to believe that she’s masterminding this crap. In fact, I see her role as trying to help integrate Britain’s unruly children into their new cultural empire, which is really what the Europhone empires have become – cultural empires of language and style.

France, England, Portugal, Spain – they’re all the Meccas of their little Europhone empires of adoring tourists. Those are the most American-like of the tourists in Europe, too – the colonials paying homage to their founding nations.

I’m not apologizing for what has been done to these places, but I see the royals as mostly the world’s biggest and best Renaissance fair.

prognosticatasaurusrex

The Queen, much like Biden, is a FIGUREHEAD, for the real power, at least over the last few years. No telling what she was up to before that (notice she was kept under wraps for long stretches… much like Biden.)

a few more things to consider. One, Dianna…nuff said. Two, the “crown” meaning QE2 and her ancestors are STILL the richest, and most widespread landowners on Earth.
Three, The “crown” and Elisabeth’s ancestors, were DIRECTLY involved in BOTH world wars. Hell WW1, was actually a family dispute among all of Elizabeth’s cousins from Ferdinand to Nicholas to Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Lastly, the “Crown” was DIRECTLY tied to the East India trading company (slavery), the Boar wars (Dutch slaughter) and the India occupation (Ghandi)

While past history may not indicate present or future illegalities, atrocities, or grievances, i submit, the apple does NOT fall far from the rotted tree.

IF she was corrupt, even pre the last few years, it will come out. Now Charles, I do NOT trust as far as I could throw.

BillBeakman

👍 Once again…psaur bringing perspective!

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Let’s ask this question. What if a lot of the “Q cruft” (meaning it’s not Q canon, but stuff that “appeared” as interpretations and injections) is slanderous bunk? Particularly against the Queen.

Yeah, we know Andrew was tied to Epstein, but he got in TROUBLE with the Queen for that – right? So maybe she isn’t a “sex trafficker” – and maybe she didn’t kill Diana. I’m not saying other royals were not involved in shadiness – I’ll bet that some are. And they do have their interests, that’s for sure. And Charles is part of the green boondoggle, whether knowing or not, although I think he’s an idiot true believer.

But I’m not so sure that all charges against these folks pass Constitutional muster as “innocent until proven guilty”, and even if innocent, don’t even make a good “suspect”.

I’m damn glad we got rid of royalty, but I’m willing to treat them just like the rest of us – meaning with civil protections and respect, but bu the same token, never above the one law for everybody.

TheseTruths

^^^^This.

Sadie Slays

Again, I ask:

Where was the Queen when they were pushing injections? 

Where was the Queen where British children were being systemically raped in Rotherham, and law enforcement willfully ignored it? You’d think that would be a slamdunk PR move for the Queen trying to step in and help the vulnerable children, but where was she?

Where was the Queen when the native British population declined from 90% to 40% during the course of her reign?

None of the above is “Q cruft.” She could have used her voice and position to stop decades of British suffering and ethnic cleansing, but she didn’t. IMO, her silence over the course of 70+ years makes her complicit.

And as for the “Q cruft,” even the BBC doesn’t hide it.

Epstein and Maxwell pictured at Queen’s residence at Balmoral

The undated image is thought to have been taken in 1999, when Prince Andrew reportedly invited the couple to stay at the Scottish estate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59590576

TAKEN IN 1999. This Epstein-Royal family connection had been going on since at least 1999, and where was the Queen during this? How many years was that between 1999 and whenever Prince Andrew “got in TROUBLE with the Queen”? At least a decade, possibly two by my count. How many children were raped during that time? How many of our politicians were corrupted and blackmailed during that time? The Queen’s suddenly a white hat because she took 10+ years to finally put a stop to Prince Andrew’s pedo activities on her estate?

In short, the Queen had 70+ years to DO SOMETHING and did not. If someone here can cite a single action the Queen took IN 70+ YEARS AS QUEEN to stop this evil global regime that was ethnically cleansing her own people, then, by all means, please post it here.

Last edited 3 months ago by Sadie Slays
TheseTruths

Presenting facts, not opinions:

https://www.royal.uk/queen-and-government

As Head of State The Queen has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.

