Home | About | Donate

Labour Party's Leaked Draft Manifesto Reveals Plan to 'Transform' UK

Yunzer –

The Monarchy operates in secret as does our US government and CIA and other intelligence
agencies which reign over us today in the US as dictatorships.

And, as far as I am aware, most of the world understands the assassination of Princess Diana
and likely under direction of Prince Phillip who seems to be in charge of “wet works” in UK.

In fact, we are not talking about systems, we are really talking about our impressions of these
systems versus what is actually happening behind the scenes.

(However, the idea of anyone being raised to the level of “Royals” reigning superior over a
people is quite a different concept in itself to be accepted.)

All over the world we see right wing corruption of our governments and movement to NWO,
which was the ideal of Elites/Wealthy in their establishing Hitler’s rise and the Third Reich.

Jamaica – is it not a center for money laundering?

Certainly the US is deeply involved with protecting our large banks and their money laundering
and with drug trafficking which profits Elites and always has. And, this of course involves our

We have here in the US been voting on hack-able electronic computers over the last 50 years
which immediately began to deliver very odd and unbelievable results. Likely there was never
a Nixon “Southern Strategy” except as a cover for what these hack-able computers were
saying were results of our elections.

When it comes to ancestry, let’s also recall ancient history which shows that those who became
“Royals” arrived from the stars. These and many other subjects have to come into our view and
be dealt with. Subjects like trafficking in humans/children all over the world and pedophile rings.

The question is why wouldn’t he have been free to walk out of the palace?

This is an escape.

And evidently not the first time that young males have been found fleeing
on the grounds of Buckingham Palace.

Despite “Downtown Abbey” and other blessings bestowed on the British Monarchy by our PBS,
which seems obsessed by the British Monarchy …all is not what it seems.
And certainly any poll would show the likelihood that Princess Diana was murdered by the
instructions of the Crown.
And, certainly also it would seem that Prince Phillip is in charge of such matters.

Are you saying that the wealth of the UK and it’s people doesn’t support the Royals?

And, again, since most of our governments today operate in secrecy – and obviously Princess
Diana knew many of their secrets – it is impossible to say what their influence is on government.

After the coup on JFK and our people’s government …

Europeans observed that “Liberals and progressives have an odd way of being eliminated or
assassinated in the US.”

And that’s still true today – but even truer is the reality that the right wing has in that time risen
to take full control and power over our government. And not just in the US.
What we are seeing is the Rise of the Fourth Reich and its dream of a NWO.

That’s a semantic chicken or egg thing, the word Royal came to mean supreme because it reflected a traditionally understood hierachical situation of old, as in '‘we were royally screwed’ etc. Just like the word ‘astronomical’ as in ‘the costs were astronomical’ has nothing to do with actual astronomy but is just a reflective of something very high. Surely you can see that? The way people deal with royals is no different from how people (especially in the highly fawning USA) deal with celebrities in general. At least people here don’t scream and whoop at them, like you do to your president or even Kim Kardasian. It’s frightening to observe the US attitude to the president; you treat him/her like royalty which really dangerous, almost nazi, because he has actual political power whereas the European monarchs do not. They are like an ‘earthed polarity,’ a safety valve, for all those feelings of patriotism, nationalism and fervour making it go nowhere, to a dud, and in the meantime we treat our politicians who have the real power like the public servants they actually are. The US system is quasi-nazi, some of Trump’s rallies resembled the Nuremburg rallies in their absurd fervour over what is basically just a nasty little man and a public servant. No one bows down to Royals unless they do so out of courtesy and protocol but no one can be forced to, and very few people actually feel like that in themselves. There are many similar protocols in every country around the world from saluting a flag or using the word ‘sir’, you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to. Many people round the world live in similar opulence to monarchs (I mean look at Trumps big white house! or Madonnas) but does that make you feel you should bow down to them?

Of course there is no election for Royals, just as there is no election for the Statue of Liberty or other nationally historic/cultural institutions, but, whether you want to accept it or not, opinion polls show there is strong support for them in the UK populace.

Well, in that table of happiness report quality of media (freedom from propaganda) was included and also in tables measuring the honesty and openess and impartiality of the media the same countries, Sweden, Denmark etc, also score highly, so their populations are the most well-informed in that respect.

