by GreaterNYCDude ➕follow (2) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 77 of 77 Search these comments
Elizabeth sat placidly by as, one by one, the ancient rights of Englishmen were stripped from them. No longer may they bear arms, or even defend themselves should they be assaulted or their homes invaded. No longer may they speak their minds, for should they speak too plainly they risk a visit from the police, who may either arrest and charge them with hate speech for saying unflattering things about any of the myriad protected groups, or simply be hassled over ‘non-crime hate incidents’ should their blaspheming not quite cross the deliberately fuzzy legal boundary between that which is permitted and mandatory, and everything else.
Worse, and possibly irreparable, has been the violent demographic shift that has taken place. The United Kingdom was 99.5% white when Elizabeth became Elizabeth II; now, it is around 87% white, and rapidly declining. The Church having fallen into apostasy, its pews empty, its support of the family gone, the birth rate of the indigenous population has cratered to far below replacement. Meanwhile, the trickle of immigrants from Commonwealth countries – Jamaica, India, Pakistan, and so on – that began when Elizabeth was crowned, has over the last two decades become a relentless flood. London is no longer a recognizably English city, and the same is true across much of the rest of the land. ...
The Crown’s formal political power may be limited, it is true, but it is not non-existent. Further, the Crown’s social power is immense. What should have been the reaction, one wonders, had Elizabeth II spoken publicly about the unfortunate events in Rotherham? To ask the question is to answer it: public opinion would have united behind her, and the authorities would have scrambled to set things right. Better: what might have happened if, decades ago, Elizabeth had voiced even a mild criticism of the replacement immigration policies of Tony Blair?
Monarchy is history's original psyops, and the various reactions to Queeny's staged death is a great reflection of the success of the predator classes in promulgating it.
It isn't a question of what bad people mock the poor deceased queen, it's a question of how did the architects of Royalty manage to generate that much psyops penetration to foist it off on an ongoing basis to begin with? Gobsmacked by Royalty, pomp and pretense? Sucker. Gobsmacked by royal plots against the populace? Maybe you're on to something.
Has just passed.... end of an era.
"A passage from Nostradamus
"Queen Elizabeth II will die, circa 2022"
Page 98. Published in 2006.
In Nostradamus' written works, Century 8 Quatrain 97, he spoke of "great powers" changing and a "Kingdom growing no more"."
https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordWDSGroup/73245
"A passage from Nostradamus
"Queen Elizabeth II will die, circa 2022"
Page 98. Published in 2006.
In Nostradamus' written works, Century 8 Quatrain 97, he spoke of "great powers" changing and a "Kingdom growing no more"."
https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordWDSGroup/73245
The Constitution Act of 1867, in its current form, vests dominion over Canada in the Queen herself — not the Crown, and not the King.
Celtic supporters also wave banners and wear badges with Che Guevara and Chavez on them.
Royal families are nothing more than mafias.
"A passage from Nostradamus
"Queen Elizabeth II will die, circa 2022"
Page 98. Published in 2006.
In Nostradamus' written works, Century 8 Quatrain 97, he spoke of "great powers" changing and a "Kingdom growing no more"."
At the end of the Var the great powers change;
near the bank three beautiful children are born.
Ruin to the people when they are of age;
My cursory understanding is the original text from hundreds of years ago is exceedingly vague and thus can be applied to almost anything.
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 77 of 77 Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,245,129 comments by 14,870 users - stereotomy online now