By convention, The Queen does not vote or stand for election, however Her Majesty does have important ceremonial and formal roles in relation to the government of the UK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/queen-s-birthday-five-times-elizabeth-ii-dropped-her-veil-of-neutrality-and-revealed-her-political-opinions-a6992781.html
Much of this Independent story is behind a paywall, but it reiterates that it was well-known that the Queen was not to express political opinions.

A few of her opinions that slipped out:
●Scottish referendum – She wanted Scotland to stay in Britain.
●She was not pleased about the delay in arresting radical Islamist cleric Hamza.
●Why Britain had lost the American colonies – they lacked the statesmanship to know the right time and way to take action.
●She was not keen on Turkey entering the European Union.
●She was upset with Margaret Thatcher’s refusal to take action about apartheid.

Last edited 3 months ago by TheseTruths
scott467

“As Head of State The Queen has to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters.”

_____________

Or what?

It’s the same problem we encounter over practically every issue involving legalities and codes and rules and laws when they are violated by those who are above the law.

Here, there or everywhere.

So the queen “has to remain strictly neutral“… or WHAT?

What happens to her if she doesn’t?

Nothing.

As proven by the list that ‘slipped out’ above.

TheseTruths

What happens to her if she doesn’t Nothing.

Right, just as nothing happens to people who break protocol and touch her.

Their system is set up a certain way that is foreign and even repugnant to us. QEII operated within that system and did not rebel and try to change it. If she had tried to make her position into one of political advocacy and one that influenced policy decisions, she would not have been properly fulflilling her duties under their system. We don’t know what would have happened in that event.

Those who want to, will place such expectations on her and judge her for not meeting them. But the people of Great Britain, as far as I know, do not have such expectations and were fond of her, a monarch, because they understand and accept what a monarch is supposed to do under their system, and she was a kind and gracious one who fulfilled the duties set out for her.

TheseTruths

This Epstein-Royal family connection had been going on since at least 1999, 

Through Andrew. As the BBC reported, Andrew invited Epstein.  

and where was the Queen during this? 

Do you have evidence that the Queen knew anything about what Epstein was doing back in 1999 or in the years after that? 

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

OMG, this is great. So much light is being shed now!!!

scott467

“Do you have evidence that the Queen knew anything about what Epstein was doing back in 1999 or in the years after that? ”

__________

Oh sure, Sadie was sleuthing around Windsor castle with a magnifying glass and a Sherlock Holmes hat, gathering clues 😂 🤣 😂

Come on man, get real!

It’s the queen’s family, and she’s the head of the family, The Godfather-mother.

Either she’s in charge and knows what in the world is going on around her, or she ain’t.

Is she supposed to be Chauncey Gardiner now?

Is that the catch-all excuse, whenever someone in a position of power ought to know something, we just pretend like they’re clueless?

People in power must love that.

Any screw up or outright malicious act can be blamed on simple cluelessness.

Why didn’t Stalin think of that?

He must be kicking himself sore! 😂🤣😂

Last edited 3 months ago by scott467
TheseTruths

So you don’t have evidence either.

cthulhu

That’s a deerstalker cap, for those following along.

RAC

To be fair she did keep charlie off the throne for as long as possible, maybe she didn’t like jimmy saville.

prognosticatasaurusrex

Or was SHE really in control the last few years?

RAC

Yuo’ve lost me there.
Do you mean someone else was wanting to keep charlie off the throne, or ensuring his reign was quite short?

prognosticatasaurusrex

Neither.
I mean someone else, even Charles himself was pulling the switches. Who ever it was pulled Elizabeth’s strings, now if it was not Charles, he will soon too be the puppet.

RAC

Thanks for clarifying that. I don’t think any one needs to pull charlies strings, he appears to be well on board with the global warming cult and all that goes with it.

prognosticatasaurusrex

True, but you can bet he has a “handler” just in case he were to go thinking he actually had a say.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

You don’t go against the banksters on their CARBON scheme and get to the throne, IMO.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

This is a great point. QE2 didn’t KNOW they were going to kill kids. She could not have known.

This convinces me that the royals are basically cigar store Indians of the Cabal.

scott467

“Yeah, we know Andrew was tied to Epstein, but he got in TROUBLE with the Queen for that – right?”

_____________

“Prince Andrew of Britain was stripped by his mother Queen Elizabeth II of his military affiliations and royal patronages as he continues fighting a New York lawsuit that accuses him of sexually abusing an underage girl while she was in thrall to sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.”