No, I’m not impressed by the ‘pedigree’ of the Royals at all, after all they are just basically ancestors of those who had the biggest clubs and most psychopathic dispostion like most things in human society; I am though impressed by historical heritage, I’m impressed by Stonehenge which is 4000 years old and still around, impressed by the Great Pyramids, impressed by in the oldest pub in the UK, opened in the 9th century, when I had a drink in it. Doesn’t that stuff impress you? If not, why do tons of American tourists come here to lap it up and take pictures of it? Well, they changed their name to Windsor because, well we were at war with Germany at the time and they were bombing the shit out of us, so it might not have been a good PR move or helped the nation’s morale to not do so. A bit like the US suddenly eating ‘freedom fries.’

As for the stuff about paedophile rings and royals coming from the stars and similar comments you make in this and other posts, well sorry, but if you want to believe that kind of twilight zone, radio rental stuff then it’s up to you, but personally I can’t be spending my time debating about it. It’s like trying to persuade someone that Hilary Clinton isn’t a robot.

Hob –

The very notion of “Royal” suggests a superiority and certainly the life style and trappings suggest the same Including the need to bow before "Royals.

Are you trying to suggest that you exist on the same hierarchal level as the Royals?
Or that most in the UK do?

Even at the time of Charles’ divorce from Diana, there seemed to be someone standing by to put the
toothpaste on his toothbrush.

And here, once again, we see this notion of their being “divine” – from the “gods” if not of the “gods.”

But it stems from a time when monarchs were accorded an almost divine status and had to be treated accordingly.

“From medieval times, monarchs were divinely appointed to rule by God, so they were kind of seen as gods, so they demanded to be treated as gods,” says Dr Kate Williams, a historian at London’s Royal Holloway university.<

Certainly the majority of citizens in the UK supported Princess Diana but I’m not sure the same can be said for the rest of the “Royals.”

And you’re comparing the “Royals” to the Statue of Liberty?

Again, our governments operate in secrecy so there is no way of knowing what any of these officials
are doing, including the “Royals.”

Democracy works when there is an informed citizenry which is rare to find these days.

The truth of governments is rare to find these days because they operate in secrecy.
Or, under the watchful eye of NSA and other intelligence agencies spying on all of us.
And you have only to look at the fall of your own BBC to realize what has happened to
your own free press.
See: Operation Mockingbird which was being drafted 2 years before the end of WWII.

You’re very involved and impressed with the pedigree of the “Royals,” it seems, which you seem to be implying qualifies them in some way for leadership by breeding

Stonehenge? https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/12/330623.html?c=on

And what was discovered and hidden and perhaps taken from the Great Pyramids that is also secret?

We no longer here in the US have “presidents” any more than Hitler was a legitimate leader of Germany.

We have criminals leading our nation and our MIC.

British Elites came very close to Nazism with King Edward which is the more likely reason why he was
forced to resign.

Again, “Royalty” is a political system and (again) you have no idea what power they have because you have no
way of knowing that.

No one but “Royals” live like Royals and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Trying to deny those realities is foolish and self-defeating.

Unfortunately, news of pedophile rings around the world from Australia to Norway, from Belgium to UK –
Ireland and many other nations cannot be denied and in every instance there are questions about involvement
of “Royals” and certainly also of Church. Again, it would be foolish to try to deny that.

And if you’re familiar with MKULTRA, Hillary may simply be a CIA “robot” or otherwise called “Manchurian Candidate.”


The point here was supposed to be that the Whitlam coup wouldn’t have been possible without the Queen’s Governor General. If people are happy with monarchs and their representatives interfering with their democracy, who am I to argue?

1 Like

If you feel such a need to bow and grovel in front of a Royal that’s up to you, but I don’t feel any such need and I don’t know anyone else who does, they’re just people like you and me.

Are you suggesting your on the same hierarchical level as the President of the USA or that there is no hierarchy in the USA and everyone is equal? You make a false equivalnce, hierarchy and wealth disparity exists in every country, more so in republics (looking at the previous happiness index of countries) and in America it’s worse than in most of other countries with your 0.01% or whatever the figure is, owning more than the bulk of the rest put together.

Well, we’re not in mediavel times in case you haven’t noticed, so nobody believes that royals are gods anymore or appointed by God, in fact in the UK, hardly anyone even believes in God, unlike the superstitious brainwashed USA.

Yeh, meaning she is a cultural historical institution that wields no power, but serves a nationally iconic, symbolic purpose in that respect, the only difference being she is a momument that happens to also be a living person.

No, I’m not, I’ve already explained that once. Why you no listen? If you think I’m implying they are bred for leadership you are misreading me. They have no leadership, they just have a ceremonial office, which is also a celebration of 1000 years of national history. Personally, I don’t believe anyone is bred for leadership, ‘don’t follow leaders’ as Dylan once advised. It sounds like it may possibly be you who is impressed by ‘pedigree,’ whatever that is, I thought it was confined to dogs myself, for you seem very pre-occupied with it. To me it doesn’t even exist.

