Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

mike · 05-08-2009, 06:59 AM

History is a cyclic poem written by time upon the memories of man.
- Percy Bysshe Shelley

A gloomy and muggy summer weighs Great Britain down, punctuated by frequent and turbulent rain storms. Our weather seems appropriate, as the menacing clouds of a great and terrifying international storm gather around us. Can this be how our forbears felt when confronted with the horrific calamities of their times, a “war to end all wars” of death and carnage on a scale undreamed before?

If we are to believe the puerile media, a great recovery is “just around the corner”. The credulous and statistically inclined might just be fooled by such talk, if they were to base their perception of economic prosperity on the stock markets, which are just now rebounding with a perplexing vigour that belies the stark reality of the physical economic breakdown crisis that is now gathering speed, behind the charts and graphs of the perennial merchants of economic mumbo jumbo. But despite such frantic and misplaced optimism, productive jobs continue to be lost at an alarming rate, with wages and working conditions marching briskly along behind them, to the extent that even the largely toothless British Unions are beginning to stand up for their members and demand industrial action. As the famous adage goes, “there are lies, damned lies, and then, there are statistics”.

Read the rest of the article.

Revolution Harry · 05-08-2009, 09:04 PM

".. the great mothership of global usury"

A fantastic line. I've watched Lyndon LaRouche speeches on video recently and he certainly seems to be the only American politician speaking sense on this issue. According to his site the crash is almost imminent. It almost takes my breath away when considering the staggering level of evil on display with this act of financial destruction. I may previously have scoffed when people used the word Satanic to describe the people involved. Not any more.

I took some time out to make an attempt to grasp the basics of banking and the monetary system and decided to try and write the script for a short film on the subject. Unfortunately it's turned out far too long to do a video on my non-existent budget. I'll post it on a separate thread in the hope that anyone with a greater understanding can review and either explain where I've made any mistakes or missed out any pertinent details. Even better if someone can come up with a shorter version I could still attempt a short viral video that may help raise awareness.

Back on the subject of Lyndon LaRouche I see his latest webcast (which I plan to watch later) is entitled 'the Fall of the House of Windsor'. I can't help remembering John Harris in his 'State of the Nation 2' speech talking about how we need to protect the Queen. His opinion being that all the negative stuff that's been written about here is part of a conspiracy to destroy the sovereign and that if she goes it's 'game over'. Well, who to believe? LaRouche or John Harris. I'm afraid that even if I take the middle ground, as expressed on here, that the Queen is largely in the dark over what's happening and that the major players are the Royal males, I still can't see a future for the Monarchy. How does this play in terms of the BCG's vision?

For anyone who's interested I've just posted my essay on a new thread called 'the Great Banking Swindle'.

mike · 06-08-2009, 06:45 AM

(05-08-2009 09:04 PM)Revolution Harry Wrote: Back on the subject of Lyndon LaRouche I see his latest webcast (which I plan to watch later) is entitled 'the Fall of the House of Windsor'. I can't help remembering John Harris in his 'State of the Nation 2' speech talking about how we need to protect the Queen. His opinion being that all the negative stuff that's been written about here is part of a conspiracy to destroy the sovereign and that if she goes it's 'game over'. Well, who to believe? LaRouche or John Harris. I'm afraid that even if I take the middle ground, as expressed on here, that the Queen is largely in the dark over what's happening and that the major players are the Royal males, I still can't see a future for the Monarchy. How does this play in terms of the BCG's vision?
For anyone who's interested I've just posted my essay on a new thread called 'the Great Banking Swindle'.

Believe both, in a sense.

I don't agree that we should support the Queen. We should deselect her, just as we have others. We should support the Monarchy. In fact, we must, because it is the Monarchy which is the other party to the constitutional contract. If we don't fight for that institution, we will end up with Brown's new "Bill of Rights" - written by politicians, for politicians, suspendable on a whim, and containing more on people's obligations, rather than their rights.

We should deselect the Queen - she and her brood are as corrupt as they come, and quite possibly Satanic. Certainly Philip's desire to be reincarnated as a virus is Satanic, and is clearly expressed in the policies of his WWF.

LaRouche is quite rightly pointing out the House of Windsor's role in global organised crime. They bring shame on this country, in my opinion.

John Morton · 06-08-2009, 11:50 AM

I think Mike has answered the question with sufficient clarity.

My personal opinion, outside of the constitutional implications of it, is that the concept of Monarchy is a relic of history and should be consigned to history.

It is time Great Britain grew up and learned from our cousins in America. Why can we not have a presidential system and Republican institutions, as they do?

Why should we be forced to tolerate a bunch of inbreeds who cling to their power jealously without heed to the suffering of billions of people on this planet who are falling under the control of their demonic policies.