Big trouble. Is that the going penalty for raping little girls in the royal homestead?

Or more like protecting the ‘royal’ checkbook from litigants?

Last edited 3 months ago by scott467
scott467

“meaning with civil protections and respect, but bu the same token, never above the one law for everybody.”

_____________

When was the last time a ‘royal’ served time in the clink?

Monarchy is above the law.

By definition.

Sovereign.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Gotta admit – a lot of truth is coming out here.

prognosticatasaurusrex

What if DEAD, does not mean literally, but just removed from the board, IE no longer in control or a piece to be reckoned with? That would not make it Cruft, it would make it cannon, especially if Elisabeth was not really in power for the last few years due to advanced age/illness. The Queen could also be a acronym for the CROWN. Meaning the CROWN was dead IE out of the game, not literal.

IF that is the case the REAL question is who was pulling her strings or ACTING in her role…Much like WHO is controlling Biden.

Time it seems will tell.

TheseTruths

especially if Elisabeth was not really in power for the last few years due to advanced age/illness. 

QEII didn’t have “power” in that sense. The Queen was not allowed to comment on political issues, as referenced in an article I posted here. People are superimposing our our American political system on theirs. It doesn’t work that way.

I am not defending their system; just stating facts.

prognosticatasaurusrex

She did not have WRITTEN power. Make NO mistake that the Queen did have POWER. Not enumerated like the Constitution. NO WAY someone THAT rich and politically connected for DECADES did not have power. The Monarchy ceased to be the OFFICIAL ruling “power” decades before Elizabeth, BUT why did the Prime ministers always seek her “counsel” Hint, NOT for appearances. The “crown” is STILL the THE richest and vast landholder in the WORLD. That in of itself indicates power.

TheseTruths

She had a lot of power:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/what-powers-queen-actually-parliament-24117699

She is the only person in the British government that can declare war. But it must be permitted by Parliament, the Prime Minister and the government.

She can reject any law, but the last time that happened was in 1708.

My point is that she was not on a board where discussions about policy were made, as you seemed to suggest.

https://www.royal.uk/role-monarchy

Monarchy is the oldest form of government in the United Kingdom.

In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament.

Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as ‘Head of Nation’. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.

We can cynically and skeptically say that she was really running the country, but the evidence does not support that. I don’t know what bearing it has on anything, anyway. She was a monarch who fulfilled the duties of a monarch in their system as enumerated above, and she did it graciously, earning admiration, respect, and love from the people of her nation. People in other countries like ours who understand that that’s how their system works also respected her for the job she did and the manner in which she did it, under their system. We can place our own desires and expectations upon her and the monarchy, to no avail.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to have expected her to overturn their entire system by becoming more political. We can wish that had happened, we can think it might have changed the condition of the British people and even the world, but it’s not a reasonable expectation under their system, IMO. The prime minister and parliament are a different matter. But people will cast blame and hate on her as they wish.

prognosticatasaurusrex

Remember Grenada? She had more power than you think. Day to day? Who knows. But the mere FACT that all PM’s ran stuff by her suggests she had some role besides ceremonial.

scott467

You betcha.

TheseTruths

I have not said her role was merely ceremonial. I posted above that she had a lot of power.

The initial point in all of this, which quickly got distorted, was why people in a monarchy would revere or like the monarch. Many would argue that there were many reasons to like QEII and feel a great sense of loss at her passing and mourn her. Others seem angry, others want to make some kind of point and “win” an argument of their own creation, and others want to evaluate the British system by American standards. But the fact remains that QEII was liked and loved by many, and respected for her good qualities.

prognosticatasaurusrex

Yes, and my point is that as with all things, there is more than meets the eye to this. No one knows her real power, purpose, or intentions. I agree that many Brits loved her, but just as many in other places despised her. There is more than smoke that she was not the kindly benevolent “granny” she was made up to be. Some people LOVE the monarchy, some RESENT it.

I have no personal opinion rather than to say she was WAY more involved in some bad things than people are lead to believe. In the end, it will all eventually come out.

TheseTruths

There is always more than meets the eye. We can’t know what we don’t know.

The original point was that some people will love and revere their monarch, for various reasons that we might or might not agree with but that some can empathize with. Empathy involves putting oneself in the other person’s shoes. Those who can’t or won’t do that will remain angry or keep coming up with arguments or impose their own standards that cannot apply.

