Jump to content

The Queen’s Death


Mikhail Liebestein
 Share

Recommended Posts

It is a form of Stokholm Syndrome; how crazy that so many people are fawning over someone whose wealth could change the world for everyone. The 'Elite' must look at these examples of people and laugh their assess off at the way people have been hoodwinked so successfully. And that is even before we look at the truly sick shit the 'family' have/are involved in. I think these people are part of the percentage that will NEVER wake up, thankfully the vast majority of people are able to wake from their slumber. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Murray 

Ex British Ambassador 

Scottish Independence Advocate 

Has noticed the Establishment using the Queen's death as a means of promoting the new (and likely unpopular) Monarch - Charles lll

Cool Observation of Mass Hysteria


When the so-called “Leader of the opposition” opposes protest against a new unelected head of state, out of respect for the previous unelected head of state, you know you live under totalitarianism.

 

Except almost all dictatorships do at least have the form of an election. Indeed, some of the worst dictators in modern history have been genuinely elected, an unfortunate fact we generally prefer to elide.

 

Over a week of mob hysteria in the UK helps us to understand how.

 

The psychological phenomenon of societal emotional spasm is fairly well studied but still not necessarily fully explained. How we get to a stage where, in 2022, newspapers are seriously promoting as miraculous clouds that “look like the Queen”, double rainbows or meteors, is a difficult question.

 

What is not in the doubt is the tendency of deluded mobs to turn on those who do not join in – and the capacity of the unscrupulous to exploit that power.

 

Attempts to intimidate people out of protesting against the monarchy appear broadly to have succeeded. We saw some hideous attacks on free speech over the last week, including people arrested for holding up placards, for peacefully expressing vocal dissent, or even for carrying eggs or blank pieces of paper.

 

A number of figures have stood up to come out arguing for freedom of speech – Andrew Marr, Martin Bell, John Sweeney, David Davis, Joanna Cherry, Michael Russell. These are all figures who broadly represent a liberal consensus in society that seems to have gone. As I know all but one of them, I hope they will forgive me for saying they tend to be slightly passé.

 

Nobody in power, in Westminster or in Scotland, has asserted the importance of freedom of speech, while opposition leader Keir Starmer has done the opposite, emphasising “respect” for authority as more important than freedom of speech, a position taken by anti-democrats everywhere.

 

There are two arguments used against freedom of speech at present:

 

1) We should honour the dead, and respect the sanctity of the mourning period.

 

I do not in general dismiss the value of all societal convention, and I have a certain sympathy for this approach. However, the difficulty is that the accession of a new monarch happens at the moment of death of the old monarch. The latter cannot be used to stifle all protest at the former.

 

The Establishment quite deliberately conflates the two in order to prevent protest. We have the extraordinary and macabre spectacle of the corpse of the late Queen being carted around the country and her coffin put on public display.

 

If people really cared for her, I would have thought it much more respectful to bury her, but the monarchist hysteria has to be dialed up past 11 for the longest possible period, and the excuse for suppressing dissent has to be maintained.

 

Young Rory, who was viciously, physically attacked for heckling sexual abuser Prince Andrew at the Edinburgh procession and then arrested, handcuffed and charged, was widely condemned by the media for disturbing a funeral. But it was not a funeral. That funeral is still not until Monday, when this farce finally ends.

 

The correct word for what we have witnessed so far is not a funeral but a series of bizarre obsequies. The state is demanding that all citizens be obsequious.

 

There is a reason that word has such negative connotations, and if the UK had educated journalists rather than state stenographers they might explore it.

 

So much has been entirely irrational. One moment that stuck in my mind was criticism of Liz Truss for failing to curtsy to the coffin of the Queen when it arrived at RAF Northolt. This was described as “grotesque” – as though curtsying to a corpse were not itself an image straight out of Edgar Allan Poe.

 

The concomitant of stretching out the period before poor Elizabeth is finally put to rest, is to use that period to maximum political advantage for the introduction of the new King, while his mother’s aura still shines.

 

We have the deliberate confusion of the two processes. Both the man in Oxford who merely asked “who elected him?”, and the woman in Edinburgh who held the sign saying “Fuck imperialism, abolish the monarchy”, were at the specific proclamation of the accession of King Charles III – events separate to the obsequies. Yet both were condemned for lack of respect for a dead Queen.

 

We also have the extraordinary spectacle of Charles, immediately after the death of his mother, abandoning his mourning and bottling his grief while shuttling furiously around Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for entirely political events.

 

This did not have to happen. This is absolutely not a tradition. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened before.

 

There was no reason whatsoever why Charles had to visit the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly or the assembly in the north of Ireland, now. This could have waited until after the funeral. He could even have had a week of rest and reflection after the funeral before embarking on a tour of the nations.

 

There was a deliberate decision to hold these political events in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, aimed at strengthening the monarchy and union, while the corpse was still metaphorically warm, in order to maximise the political bounce for the monarchy from Elizabeth’s death.

 

Part of this calculation was that, if Charles’ first visit as King was after the funeral, there would be political protest at the accession in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, possibly quite substantial.

 

There is absolutely no modern precedent for a royal tour between the death and the funeral of the previous monarch. It is, when you think about it, disrespectful.

 

Edinburgh is explicable in terms of Elizabeth dying in Scotland, but Belfast and Cardiff?

