• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Is it time we overthrew the Monarchy?

I've nothing against our monarchy as a whole - as long as they're kept out of the way. You can see why they tend to marry each other though, because it's only when the 'new money' lot get involved that things turn to shit. Look at Diana and Fergie - total hussies, bringing the Royal family into disrepute. Now we've got that Kate woman, just wait until she becomes the cheating whore she's destined to be. For gods sake Harry, marry a Corgi ;)
 
I would have loved to have smoked a cigar with Harry the night Prince George was born. Dropping from third in line to being five or maybe sixth now would have been a massive relief. Now he is free to marry some Jamaican voodoo princess without any interference from the back house of Buckingham.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
so mentioning cultural marxism is all it takes to avoid sanctimonious pathologically-altruistic spacejunk shite?

noted.
Click to expand...
No, the only way to do that is to avoid bluelight.
I was merely judging you for being gullible enough to believe that social marxism bullshit conspiracy theory.
 
born anywhere else but a western liberal freemarket, your skillset would mean fasttrack starvation and/or death by bigot
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
born anywhere else but a western liberal freemarket, your skillset would mean fasttrack starvation and/or death by bigot
Click to expand...
What is my skillset? Do you know what i do for a crust?
Of course you don't - you're a just a presumptuous plonker.
 
no, i dont have a clue who the fuck you are tbh. was referring to jules. you just got in the way, presumptuous plonker
 
maybe if you didn't post in short-attention-span soundbytes that wouldn't happen, mate.
 
I think the Royal Family has more power than people realize, especially from a secret societies perspective. Also, the Queen is still the legal head of state of many countries, including Canada. They say it's all ceremonial, but if that's true then why is our Prime Minister a nobody until the Queen coronates him?

If the democratic institutions collapsed tomorrow, you can bet the Monarchy would resume control, as well as the Vatican.
 
i reckon youd find a way to make a knob of yourself either way, tbh junk. i'll do my best to remember you confuse easily
 
Foreigner said:
I think the Royal Family has more power than people realize, especially from a secret societies perspective. Also, the Queen is still the legal head of state of many countries, including Canada. They say it's all ceremonial, but if that's true then why is our Prime Minister a nobody until the Queen coronates him?

If the democratic institutions collapsed tomorrow, you can bet the Monarchy would resume control, as well as the Vatican.
Click to expand...

This looks like a fine oppotunity for me to start in about Canada again, huh?

Instead I'll just link to my royal paedophiles thread, I'm often in there updating shit. There's plenty in there about the Canadian Residential Schools aka Christian Death Camps, that were overseen by her majesty as they sought to murder & disappear 50 000 Canadian Children. Not even the Nazi genocide targetted children! The queen herself is accused by a Residential schools survivor of abducting his classmates in 1964 during a state visit to Canada. Google William Coombes or check out - http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...children-Maloney-outs-Prince-Charles-Dunblane

Our Prime Minister is related to the queen.

It was through this union that Cameron was related to the Royal Family, he is fifth cousin once removed (by illegitimacy) of Queen Elizabeth II.
Click to expand...

from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_David_Cameron
 
Last edited:
BlindHelperMonkey said:
born anywhere else but a western liberal freemarket, your skillset would mean fasttrack starvation and/or death by bigot
Click to expand...
Born a ywhere else, I most probably would have acquired a different skillset, so I'm not sure what point you thought younwere trying to make.
 
I agree with you julie that it's more the high up civil service who 'run' the country than the monarchy or 'government' - part of that nebulous thing called the establishment (class interest in action). This is more of an open conspiracy, allowing the great and good to be the real power behind the throne/government, dating back to the 'glorious revoultion' (ie the one that wasn't a revolution).

Like how the elected politician comes up with an idea and then the sir humphreys go off and do their thing and come back with three anodyne options for the minister to choose from. The high up civil service can be relied on to keep the 'national interest' in mind rather than any johhny-come-lately representsation of the unwashed masses - the national interest translates as keeping the system which is doing so well for the upper crust, ticking along nicely (cosa nostra). That so many high up civil servants are also masons i'd say is correlative with their class position rather than causative; the upper echelons of the civil service are filled up with 'good sorts' given positions with good old fashioned patronage that has more place in a fedual society than the modern day - this sort of patronage is also alive and well in the revolving door between the civil service/government and corporations.

As i said the monarchy is largely symbolic, but it's symbolic of dirty reality that's alive and well - it's no good getting rid of the monarchy if you leave the rest of the power structures in place. The monarcy was made as symbolic as it is for that very reason; so if the worst came to the worst, they could throw another monarch to the wolves to save the rest of the system (this is similar to cecil rhodes' idea to transform the british empire into a hidden banking empire (round table, yadda yadda)).

Spacejunk: i think it's funny - you come across conversations on the interweb where people (not just americans) are waffling on into an echo chamber about cultursal marxism, and yet when you try and engage them and discuss gramsci or adorno, they clam up or just hurl insults - it's almost as if the rush limbaugh primer on contemporary marxism isn't up to muster ;) (next up, "tavistock invented the beatles!").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top