My points are not about how much power she wielded or how much she influenced political policy. We will never know the extent of those things. It’s possible that her subjects will never know, either.

My points are not to defend her against all criticism.

My position has been simply and clearly stated from the beginning: There are reasons for her subjects to like her. We might not agree with those reasons, and we might not understand them, but they exist nevertheless. She had a lot of positive qualities, and she fulfilled her public duties well as far as I know, and she held the monarchy together through difficult times. Those things are important to the British people, and many respect her for them.

We talk about people being red-pilled. People seem to be expecting the British people to have reached the point where they question the whole idea of a monarchy, where they analyze QEII’s influence on policy, and where they have the same expectations of her that we might have of our president and Congress. How much more unreasonable can expectations be? It is a different country and a different political culture.

In the meantime, many people are grieving, not just for an individual, but for a time that has passed. I empathize with them in their grief. To a lesser extent, I also feel the passing of an era.

holly08

Excellent post TheseTruths 👏

TheseTruths

Thank you. 😊

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Oh, yeah – and I think a lot of it is very true. All that said, if it didn’t come from Q, plain as day, or get an explicit endorsement (including a “nothing said”), then it is very likely cruft, IMO.

kalbokalbs

BINGO, Sadie.

kalbokalbs

Got it. The Queen was perceived to be a nice lady. Certainly nice, publicly.

Damn sure she knew her royal PLACE Pedestal and the subjects peons PLACE.

Personally, I have zero respect for the royal family AND the BS pedestal royals retain. Stoopid on steroids.

Queen voice of reason behind closed doors, is not a ringing endorsement.

For me, everything about royals is BS. Folks are brainwashed, to fawn over royals. Much like many fawn over shit heads in Hollywood.

  • ^^^ Piss on all of them.

MAYBE, the royal family BS is WHY Britain has never gotten over America, telling Britain to Fuck Off.

  • Such insolence by peons is not to be accepted, ever.
RDS

It is said that Queen Elizabeth II “had a wicked sense of humor.”
Perhaps that’s the reason behind her announcement earlier this year that Camilla, Charles’ current wife, would become Queen Consort — Camilla is the great-granddaughter of Edward VII’s last mistress, Alice Keppel.
On the other hand, Alice Keppel was known to be a “moderating influence” on Edward VII. Perhaps Camilla will be the similar on Charles.

Last edited 3 months ago by RDS
Gingersmom2009

I remarked on that yesterday. A rather unfortunate title. 😂

TheseTruths

The Queen was perceived to be a nice lady. Certainly nice, publicly.

That’s it exactly. That’s all I’m saying. I am not defending the royals, or their system, or anything of the kind. It’s a very simple point, and you have good discernment.

RAC

I think a lot of the adoration and fuss being made now is that a lot think everyone else is doing it, has been for years, before the phrase “mass formation psychosis” was even thought of.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

The Queen Adoration Syndrome is one of the best examples of Mass Formation Psychosis EVER!!!

It may be a mass formation neurosis, but still.  😂 

kalbokalbs

Yup.

TheseTruths

Gregg Philips, Truth Social. I haven’t watched this yet.
https://truthsocial.com/@greggphillips/posts/108964787958186516

PATRIOT GAMES EPISODE 7: Freedom

It’s no secret freedom is under assault worldwide.

Michael Yon @MichaelYon1776 joins us today to discuss the signs across Europe – from Belgium to Germany – that a self induced famine is already taking hold.

Michael is a former Green Beret, an author, photographer and famine expert. He provides unfiltered recon from the frontlines of the world’s most complex and chaotic global conflicts.

On your favorite podcast platform and Rumble.

Link to the video:
https://rumble.com/v1j97cr-episode7-freedom-update.html

TheseTruths

If there isn’t first generation video, consider the news suspect.

Then we must consider the raid on MAL suspect and believe it might not have happened. (There is supposedly video, but we haven’t seen it.) Any news “coverage” could have been part of a plot.

Then we must consider all the reports of “sudden, unexplained deaths” suspect because we don’t have video of the people actually dying.

Then we must consider that Ghislaine Maxwell’s testimony might be credible regarding her role, or lack thereof, in the Epstein trafficking operation, because we have the word of the victims, but no video.