 

Which tells us that “King Charles III” would have still taken advantage of the mourning period to make his power consolidation visit to Edinburgh, no matter where his mother had died.

 

There is nothing more cynical. We are whipped up to observe emotional mourning, while those who you would expect truly to be in mourning are engaged in cold, political calculation.

 

One of the darkly amusing things about the last few days was to witness all of the deluded monarchists on social media excusing Charles’ extraordinary tantrum in Northern Ireland about a pen, on the grounds that he must be exhausted making this tour when his mother had just died.

 

But the answer of course is that he did not have instantly to dash to Northern Ireland at all, leaving behind the rites for his mother. He was doing so for political gain.

 

It is a capricious God who supports a royal family so much he makes clouds in their image and celebrates them in rainbows and comets, yet makes pens leak on them “every stinking time.”

 

2) Protest May Cause a Breach of the Peace

This is a truly sinister argument. What it amounts to is this:

The mob is encouraged to beat up dissidents, so the expression of dissent is illegal.

 

It is quite literal fascism, the exertion of violent force by thugs in the street to quell dissent, with the state backing the thugs and criminalising the dissidents. That is precisely how all fascist regimes operate.

 

It is now being used shamelessly. None of the thugs who attacked Rory in Edinburgh has been charged. Rory has been charged with a breach of the peace.

 

If a breach of the peace is an action likely to provoke disorder, then the persons to be charged should be those who decided to put on display in positions of great honour a man who avoided a trial on sex trafficking by payment of £12 million pounds.

 

One sign of how emboldened the dregs of society are by this period of mob rule, is the quite extraordinary number of people on social media actively defending Prince Andrew, something that was extremely rare before the death of the Queen.

 

On twitter, it is interesting how many of those defending Andrew show the characteristics I identified of British government troll units. These are very low follower numbers for an account claiming to have been in existence at least ten years, and a timeline consisting entirely of retweets.

 

The rehabilitation of Andrew is another of the political purposes to which Elizabeth’s death is being put, to which we are not allowed to object on grounds of “decorum” and “respect”.

 

Now I would not personally have done what Rory did, in the presence of a coffin. But that is a question of etiquette, taste and demeanour, not of the criminal law.

 

Anybody who had been paying attention ought not be surprised that the Scottish prosecutorial service is happily channeling this fascism and people are coming up for trial for breach of the peace, including the young woman who did nothing but hold up a placard at the outdoor, public proclamation ceremony.

 

On Sunday, Police Scotland have banned Yestival, an annual Independence rally in George Square, Glasgow, on the grounds that the Queen’s funeral is on the next day, 400 miles away.

 

The organisers have quietly rescheduled the event, but I shall turn up anyway to bear witness to my beliefs, because I object to being told I may not express my political opinions. I don’t expect there will be more than a dozen of us and nothing in particular is organised to happen – no stage and no microphones. Unless the mere fact of my existence is held by the fascists to be a breach of the peace, I am not sure how it would be illegal. But they may find a way. This is Scotland 2022.

 

In the long term I am not downhearted. Propaganda works, and I have no doubt whatsoever that monarchism and even unionism will get a measurable opinion poll boost from the current shenanigans.

 

But it will not be true that the replacement of a popular monarch by an unpopular one will, in the medium term, strengthen the monarchy. Public and press access will be stifled to suppress awareness of Charles’ appalling high-handedness and temper and the way he treats staff

 

But you can’t make this man popular, and his Queen Consort will be a constant reminder of how he treated his unfortunate first wife.

 

As for the mob hysteria, I am of the generation that was sent to church every Sunday of my childhood. I recall the sermon every Palm Sunday pointing out that the same rapturous crowd that hailed Jesus into Jerusalem, called for his death five days later.

 

All the great religions contain a lot of good sense within their mysticism. 

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/ 

 

Edited by legion
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexa said:

 

I bet nearly everyone of them has been jabbed.

Yes your right everyone of them will have had the vaccines, they probably stood for hours in a long queue waiting for the jab just like they are doing now standing for up to 16 hours to look at a wooden box with a flag, complete madness ! 

 

 

cover_2.jpeg

1xyk.gif

67111-idolatry.1200w.tn.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, legion said:

Craig Murray 

Ex British Ambassador 

Scottish Independence Advocate 

Has noticed the Establishment using the Queen's death as a means of promoting the new (and likely unpopular) Monarch - Charles lll

Cool Observation of Mass Hysteria


When the so-called “Leader of the opposition” opposes protest against a new unelected head of state, out of respect for the previous unelected head of state, you know you live under totalitarianism.

 

Except almost all dictatorships do at least have the form of an election. Indeed, some of the worst dictators in modern history have been genuinely elected, an unfortunate fact we generally prefer to elide.

 

Over a week of mob hysteria in the UK helps us to understand how.

 

The psychological phenomenon of societal emotional spasm is fairly well studied but still not necessarily fully explained. How we get to a stage where, in 2022, newspapers are seriously promoting as miraculous clouds that “look like the Queen”, double rainbows or meteors, is a difficult question.

 

What is not in the doubt is the tendency of deluded mobs to turn on those who do not join in – and the capacity of the unscrupulous to exploit that power.

 

Attempts to intimidate people out of protesting against the monarchy appear broadly to have succeeded. We saw some hideous attacks on free speech over the last week, including people arrested for holding up placards, for peacefully expressing vocal dissent, or even for carrying eggs or blank pieces of paper.