As for all the other stuff , as said, Ms. Greenwich, I really can’t debate that. Your news links seem well a bit off-the-scale crank magnets to me. Ok, so Hilary is a robot after all. Good, let’s hope someone is regularly oiling her so she don’t get too rusty. :slight_smile:

"They like people to curtsy . . . .
but you’re always told at royal briefings that it’s up to you.

Of course I feel no need to bow to anyone, nor crown anyone with bejeweled headwear,
as you well know.

Of course your posts are disingenuous, but I replied to you none the less letting your posts ripen a bit here.

Like this comment: The way people deal with royals is no different from how people (especially in the highly fawning USA) deal with celebrities in general.

Comparing “Royals” to American celebrities?

Sadly, disingenuous.

Try that with someone else.

My posts are not remotely ‘disingenuous.’ That’s not in my character. I said the things I said because it’s obvious to me it is the case., I thought, they would be to you or anyone of reason too, Perhaps you are being disingenuous with yourself because you refuse to consider any explanation that contradicts your _a prior_i point of view.

Yes, because it is the same human instincts driving both behaviours and that’s what is key in this comparison, in that you implied people doing that to Royals was somehow something unique not prevalant anywhere else, when in reality it is as old as humanity itself. Americans seem particulary prone to this celebrity fawning treating them like plastic royalty, it’s difficult to watch, screaming at them, queuing outside theatres to catch glimpes at them, having photos taken with them, asking for autographs, cheering their every utterance, obsessing over their lives; it seems pathetic and self-demaning to me, I wouldn’t do it myself especially not to Royalty, but a large swathe of humanity seems to have a need for it, sad though that is and have the need to read articles about the royal babies or Michelle Obama’s antics or Madonna’s lifestyle and other shit like that, and in that respect that fawning is no different whether the targeted celebrity is an elected President, a pop star, or a Royal. Why criticise one and not the other? The danger in the US and republics though, is this fawning get’s directed at people with REAL political power, like presidents. Not good, not good at all. Surely you can see that? Or are you happy with the antics at Trump rallies?

Presumably you also saw the turn out for Princess Diana as just more celebrity adoration?

There is no comparison between “Royals” and US celebrities –
What is the worth $$$ of the British Crown?

Predominantly, yes. In fact Diana is a classic case of how it is the same as the insticts that follow celebrity. I mean, if she had not been reasonably pretty, media personable, had good image PR, young, confessional, slightly glamourous and media savvy, but obese and ugly and less glamorous would there have been the same turnout? Would there have been the same turnout for another Royal? No. Yet, if it had been just about royalty, sans celebrity, then there would have been the same turnout for any of them, yet this was obviously not the case. Plus there was similar attitudes shown all over the world, including in the US so by your argument that would imply these other countries are also subject to royalty and inclined to bow down to them, would it not? Proof, then, that it’s celebrity.

Well, the Queen doesn’t even come in the top 400 list of the world’s richest people, unlike, say, Oprah Winfrey or Donald Trump who do. So does that answer the question? In fact, most of the top ten billionaires are Americans, so what does that say about equality in a republic? Not so many from Monarchies, although probably a few like Branson or the guy who owns IKEA. But to focus on this is to digress as you were making the point, specifically, originally, that Royalty inspires a fawning that doesn’t exist in other societies and I was simply arguing that it exists everywhere such as in relation to celebrities and even politcians and also, now were on the subject rich people, in the US.

Incidentally, if you study history you’ll find British Royals have often been obliged to borrow money off rich citizens, even in the far off days when monarchs had real dictatorial power, because they weren’t as well off as you imagine.

Sorry – “disingenuous” continues to apply.

I see, your arguments destroyed so you resort to lashing out with an insult. Well done! There’s nothing ‘disginenuous’ in my points, or in my character, they’re as clear as day to me and seemingly can’t be refuted by any reasoned argument in that you haven’t prpoduced any. Moreover, it’s rich coming from someone whose referred news sources are crank sites where being ‘disingenous’ is the raison d’etre.

Hob –

Of course your replies are disingenuous as anyone reading them will readily see.

Pedophilia across the globe is not “crank news” but the reality of today’s world and whether we
are talking about Belgium or the UK certainly there is involvement of “Royalty” and “Church”
always mentioned.

As for the wealth of the Queen/“Royals” . . . .

Who owns the world?