In short, up might be down, down might be up, and everything we think we know might be wrong. That leaves us confused, ignorant, and frozen, because how could we possibly know what action to take ow whom to believe if we’re constantly wondering what’s really going on? There has to be a baseline upon which to judge the veracity of things. Taking Q’s “nothing is as it seems” out too far removes our ability to judge for ourselves and to take decisive, confident action.

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

I think it depends on the source of the pre-video news. If it’s MSM, then yeah, it’s suspect. Example – the kid and the American Indian. You can’t even trust MSM-edited video of an original incident, because of selective editing.

scott467

Australian: “What does NET ZERO actually mean?”

__________________

I thought it was a soft drink…

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

That “David” tweet-thread is some of the BEST of Twitter. Thank you.

Though I tell you – today has brought out some of the worst. I did not expect this – that the death of the Queen would ENRAGE so many.

The communist Americans on Twitter are acting like their predecessors who burned priests and nuns alive in the Russian Revolution. They’re just lobbing hate of the Queen and Britain everywhere as a virtue signal. And when Bezos finds it outrageous, they attack him. It’s VERY much like the Russian Revolution.

They are literally MAD about history, and looking for people alive today to punish.

Communism is straight from Satan. AVOID.

First, do no harm.

cthulhu

The Queen’s role was to serve as a bridge between generations, even as the Fabian Socialists tried to eradicate the past

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

Yeah, it’s a job. It’s part of national psychology. Part of psy-ops.

The White House is the same thing for us, to a large extent.

cthulhu

Thinking about it a bit more, I think The Golden Bough is more central to the situation. Why do certain patterns of behavior repeat all over the world over the course of centuries? Was Elizabeth a prisoner, as the rex Nemorensis, to live the part of her kingdom’s success until — inevitably — struck down?

Wolf Moon | Threat to Demonocracy

The dissing of that theory by the academic world, though correctly invited by the originator, was likely a bit hasty and premature. Patterns have meaning.

cthulhu

If I remember correctly, Michael had said that no action could be taken against Fredo while their mother was still alive…..but once she had passed, Fredo was taken on a one-way fishing trip on Lake Tahoe.

I wonder how King Chuckles likes fishing…..

Cuppa Covfefe

From Camelot:

“I wonder what the King is wishing tonight?
He’s wishing he were in Scotland, fishing tonight”…

kalbokalbs

^^^ There’s a positive thought.

Chuckles ought to invite the entire royal family on his yacht, to fish.

RAC

This was in amongst the comments OT, I have no idea what it is.

RAC
RAC
phoenixrising

Thank you for the Open DePat,

High Tea is an excellent choice …

Your constant good taste and intuitive decorum, always a great comfort,

is especially appreciated today and moving forward through the week.

phoenixrising

“Early to Bed” I am … so I miss all the late night discussions …

Scrolling through the end of the previous thread I find much speculation of the late Queen’s power.

I grew up reading the Encyclopedia Britannica … refer often to it even now, as wiki is useless for research.

Here’s link to a page some may find interesting… Americans are not only ignorant about their own history, they are certainly uninformed about the rest of the world.

https://www.britannica.com/search?query=when%20did%20the%20British%20monarchy%20lose%20power&page=2

JJ Sefton @ Ace HQ reports this a.m.:

“… At the turn of the last century, the saying went “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” Barely a decade into that century, one that began with such promise for perhaps the greatest flourishing of human and societal advancement, Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the Great War, now known as the First World War, uttered the prophetic words to a friend “The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

Yesterday, after nearly a thousand years, the sun has indeed set on the British Empire, and the lamps are indeed going out all over Europe – quite literally as well as figuratively. By extension, the passing of Queen Elizabeth is the stark delineation of a fin de siècle. The decline and fall of the American experiment is the prime example. The blinkered, philistine pig-ignorance of savages dressed up in the robes of enlightenment are dancing and defecating on her grave before she’s even cold, yet haven’t the foggiest notion in their pea-sized brains that were it not for England, the standard-bearer of Judeo-Christianity and western enlightenment, they’d still be swinging from the trees, picking nits out of their hair or clubbing each other to death to see who gets to control a termite mound. That is, if they weren’t busy being raped, beheaded or sold into slavery by the practitioners of the Religion of Peace™.