 

A number of figures have stood up to come out arguing for freedom of speech – Andrew Marr, Martin Bell, John Sweeney, David Davis, Joanna Cherry, Michael Russell. These are all figures who broadly represent a liberal consensus in society that seems to have gone. As I know all but one of them, I hope they will forgive me for saying they tend to be slightly passé.

 

Nobody in power, in Westminster or in Scotland, has asserted the importance of freedom of speech, while opposition leader Keir Starmer has done the opposite, emphasising “respect” for authority as more important than freedom of speech, a position taken by anti-democrats everywhere.

 

There are two arguments used against freedom of speech at present:

 

1) We should honour the dead, and respect the sanctity of the mourning period.

 

I do not in general dismiss the value of all societal convention, and I have a certain sympathy for this approach. However, the difficulty is that the accession of a new monarch happens at the moment of death of the old monarch. The latter cannot be used to stifle all protest at the former.

 

The Establishment quite deliberately conflates the two in order to prevent protest. We have the extraordinary and macabre spectacle of the corpse of the late Queen being carted around the country and her coffin put on public display.

 

If people really cared for her, I would have thought it much more respectful to bury her, but the monarchist hysteria has to be dialed up past 11 for the longest possible period, and the excuse for suppressing dissent has to be maintained.

 

Young Rory, who was viciously, physically attacked for heckling sexual abuser Prince Andrew at the Edinburgh procession and then arrested, handcuffed and charged, was widely condemned by the media for disturbing a funeral. But it was not a funeral. That funeral is still not until Monday, when this farce finally ends.

 

The correct word for what we have witnessed so far is not a funeral but a series of bizarre obsequies. The state is demanding that all citizens be obsequious.

 

There is a reason that word has such negative connotations, and if the UK had educated journalists rather than state stenographers they might explore it.

 

So much has been entirely irrational. One moment that stuck in my mind was criticism of Liz Truss for failing to curtsy to the coffin of the Queen when it arrived at RAF Northolt. This was described as “grotesque” – as though curtsying to a corpse were not itself an image straight out of Edgar Allan Poe.

 

The concomitant of stretching out the period before poor Elizabeth is finally put to rest, is to use that period to maximum political advantage for the introduction of the new King, while his mother’s aura still shines.

 

We have the deliberate confusion of the two processes. Both the man in Oxford who merely asked “who elected him?”, and the woman in Edinburgh who held the sign saying “Fuck imperialism, abolish the monarchy”, were at the specific proclamation of the accession of King Charles III – events separate to the obsequies. Yet both were condemned for lack of respect for a dead Queen.

 

We also have the extraordinary spectacle of Charles, immediately after the death of his mother, abandoning his mourning and bottling his grief while shuttling furiously around Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for entirely political events.

 

This did not have to happen. This is absolutely not a tradition. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened before.

 

There was no reason whatsoever why Charles had to visit the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly or the assembly in the north of Ireland, now. This could have waited until after the funeral. He could even have had a week of rest and reflection after the funeral before embarking on a tour of the nations.

 

There was a deliberate decision to hold these political events in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, aimed at strengthening the monarchy and union, while the corpse was still metaphorically warm, in order to maximise the political bounce for the monarchy from Elizabeth’s death.

 

Part of this calculation was that, if Charles’ first visit as King was after the funeral, there would be political protest at the accession in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, possibly quite substantial.

 

There is absolutely no modern precedent for a royal tour between the death and the funeral of the previous monarch. It is, when you think about it, disrespectful.

 

Edinburgh is explicable in terms of Elizabeth dying in Scotland, but Belfast and Cardiff?

 

Which tells us that “King Charles III” would have still taken advantage of the mourning period to make his power consolidation visit to Edinburgh, no matter where his mother had died.

 

There is nothing more cynical. We are whipped up to observe emotional mourning, while those who you would expect truly to be in mourning are engaged in cold, political calculation.

 

One of the darkly amusing things about the last few days was to witness all of the deluded monarchists on social media excusing Charles’ extraordinary tantrum in Northern Ireland about a pen, on the grounds that he must be exhausted making this tour when his mother had just died.

 

But the answer of course is that he did not have instantly to dash to Northern Ireland at all, leaving behind the rites for his mother. He was doing so for political gain.

 

It is a capricious God who supports a royal family so much he makes clouds in their image and celebrates them in rainbows and comets, yet makes pens leak on them “every stinking time.”

 

2) Protest May Cause a Breach of the Peace

This is a truly sinister argument. What it amounts to is this:

The mob is encouraged to beat up dissidents, so the expression of dissent is illegal.

 

It is quite literal fascism, the exertion of violent force by thugs in the street to quell dissent, with the state backing the thugs and criminalising the dissidents. That is precisely how all fascist regimes operate.

 

It is now being used shamelessly. None of the thugs who attacked Rory in Edinburgh has been charged. Rory has been charged with a breach of the peace.

 

If a breach of the peace is an action likely to provoke disorder, then the persons to be charged should be those who decided to put on display in positions of great honour a man who avoided a trial on sex trafficking by payment of £12 million pounds.

 

One sign of how emboldened the dregs of society are by this period of mob rule, is the quite extraordinary number of people on social media actively defending Prince Andrew, something that was extremely rare before the death of the Queen.