The Queen, the family of the actress Nicole Kidman, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and the media tyco

The world’s primary feudal landowner is Queen Elizabeth II. She is Queen of 32 countries, head of a Commonwealth of 54 countries in which a quarter of the world’s population lives, and legal owner of about 6.6 billion acres of land, one-sixth of the earth’s land surface. Her position is a relic of the last and largest land empire in history, rumours of whose demise would appear to be somewhat premature based on her position and possessions. But her power is real, or at least legally real, and it derives from a tradition based on a specific and unbalanced relationship between rulers and the ruled.



I disagree. Yet your replies are cranky pseudo-news as anyone reading them can readily see. They’re bordeline mentally ill, paranoid delusional. You’ll be telling me next the Royal family are lizards from outer space.

Pedophilia across the globe isn’t “crank news” I agree, but linking to the silly prankish photo you did and claiming that is evidence the Royal family are all paedophiles certainly is. And, yes, there’s real evidence for it in the church, and people have been prosecuted on the basis of it, but there’s none that there’s a global ring of Royal paedophiles, that’s just as DJT would say, Fake news. And mixing church with royals in your response hoping the truth for the former would give weight to your theory of the truth of the latter is, well, as you would say, disingenuous.

And talking of being disingenuous (your favourite word it seems) these latest links you chose, are certainly full of that, deliberately choosing to obfuscate by confusing ‘the Crown’ with the monarch personally, yet knowing full well (I suspect) that the Queen has little or no control of most aspects of The Crown’ which is the general title of The State within monarchies. It’s like saying the US President owns everything that the US government owns, all the land etc. Even court cases in monarchies are ‘the Crown/Queen versus…’ yet it doesn’t mean it’s her personal project to prosecute someone for drink driving or whatever. The roads are called ‘Her Majesty’s Highways’, the army and navy, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, etc, , the tax office Her Majesty’s Revenues and customs,’ yet she doesn’t collect the money, the government does. It’s because she is the head of state, nothing more. The Crown Estate is not the private property of the Monarch, she can’t sell it and revenue from it goes to the government, the state. Are you seriously suggesting, as this article does, that the Queen personally owns all the land in Canada? Wonder what Canadians think of that? It’s absurd. Archaic titles for things do not reflect the practical reality. To not admit that is to be yourself disingenuous. You’re either really scraping the barrel or just totally devoid of understanding what political history and structure and life in the UK and other monarchies like Sweden, Demark, Norway, Japan, etc, is like. Incidentally, you never answered why these countries who are monarchies score highest in quality of life, freedom for citizens, freedom for press, human rights, tolerance, happiness, social equality, etc, whereas republics come at the bottom, and the US quite a way down the list, if monarchies are so bad as you claim? Instead you carefully avoided it as something inconvenient, a piece of real tangible proof, you didn’t want to face or address. Such evasion is, what’s the word again… oh yeh, disingenuous.

So tell me the answer then Greenwich. I’d like to hear it?

Tell me also the other point you sneakily avoided, why it is that polls suggest people living in monarchies generally approve of them and don’t want to lose them?

Nor did you address the notion, presented, that it is good for nationalism to be focused on a monarch rather than a politician like a president as the monarch has no power thereby avoiding demagoguery and how in monarchies, politicians are reduced to being mere public servants.

Instead you chose to deflect from these real pertinent rational arguments to stuff about paedophiles, stonehenge being built in the 1920’s and aliens, other unproven conspiracy theories and how much money the Queen may have.

As said before, wealth is irrelevant anyway, that wan’t the issue, you’re deliberatley sidetracking as with other subjects. To recap (I’m losing track myself by now) you originally claimed we people here in monarchies all are somehow servile and feel the need to bow down to the monarch etc and, as I tried to explain, this is simply nonesense. I don’t feel like that and nobody I know feels like that. There may be the odd nutjob who does but that’s an anomaly. The Royals are merely a living focus for nationalist sentiments and are also regarded by many people, (usually women) in the same way as they regard other celebrities, or ‘high society’ (whatever that is) an amalgamation of the two. This latter aspect can be found even in people outside the monarchy, like the US, whose citzens are also often found queuing up outside Buckinghamn palace or royal events or taking a fawning, starry-eyed interest (as they do with all celebs) and you, again evasively, failed the explain why that is the case if there is no celebrity element as you maintain. Again evasively disingenuous. The US isn’t a monarchy, is it?

So over to you. I look forward to you being the one obliged to answer the questions for a change and hopefully not via links to news sources about how shed lizard skin has been found in Buckingham Palace, but via proper explained, rational arguments.