The problem with human history is that we cannot go back in time and rewrite it to suit our own tastes and desires. It does not move in a linear path and when it advances, it does so in fits and starts. Yet, in spite of our own record of horrendous behavior to our fellow man, it does advance. The irony of those who rail against our collective past sins is that they refuse to recognize that the very reason they are able to thump their baloney-nippled transexual soy chests is because of the free and open society that we, our parents and grandparents shed real blood to create and defend. They are hell bent on taking us back to the very dark ages they accuse us of creating. In every field of endeavor, the arts and sciences, our advancement and achievements, the greatest of which is individual human freedom, is to be sacrificed on the alter of madness, ignorance and hatred. The prime example of the latter is self-hatred. That’s at the heart of it all, I suppose. But I digress.
Whatever one felt about the concepts of monarchy, or of the foibles of the royal family as well as that of Blighty itself these past 70 years, Queen Elizabeth was always there and represented stability, whether we recognized it or not. Her passing, especially given the times we live in, is a cold slap of reality that the way of life that we perhaps took for granted as something that no matter what would always be there, won’t.

The lamps are going out all over the world, now. Elizabeth in her way was at least symbolically one of them. Will we allow that light from her generation, dwindling in numbers and brightness with each passing day, to be extinguished?”

full report here: https://ace.mu.nu/archives/400877.php

holly08

Thanks for this excellent, thought-provoking post PR.

phoenixrising

Most welcome Holly …

phoenixrising

Sefton does his usual stream of headlines … these are from his “Noteworthy” portion

pgroup2

They are now playing hardball 24/7/365. Dan Bongino says to keep your head on a swivel – know what’s around you every place you go.

wowohwow1528

https://www.ltw.org/read/my-devotional/2022/09/our-omniscient-and-omnipresent-god

https://youtu.be/C9L1dGKLWuY

Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
God bless all of you abundantly, every second, every minute, every hour, every day.
In Jesus name, amen.

… ❤️ ..

wowohwow1528
wowohwow1528

.. also, ..

https://truthinreality.com/2014/07/13/prayer-of-warfare/

Prayers of Binding. I’ve had an occasion to use one when a thorn of darkness revealed itself in my life. Everyone in Christ is a sheep in His pasture and He defends and protects His sheep. Whatever you bind on earth in Jesus Name will be bound in Heaven. My testimony, .. it works and for that I thank God.

Imagine if the names of all the evil cabal were bound ….

wowohwow1528

“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

duchess01

Verse of the Day for Friday, September 9, 2022

“For thou, LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield.” 

Psalms 5:12 (KJV)

comment image

Thank You, Jesus, for blessings received and prayers answered!!!

duchess01

BE MY VOICE

comment image

BABY LIVES MATTER

comment image

JESUS LOVES THE LITTLE CHILDREN

comment image

comment image

duchess01

PRAYING ON THE ARMOR OF GOD

Father God, I now follow your command to put on the full armor of God, because my battle is not against flesh and blood but against rulers, authorities, the powers of this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the unseen world.

I first pray on the Belt of Truth that it may be buckled around my waist, may I be centered and encircled by your truth dear Lord. Hem me inside all that is true and right, and may I be protected and held up by the truth of your living word, in my Lord Jesus name.

I pray on the Breastplate of righteousness, please protect my vital organs and my inner man, cover my integrity, my spirit, and my soul. Guard my heart for it is the wellspring of life, please strengthen and guard the most vulnerable places in my life with that which is right, good, and noble that I might not receive a fatal blow from the enemy, in my Lord Jesus name.

I pray on the Gospel Shoes of Peace. I choose to stand in the shoes of your good news, and on the firm foundation of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the solid eternal rock. All other ground is sinking sand, I pray that I will not slip or fall, but that my feet would be firmly fitted on your lordship, my Lord Jesus. I choose to stand on you, so that the peace of God, which transcends all understanding will guard my heart and mind in Christ Jesus, the eternal Rock of Ages. I receive your holy peace now my Lord, from the sole of my feet to the crown of my head, in my Lord Jesus name.

I pray the Shield of Faith into my hand now. As I take up the shield of faith, I ask that you might extinguish every dart and arrow, that is launched from the enemy to take me down spiritually, physically, mentally, emotionally, and every attempt of the enemy to destroy my joy. I ask that my faith in you would make it flame out. Extinguish every flaming arrow that would come against me, my life, my family, my home, or my ministry. May my faith always be out in front of me like a shield. Give me the courage to “faith my fears” by choosing to walk by faith and not by sight, in my Lord Jesus name.