 

On twitter, it is interesting how many of those defending Andrew show the characteristics I identified of British government troll units. These are very low follower numbers for an account claiming to have been in existence at least ten years, and a timeline consisting entirely of retweets.

 

The rehabilitation of Andrew is another of the political purposes to which Elizabeth’s death is being put, to which we are not allowed to object on grounds of “decorum” and “respect”.

 

Now I would not personally have done what Rory did, in the presence of a coffin. But that is a question of etiquette, taste and demeanour, not of the criminal law.

 

Anybody who had been paying attention ought not be surprised that the Scottish prosecutorial service is happily channeling this fascism and people are coming up for trial for breach of the peace, including the young woman who did nothing but hold up a placard at the outdoor, public proclamation ceremony.

 

On Sunday, Police Scotland have banned Yestival, an annual Independence rally in George Square, Glasgow, on the grounds that the Queen’s funeral is on the next day, 400 miles away.

 

The organisers have quietly rescheduled the event, but I shall turn up anyway to bear witness to my beliefs, because I object to being told I may not express my political opinions. I don’t expect there will be more than a dozen of us and nothing in particular is organised to happen – no stage and no microphones. Unless the mere fact of my existence is held by the fascists to be a breach of the peace, I am not sure how it would be illegal. But they may find a way. This is Scotland 2022.

 

In the long term I am not downhearted. Propaganda works, and I have no doubt whatsoever that monarchism and even unionism will get a measurable opinion poll boost from the current shenanigans.

 

But it will not be true that the replacement of a popular monarch by an unpopular one will, in the medium term, strengthen the monarchy. Public and press access will be stifled to suppress awareness of Charles’ appalling high-handedness and temper and the way he treats staff

 

But you can’t make this man popular, and his Queen Consort will be a constant reminder of how he treated his unfortunate first wife.

 

As for the mob hysteria, I am of the generation that was sent to church every Sunday of my childhood. I recall the sermon every Palm Sunday pointing out that the same rapturous crowd that hailed Jesus into Jerusalem, called for his death five days later.

 

All the great religions contain a lot of good sense within their mysticism. 

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/ 

 

 

27 minutes ago, legion said:

Craig Murray 

Ex British Ambassador 

Scottish Independence Advocate 

Has noticed the Establishment using the Queen's death as a means of promoting the new (and likely unpopular) Monarch - Charles lll

Cool Observation of Mass Hysteria


When the so-called “Leader of the opposition” opposes protest against a new unelected head of state, out of respect for the previous unelected head of state, you know you live under totalitarianism.

 

Except almost all dictatorships do at least have the form of an election. Indeed, some of the worst dictators in modern history have been genuinely elected, an unfortunate fact we generally prefer to elide.

 

Over a week of mob hysteria in the UK helps us to understand how.

 

The psychological phenomenon of societal emotional spasm is fairly well studied but still not necessarily fully explained. How we get to a stage where, in 2022, newspapers are seriously promoting as miraculous clouds that “look like the Queen”, double rainbows or meteors, is a difficult question.

 

What is not in the doubt is the tendency of deluded mobs to turn on those who do not join in – and the capacity of the unscrupulous to exploit that power.

 

Attempts to intimidate people out of protesting against the monarchy appear broadly to have succeeded. We saw some hideous attacks on free speech over the last week, including people arrested for holding up placards, for peacefully expressing vocal dissent, or even for carrying eggs or blank pieces of paper.

 

A number of figures have stood up to come out arguing for freedom of speech – Andrew Marr, Martin Bell, John Sweeney, David Davis, Joanna Cherry, Michael Russell. These are all figures who broadly represent a liberal consensus in society that seems to have gone. As I know all but one of them, I hope they will forgive me for saying they tend to be slightly passé.

 

Nobody in power, in Westminster or in Scotland, has asserted the importance of freedom of speech, while opposition leader Keir Starmer has done the opposite, emphasising “respect” for authority as more important than freedom of speech, a position taken by anti-democrats everywhere.

 

There are two arguments used against freedom of speech at present:

 

1) We should honour the dead, and respect the sanctity of the mourning period.

 

I do not in general dismiss the value of all societal convention, and I have a certain sympathy for this approach. However, the difficulty is that the accession of a new monarch happens at the moment of death of the old monarch. The latter cannot be used to stifle all protest at the former.

 

The Establishment quite deliberately conflates the two in order to prevent protest. We have the extraordinary and macabre spectacle of the corpse of the late Queen being carted around the country and her coffin put on public display.

 

If people really cared for her, I would have thought it much more respectful to bury her, but the monarchist hysteria has to be dialed up past 11 for the longest possible period, and the excuse for suppressing dissent has to be maintained.

 

Young Rory, who was viciously, physically attacked for heckling sexual abuser Prince Andrew at the Edinburgh procession and then arrested, handcuffed and charged, was widely condemned by the media for disturbing a funeral. But it was not a funeral. That funeral is still not until Monday, when this farce finally ends.

 

The correct word for what we have witnessed so far is not a funeral but a series of bizarre obsequies. The state is demanding that all citizens be obsequious.

 

There is a reason that word has such negative connotations, and if the UK had educated journalists rather than state stenographers they might explore it.

 

So much has been entirely irrational. One moment that stuck in my mind was criticism of Liz Truss for failing to curtsy to the coffin of the Queen when it arrived at RAF Northolt. This was described as “grotesque” – as though curtsying to a corpse were not itself an image straight out of Edgar Allan Poe.