Sadly, absent a political revolution, which MUST come on the heels of a true Renaissance of culture, we will get only worse evils if we tamper with the structure of our constitution in a crisis as grave as the one we have today.

For all the evils of Monarchy, I do not doubt that they will, in the end, resist an absolute tyrrany of the Parliamentary government, if sufficient numbers of British people stand up and say "ENOUGH!" at one time.

John has personal reasons to love and revere our Queen, but I have no such feelings for the Windsor family and would replace them all in a heartbeat, if better representatives of the British people, who have 21st century ideas for our nation and world, were available to take their place.

Martin Edwards · 06-08-2009, 06:14 PM

A well crafted and thought provoking article which triggered another sleepless night.

Revolution Harry · 06-08-2009, 08:37 PM

(06-08-2009 06:45 AM)mike Wrote:
(05-08-2009 09:04 PM)Revolution Harry Wrote: Back on the subject of Lyndon LaRouche I see his latest webcast (which I plan to watch later) is entitled 'the Fall of the House of Windsor'. I can't help remembering John Harris in his 'State of the Nation 2' speech talking about how we need to protect the Queen. His opinion being that all the negative stuff that's been written about here is part of a conspiracy to destroy the sovereign and that if she goes it's 'game over'. Well, who to believe? LaRouche or John Harris. I'm afraid that even if I take the middle ground, as expressed on here, that the Queen is largely in the dark over what's happening and that the major players are the Royal males, I still can't see a future for the Monarchy. How does this play in terms of the BCG's vision?
For anyone who's interested I've just posted my essay on a new thread called 'the Great Banking Swindle'.

Believe both, in a sense.

I don't agree that we should support the Queen. We should deselect her, just as we have others. We should support the Monarchy. In fact, we must, because it is the Monarchy which is the other party to the constitutional contract. If we don't fight for that institution, we will end up with Brown's new "Bill of Rights" - written by politicians, for politicians, suspendable on a whim, and containing more on people's obligations, rather than their rights.

We should deselect the Queen - she and her brood are as corrupt as they come, and quite possibly Satanic. Certainly Philip's desire to be reincarnated as a virus is Satanic, and is clearly expressed in the policies of his WWF.

LaRouche is quite rightly pointing out the House of Windsor's role in global organised crime. They bring shame on this country, in my opinion.

If we support the monarchy but deselect the Queen and her brood then who, in your scenario, would become the new monarch? Some other branch of the bloodline, possibly from Europe? It's difficult to see who that might be. Skip a generation and go straight to William? We've no idea how far down the route to indoctrination into the 'Windsor' system he's already gone. Would he really be any better? He'd also be a figure head around which the forces that have enslaved us may try to regroup.

I think it is time to 'grow up' and move to system without a monarchy.

mike · 07-08-2009, 10:35 AM

(06-08-2009 08:37 PM)Revolution Harry Wrote: If we support the monarchy but deselect the Queen and her brood then who, in your scenario, would become the new monarch? Some other branch of the bloodline, possibly from Europe? It's difficult to see who that might be. Skip a generation and go straight to William? We've no idea how far down the route to indoctrination into the 'Windsor' system he's already gone. Would he really be any better? He'd also be a figure head around which the forces that have enslaved us may try to regroup.

I think it is time to 'grow up' and move to system without a monarchy.

Well, that might ultimately be what happens. But that would cause a constitutional crisis of such proportions that its unlikely you could avoid a civil war. One step at a time and all that.

There is no requirement whatsoever to select a monarch from "the bloodline." The monarch is who we choose it to be. But in any case, whoever it is, the point is made - do what we say, or you're out. No more bended knee. That's for history. Just do your job.

~~Robert~~ · 07-08-2009, 07:50 PM

I have read there is a plan to restore the Stuart dynasty to rule over the UK. After the EU takes over, of course ! And I think this is very likely. History suggests this may well happen.

I agree that it's time to grow up and move to a system without a monarchy. Goodness ! If we can't even do this what sort of nation are we ?

mike · 08-08-2009, 08:22 AM

(07-08-2009 07:50 PM)Robert Wrote: I agree that it's time to grow up and move to a system without a monarchy. Goodness ! If we can't even do this what sort of nation are we ?

We're a nation with a long history - one that most people will be reluctant to let go, even when its not too good for them. As a first step, we can get things working with what we've got, and so for me, getting rid of the Bank of England is a much higher priority than the Monarchy.

Vortigern · 08-08-2009, 02:31 PM

(06-08-2009 11:50 AM)John Morton Wrote: Why can we not have a presidential system and Republican institutions?

That what you're getting - it's called the EU.