I pray on the Helmet of Salvation, that you might protect my mind from the thoughts that can lead me astray. I choose to take every thought captive, and arrest all intentioned ideas and motives that would harm others, or distract me from your holy will for me. I submit every captured thought to the Lordship of my Lord Jesus Christ, and ask that you would imprison those thoughts that are not of you my Lord. Transform my mind and renew my thinking that I may think God thoughts, and have a sober mind that is focused on your glory. Please protect me from being double minded that I may allow my mind, I reject to live an earthly life, because I choose to live a holy one, governed by you My Lord Jesus, the prince of peace, please have my mind to be saturated with the holy mind of Christ, in my Lord Jesus name.

Finally, I take up the Sword of the Spirit which is the holy word of God, I pray this powerful offensive weapon into my hand, and ask that your holy word would be fitting for every encounter I face. As the enemy gets close to me, please give me the insight, wisdom, and skill to wield the word of God to drive away the enemy, in my Lord Jesus name.

May the enemy and his team flee from me, upon hearing the word of God spoken by the power and direction of the Holy Spirit. Give me the sword of the spirit to cut through the wiles of the devil, so that I may discern the schemes of the enemy when he is near.

With all kinds of prayers, supplication, and intercession I pray to you my Lord God as the one who fights my battles. Now that I’m in your holy powerful armor, I walk away covered and ready to face my day as you go before me, and please protect me in the midst of the spiritual warfare in this unseen world, in my Lord Jesus name.

Thank you my Lord, for the spiritual weapons of armor and prayer that you have given me. It is written no weapon formed against me shall prosper, and you will refute every tongue that accuses me. 

Thank you Father God, my Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit, that I am more than a conqueror in my Lord Jesus. I pray all of this in the mighty name of my Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

AMEN.

comment image

duchess01

PLEASE PRAY FOR ONE ANOTHER

comment image

comment image

comment image

comment image

wowohwow1528

Thank you very much DePat .. 🙂🤚❤️😉👍😎 ..

phoenixrising

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraines-top-general-doesnt-rule-out-limited-nuclear-war

Gonna need more than the ol’ phrase ‘batsh*t crazy’ to describe the neocons or Khazarians as some refer to them. Their need to rule the world has the potential to destroy it.

As some might suggest, I’ll get my coat … not going to ignore the elephant in the room.

para59r

Well, I’m sure we can think of list targets to nuke if their desire is to have a limited nuclear war. 😁

Although he’s pointing at Moscow saying they’ll do it, it seems clear he’s projecting as he asks for longer range weapons and perhaps hints that he’d like some tactical nukes.

para59r

Yesterday. He continues to double down on his message that MAGA is a threat to the nation. Several times now since his Moloch address to the nation. So the uniteter in chief has his marching orders and is making it part of the Demon platform for the Nov elections.

Seems like he just doesn’t get our angst.

comment image

wowohwow1528

Trump: I bet ‘ ha slo Joe wears diapers …

QEII: Depends ..

wowohwow1528

Trump: psst, nice ribbon ..

TradeBait2

Honored to be considered an enemy of Brandon.

kalbokalbs

“They” started it. Their behavior has not abated and will not, until their power is taken away.

prognosticatasaurusrex

I would PAY Doocy or some other “journalist” to ask the Press Sec and or Biden, WHAT MAGA is. I will BET they do not even know that it is an acronym meaning Make America Great Again.

I would LOVE to hear how making America GREAT again is fascist. It would END that attack INSTANTLY.

wowohwow1528

That’d be epic, they would foam at the mouth …. Bwahahahahaha .. yuk 🤢

prognosticatasaurusrex

Yep, my point exactly. The steam would shoot from their ears.. before total lock up…”does not compute. “

wowohwow1528

It would be epic!

prognosticatasaurusrex

Agreed.

kalbokalbs

Shaggy would need to state, actual documented examples. No generalizations.

Rather sure Shaggy would cite the alleged, J6 insurrection.

Easy follow up question.

  • “How can that be, 21 months later, ZERO charged with insurrection?”
pgroup2