 

The concomitant of stretching out the period before poor Elizabeth is finally put to rest, is to use that period to maximum political advantage for the introduction of the new King, while his mother’s aura still shines.

 

We have the deliberate confusion of the two processes. Both the man in Oxford who merely asked “who elected him?”, and the woman in Edinburgh who held the sign saying “Fuck imperialism, abolish the monarchy”, were at the specific proclamation of the accession of King Charles III – events separate to the obsequies. Yet both were condemned for lack of respect for a dead Queen.

 

We also have the extraordinary spectacle of Charles, immediately after the death of his mother, abandoning his mourning and bottling his grief while shuttling furiously around Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for entirely political events.

 

This did not have to happen. This is absolutely not a tradition. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened before.

 

There was no reason whatsoever why Charles had to visit the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly or the assembly in the north of Ireland, now. This could have waited until after the funeral. He could even have had a week of rest and reflection after the funeral before embarking on a tour of the nations.

 

There was a deliberate decision to hold these political events in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, aimed at strengthening the monarchy and union, while the corpse was still metaphorically warm, in order to maximise the political bounce for the monarchy from Elizabeth’s death.

 

Part of this calculation was that, if Charles’ first visit as King was after the funeral, there would be political protest at the accession in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, possibly quite substantial.

 

There is absolutely no modern precedent for a royal tour between the death and the funeral of the previous monarch. It is, when you think about it, disrespectful.

 

Edinburgh is explicable in terms of Elizabeth dying in Scotland, but Belfast and Cardiff?

 

Which tells us that “King Charles III” would have still taken advantage of the mourning period to make his power consolidation visit to Edinburgh, no matter where his mother had died.

 

There is nothing more cynical. We are whipped up to observe emotional mourning, while those who you would expect truly to be in mourning are engaged in cold, political calculation.

 

One of the darkly amusing things about the last few days was to witness all of the deluded monarchists on social media excusing Charles’ extraordinary tantrum in Northern Ireland about a pen, on the grounds that he must be exhausted making this tour when his mother had just died.

 

But the answer of course is that he did not have instantly to dash to Northern Ireland at all, leaving behind the rites for his mother. He was doing so for political gain.

 

It is a capricious God who supports a royal family so much he makes clouds in their image and celebrates them in rainbows and comets, yet makes pens leak on them “every stinking time.”

 

2) Protest May Cause a Breach of the Peace

This is a truly sinister argument. What it amounts to is this:

The mob is encouraged to beat up dissidents, so the expression of dissent is illegal.

 

It is quite literal fascism, the exertion of violent force by thugs in the street to quell dissent, with the state backing the thugs and criminalising the dissidents. That is precisely how all fascist regimes operate.

 

It is now being used shamelessly. None of the thugs who attacked Rory in Edinburgh has been charged. Rory has been charged with a breach of the peace.

 

If a breach of the peace is an action likely to provoke disorder, then the persons to be charged should be those who decided to put on display in positions of great honour a man who avoided a trial on sex trafficking by payment of £12 million pounds.

 

One sign of how emboldened the dregs of society are by this period of mob rule, is the quite extraordinary number of people on social media actively defending Prince Andrew, something that was extremely rare before the death of the Queen.

 

On twitter, it is interesting how many of those defending Andrew show the characteristics I identified of British government troll units. These are very low follower numbers for an account claiming to have been in existence at least ten years, and a timeline consisting entirely of retweets.

 

The rehabilitation of Andrew is another of the political purposes to which Elizabeth’s death is being put, to which we are not allowed to object on grounds of “decorum” and “respect”.

 

Now I would not personally have done what Rory did, in the presence of a coffin. But that is a question of etiquette, taste and demeanour, not of the criminal law.

 

Anybody who had been paying attention ought not be surprised that the Scottish prosecutorial service is happily channeling this fascism and people are coming up for trial for breach of the peace, including the young woman who did nothing but hold up a placard at the outdoor, public proclamation ceremony.

 

On Sunday, Police Scotland have banned Yestival, an annual Independence rally in George Square, Glasgow, on the grounds that the Queen’s funeral is on the next day, 400 miles away.

 

The organisers have quietly rescheduled the event, but I shall turn up anyway to bear witness to my beliefs, because I object to being told I may not express my political opinions. I don’t expect there will be more than a dozen of us and nothing in particular is organised to happen – no stage and no microphones. Unless the mere fact of my existence is held by the fascists to be a breach of the peace, I am not sure how it would be illegal. But they may find a way. This is Scotland 2022.

 

In the long term I am not downhearted. Propaganda works, and I have no doubt whatsoever that monarchism and even unionism will get a measurable opinion poll boost from the current shenanigans.

 

But it will not be true that the replacement of a popular monarch by an unpopular one will, in the medium term, strengthen the monarchy. Public and press access will be stifled to suppress awareness of Charles’ appalling high-handedness and temper and the way he treats staff

 

But you can’t make this man popular, and his Queen Consort will be a constant reminder of how he treated his unfortunate first wife.

 

As for the mob hysteria, I am of the generation that was sent to church every Sunday of my childhood. I recall the sermon every Palm Sunday pointing out that the same rapturous crowd that hailed Jesus into Jerusalem, called for his death five days later.

 

All the great religions contain a lot of good sense within their mysticism. 

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/ 

 

Interesting (to me anyway)

I notice  that William writes like me left handed and hand above which is tiring if write a lot and get a lot ink on hand too plus can smudge ! ( So does Obama if I remember too!) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Talorgan said:

 

Interesting (to me anyway)

I notice  that William writes like me left handed and hand above which is tiring if write a lot and get a lot ink on hand too plus can smudge ! ( So does Obama if I remember too!) 

 

 

I'm confused by your post. 

The videos show Charles. 

And he's right handed.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, legion said:

 

I'm confused by your post. 

The videos show Charles. 

And he's right handed.. 

Oh forgive me but when you play the second video William signs at end too( could not help noticing ,) trivial comment on my part in bigger picture of things!

Edited by Talorgan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Talorgan said:

Oh forgive me but when you play the second video William signs at end too( could not help noticing ,) trivial comment on my part in bigger picture of things!

 

Apologies 

I didn't watch that video so far.. 

I was more focused on the written content from Craig. 

I had no idea that William was left handed. Yeah, I'd guess that makes writing with real ink a real bummer.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are pros and cons to this mass outpouring of grief

 

The major con is that people are still giving their power away to centralised power which can lead to them being led down the garden path for example our ancestors being taken into two world wars which saw millions of them killed and maimed. Through their loyalty to the british establishment they could be led once again, by the nose, into a new trap such as UN sustainable goals and the WEF's 'great reset' (fourth industrial revolution)

 

The plus side is that it shows that neo-marxist attempts to deconstruct british identity have largely failed but as i have said above that identification can be a double edged sword. It can bring societal cohesion but it can also allow people who place their trust in institutions to be misled and we have just seen exactly that happen when people were sloganeered into mass covid jabs with 'we are all in this together' hoodwinking from the government and their propaganda arm the BBC

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nefaria said:

It will make them even more obvious when they are on their holidays abroad that they're are English, as if their other sunburnt tattoos, playing bingo and drinking lager round the pool wasn't enough.

 

to be fair to british people abroad they are usually in high spirits and enjoying a good time. The way things are in britain with long work hours, small holiday times and the constrained way in which the system is set up means that people need to let off steam. They live for the weekends and they live for their holidays

 

Just to exist costs money in britain. They make sure to keep everyone on the treadmill of life. It would be good to break that system whilst not falling into something worse

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The queen isn't in that box, she died last year, it fucked up their plans. This whole farce is for when she SHOULD have died. Or is it???

 

They're all in a bit of a dippy doo now eh! Shit's got real. The King's ever such an angry man isn't he, unable to control his feelings unlike his stone, cold, face mother. (Aberfan anyone? Diana anyone?  plus a trillion other examples) He hasn't even settled in to his role and he's showing people how childish and angry he is...on a pen....on his servants and best yet.......over ruling his beloved queen mummy by giving her favourite son Andrew his uniform back when she took it away. Dis-regarding her rule, knowing she wouldn't agree to that due to what it would look like to her peasants.

 

And to top it off, Andrew pretty much shows us his 'fuck you' by touching up his daughter right in front of us all.

 

The most dangerous thing that cult will face is a fucking loose cannon who resented his mother and his father and they've let him loose to show them who's KING! If any of them think he's going to listen to them now....they're so dumb!  Only way they can control him is to take him out!

 

Poor Camilla, I'd be scared too, he's gonna cut all of their time short.

 

All those leaders in one place at one time on Monday 19/09/22???? What if god wanted to take them all out at once, bit like they're doing with us!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

99% of people fully controlled by technology hence the out pouring of grief who haven't recognised those emotions aren't theirs. The other lot harder to control by technology hence the slight, brief, surprising moments of shedding a tear not knowing where that emotion suddenly came from still not quite recognising that emotion was forced on them but know that something didn't feel right!

 

Don't be fooled into thinking being awake means you're not being controlled too. You just make it harder for them to do it to you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11221997/King-Charles-III-arrives-Met-Polices-special-operations-room.html

 

The royal equivalent of 'crowd surfing'

 

They want to make him look like an idiot, want him to fuck up spectacularly and he's doing a good job already! The pen someone gave him, just in case.....his wrath will spurt forth for that. He may have laughed at the time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2022 at 10:21 AM, legion said:

Craig Murray 

Ex British Ambassador 

Scottish Independence Advocate 

Has noticed the Establishment using the Queen's death as a means of promoting the new (and likely unpopular) Monarch - Charles lll

Cool Observation of Mass Hysteria


When the so-called “Leader of the opposition” opposes protest against a new unelected head of state, out of respect for the previous unelected head of state, you know you live under totalitarianism.

 

Except almost all dictatorships do at least have the form of an election. Indeed, some of the worst dictators in modern history have been genuinely elected, an unfortunate fact we generally prefer to elide.

 

Over a week of mob hysteria in the UK helps us to understand how.

 

The psychological phenomenon of societal emotional spasm is fairly well studied but still not necessarily fully explained. How we get to a stage where, in 2022, newspapers are seriously promoting as miraculous clouds that “look like the Queen”, double rainbows or meteors, is a difficult question.

 

What is not in the doubt is the tendency of deluded mobs to turn on those who do not join in – and the capacity of the unscrupulous to exploit that power.

 

Attempts to intimidate people out of protesting against the monarchy appear broadly to have succeeded. We saw some hideous attacks on free speech over the last week, including people arrested for holding up placards, for peacefully expressing vocal dissent, or even for carrying eggs or blank pieces of paper.

 

A number of figures have stood up to come out arguing for freedom of speech – Andrew Marr, Martin Bell, John Sweeney, David Davis, Joanna Cherry, Michael Russell. These are all figures who broadly represent a liberal consensus in society that seems to have gone. As I know all but one of them, I hope they will forgive me for saying they tend to be slightly passé.

 

Nobody in power, in Westminster or in Scotland, has asserted the importance of freedom of speech, while opposition leader Keir Starmer has done the opposite, emphasising “respect” for authority as more important than freedom of speech, a position taken by anti-democrats everywhere.

 

There are two arguments used against freedom of speech at present:

 

1) We should honour the dead, and respect the sanctity of the mourning period.

 

I do not in general dismiss the value of all societal convention, and I have a certain sympathy for this approach. However, the difficulty is that the accession of a new monarch happens at the moment of death of the old monarch. The latter cannot be used to stifle all protest at the former.

 

The Establishment quite deliberately conflates the two in order to prevent protest. We have the extraordinary and macabre spectacle of the corpse of the late Queen being carted around the country and her coffin put on public display.

 

If people really cared for her, I would have thought it much more respectful to bury her, but the monarchist hysteria has to be dialed up past 11 for the longest possible period, and the excuse for suppressing dissent has to be maintained.

 

Young Rory, who was viciously, physically attacked for heckling sexual abuser Prince Andrew at the Edinburgh procession and then arrested, handcuffed and charged, was widely condemned by the media for disturbing a funeral. But it was not a funeral. That funeral is still not until Monday, when this farce finally ends.

 

The correct word for what we have witnessed so far is not a funeral but a series of bizarre obsequies. The state is demanding that all citizens be obsequious.

 

There is a reason that word has such negative connotations, and if the UK had educated journalists rather than state stenographers they might explore it.

 

So much has been entirely irrational. One moment that stuck in my mind was criticism of Liz Truss for failing to curtsy to the coffin of the Queen when it arrived at RAF Northolt. This was described as “grotesque” – as though curtsying to a corpse were not itself an image straight out of Edgar Allan Poe.

 

The concomitant of stretching out the period before poor Elizabeth is finally put to rest, is to use that period to maximum political advantage for the introduction of the new King, while his mother’s aura still shines.

 

We have the deliberate confusion of the two processes. Both the man in Oxford who merely asked “who elected him?”, and the woman in Edinburgh who held the sign saying “Fuck imperialism, abolish the monarchy”, were at the specific proclamation of the accession of King Charles III – events separate to the obsequies. Yet both were condemned for lack of respect for a dead Queen.

 

We also have the extraordinary spectacle of Charles, immediately after the death of his mother, abandoning his mourning and bottling his grief while shuttling furiously around Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for entirely political events.

 

This did not have to happen. This is absolutely not a tradition. Nothing remotely like it has ever happened before.

 

There was no reason whatsoever why Charles had to visit the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly or the assembly in the north of Ireland, now. This could have waited until after the funeral. He could even have had a week of rest and reflection after the funeral before embarking on a tour of the nations.

 

There was a deliberate decision to hold these political events in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff, aimed at strengthening the monarchy and union, while the corpse was still metaphorically warm, in order to maximise the political bounce for the monarchy from Elizabeth’s death.

 

Part of this calculation was that, if Charles’ first visit as King was after the funeral, there would be political protest at the accession in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, possibly quite substantial.

 

There is absolutely no modern precedent for a royal tour between the death and the funeral of the previous monarch. It is, when you think about it, disrespectful.

 

Edinburgh is explicable in terms of Elizabeth dying in Scotland, but Belfast and Cardiff?

 

Which tells us that “King Charles III” would have still taken advantage of the mourning period to make his power consolidation visit to Edinburgh, no matter where his mother had died.

 

There is nothing more cynical. We are whipped up to observe emotional mourning, while those who you would expect truly to be in mourning are engaged in cold, political calculation.

 

One of the darkly amusing things about the last few days was to witness all of the deluded monarchists on social media excusing Charles’ extraordinary tantrum in Northern Ireland about a pen, on the grounds that he must be exhausted making this tour when his mother had just died.

 

But the answer of course is that he did not have instantly to dash to Northern Ireland at all, leaving behind the rites for his mother. He was doing so for political gain.

 

It is a capricious God who supports a royal family so much he makes clouds in their image and celebrates them in rainbows and comets, yet makes pens leak on them “every stinking time.”

 

2) Protest May Cause a Breach of the Peace

This is a truly sinister argument. What it amounts to is this:

The mob is encouraged to beat up dissidents, so the expression of dissent is illegal.

 

It is quite literal fascism, the exertion of violent force by thugs in the street to quell dissent, with the state backing the thugs and criminalising the dissidents. That is precisely how all fascist regimes operate.

 

It is now being used shamelessly. None of the thugs who attacked Rory in Edinburgh has been charged. Rory has been charged with a breach of the peace.

 

If a breach of the peace is an action likely to provoke disorder, then the persons to be charged should be those who decided to put on display in positions of great honour a man who avoided a trial on sex trafficking by payment of £12 million pounds.

 

One sign of how emboldened the dregs of society are by this period of mob rule, is the quite extraordinary number of people on social media actively defending Prince Andrew, something that was extremely rare before the death of the Queen.

 

On twitter, it is interesting how many of those defending Andrew show the characteristics I identified of British government troll units. These are very low follower numbers for an account claiming to have been in existence at least ten years, and a timeline consisting entirely of retweets.

 

The rehabilitation of Andrew is another of the political purposes to which Elizabeth’s death is being put, to which we are not allowed to object on grounds of “decorum” and “respect”.

 

Now I would not personally have done what Rory did, in the presence of a coffin. But that is a question of etiquette, taste and demeanour, not of the criminal law.

 

Anybody who had been paying attention ought not be surprised that the Scottish prosecutorial service is happily channeling this fascism and people are coming up for trial for breach of the peace, including the young woman who did nothing but hold up a placard at the outdoor, public proclamation ceremony.

 

On Sunday, Police Scotland have banned Yestival, an annual Independence rally in George Square, Glasgow, on the grounds that the Queen’s funeral is on the next day, 400 miles away.

 

The organisers have quietly rescheduled the event, but I shall turn up anyway to bear witness to my beliefs, because I object to being told I may not express my political opinions. I don’t expect there will be more than a dozen of us and nothing in particular is organised to happen – no stage and no microphones. Unless the mere fact of my existence is held by the fascists to be a breach of the peace, I am not sure how it would be illegal. But they may find a way. This is Scotland 2022.

 

In the long term I am not downhearted. Propaganda works, and I have no doubt whatsoever that monarchism and even unionism will get a measurable opinion poll boost from the current shenanigans.

 

But it will not be true that the replacement of a popular monarch by an unpopular one will, in the medium term, strengthen the monarchy. Public and press access will be stifled to suppress awareness of Charles’ appalling high-handedness and temper and the way he treats staff

 

But you can’t make this man popular, and his Queen Consort will be a constant reminder of how he treated his unfortunate first wife.

 

As for the mob hysteria, I am of the generation that was sent to church every Sunday of my childhood. I recall the sermon every Palm Sunday pointing out that the same rapturous crowd that hailed Jesus into Jerusalem, called for his death five days later.

 

All the great religions contain a lot of good sense within their mysticism. 

 

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysStarmer

 

Starmer 'eh? the snidey git who let Loppy Lugs Windsor's mate Jimmy So-Vile walk all those years ago, a labour man who is a 'SIR'? should that be pronounced 'CUR'? it's not hard to see where his loyalties lie, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tinfoil Hat said:

Maybe he thought he'd just check inside to see if she was really there?

 

I don't believe she's in there, she's probably shape shifted like her mother, as David would say the Queen mum hasn't died in like 500 years. I don't reckon any of these shape shifting lizards die, they just become demonized waiting for another body to take over. It's all in their blood, the DNA, the spawn of Satan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Puzzle said:

99% of people fully controlled by technology hence the out pouring of grief who haven't recognised those emotions aren't theirs. The other lot harder to control by technology hence the slight, brief, surprising moments of shedding a tear not knowing where that emotion suddenly came from still not quite recognising that emotion was forced on them but know that something didn't feel right!

 

Don't be fooled into thinking being awake means you're not being controlled too. You just make it harder for them to do it to you.

I like your style, it's true that they TRY to CONTROL US TOO, It reminds me of a thing I read once, 'Just because I'm Paranoid. doesn't mean they aren't out to get me'!🤫 Our advantage is, WE KNOW, and consequently we can be more wary of them, the sleepy ones haven't got a clue and go happily through life with their big T.V.'s, their latest gadgets and 'reality' shows! And dear ALEXA, or her equivilent, just sitting in the corner listening in to their innane drivel as they ponder on who's screwing who in the latest soap etc.🙄1403861412_arryundmeghan.jpg.106f0920573b0a582920cf65a6e23564.jpgThe 'Royals' are really a dodgy and definately devious load of freaks with no empathy or morals whatsoever, I thought I'd just pop in this meme of Meghan and her token wife 'arry as a little extra bonus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Puzzle said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11221997/King-Charles-III-arrives-Met-Polices-special-operations-room.html

 

The royal equivalent of 'crowd surfing'

 

They want to make him look like an idiot, want him to fuck up spectacularly and he's doing a good job already! The pen someone gave him, just in case.....his wrath will spurt forth for that. He may have laughed at the time!

He really doesn't need a dodgy pen to look an idiot, god spoilt a perfect arsehole when he built a tongue in Charles' gob!🤭

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A naughty boy attempted to lift the standard that is draped over the coffin. He got carted off by the plod. Never mind eh? In other news, 'Kate the Great' (copyright the Sun) has stepped up to host world leaders in this harrowing of times. I wonder why the papers still call her Kate Middleton when she now holds the title Princess of Wales. I mean, they didn't refer to Di as Diana Spencer did they? I wonder if it's a hangover from those days and people are unwilling to see anyone other than Diana with that handle. It really is a circus on a par with anything the Emperor Maximus could come up with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SugarRay said:

Do you think he asked them if they came here to see a stiff? 

Screenshot (18).png

Yeah he should know the protocol 

only the elite can get their junk out and only in the secret chambers under Buck palace

and in the presence of captive children“

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, legion said:

It is a capricious God who supports a royal family so much he makes clouds in their image and celebrates them in rainbows and comets, yet makes pens leak on them “every stinking time.”

 

Thanks legion, I enjoyed your writing very much. It's so nice to read some thoughts, rather than the frequent and limited repetition in the media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...