Death of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh at 99 years of age.

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Also I was reading certain things about royal family, some people here seems to have different opinions, I am not sure what exactly is the truth, I did not spend time with the queen personally to see what she really does

If you are really sincerely interested in the truth then you know that many conspiracy theories surrounding the royal family are not true. Most likely, the Queen has done her duty to the best of her ability and knowledge. Often we cannot expect more from people. It is something to look up to.

The fact that some continue to dismiss this and instead try to convince others that she is inherently evil, despite the lack of evidence shows that they may not be genuinely interested in the truth. When that is the case these people often have other motives. Even if they are not aware of it.

It is understandable that people sometimes need time to accept truths that clash with what they thought was true. In such situations, it is better to take a step back and listen to what others have to say.
 
Last edited:

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Also I was reading certain things about royal family, some people here seems to have different opinions, I am not sure what exactly is the truth, I did not spend time with the queen personally to see what she really does. So I do not want to put labels on her or to insult her or members of the royal family. Also, yes I maybe and probably have lack of knowledge if I compare myself to you Laura, in certain areas of course. But again I want to learn and I want to stay humble and look on the the things from bird perspective so to say.

You don't necessarily have to spend time with the Queen or her family personally, you only have to be educated about how to see the unseen, or how to read between the lines, and how to pick up clues by close and careful examination of what is available in the form of data.

I have experienced firsthand being lied about, defamed, slandered, libeled, threatened, stalked, my family and friends attacked and threatened, and so on. As I noted elsewhere a very early version of the libtard approach to reality was dealt to me and mine, and my work, and I think many of us learned a great deal from that experience. All during that time, the truth of who I am and what I am and what I work to accomplish was easily available to any of the defamers, but they chose to believe the lies and not the words of persons with first-hand knowledge. Thanks to that series of events, which transpired over years and nearly put me in an early grave, I launched into an in-depth study of psychopathology the result of which was knowledge that we have widely shared over the years and which is even now becoming ever more needed and popular among those searching for answers. And another thing that many of us took away from that experience was an ability to "smell" when a similar thing was being done to another person. The instant you catch a whiff of that, you need to stop and think, go back to the beginning, and examine everything you have read, seen, heard or thought about a given situation.

Now, let me be clear here since some people need whacks on the head to get them to pay real attention to the written word. At the beginning of this kerfuffle, I wrote that "I think that the Queen is a good person within the parameters of her knowledge and experience." I wasn't making some kind of claim about her being a grand "STO" being (a term that gets used rather loosely and inaccurately around here sometimes). She isn't perfect; nobody is. Phillip was a curmudgeon, and probably a bit of a rake on the side, but in general, he did his duty and kept his word. I've known men like him and they often put their foot in their mouths but do not mean anything evil by it. But way more is made of his remarks that are off-the-cuff and out-of-line than they actually deserve. Let me give you an example: I once joked that "well, we aren't going to get out of this life alive..." followed by some silly remark, and my attackers had a field day claiming that I was leading a suicide cult! I mean, how obvious is it that none of us is going to get out of this life alive, which was my joke??!!

Prince Charles (I prefer to call him "Chuckie" with pejorative intent) is a kind of hypocritical slimeball. I'm pretty sure if he lives long enough to become king, the monarchy will be ended with him. He's just not likeable and I perceive that his "good works" are more show than substance.

Prince William is a decent kid (well, man, now) and his heart is in the right place. His wife normalized him a great deal and his suffering at his mother's death gave him depth.

Prince Harry is a psychological mess in the clutches of a nasty woman. 'Nuff said.

Most of the rest of the so-called royals, are no better than they ought to be, as the saying goes. It's a class of people that live on State Welfare and they all need to get a job and do something useful with their lives. (Some of them are actually doing that.)

As for the monarchy itself, it should have been done away with when Edward VII abdicated, if not before that. It's a ridiculous, archaic institution. On the other hand, it does do a great deal in the way of sponsoring charitable works. The USA has Hollywood and that mess of psychological deviants there that pose as American Royalty. They do precious little (with some exceptions) in the way of charitable works. So it could be said that the UK monarchy is something like a lodestone for good works even if there is corruption here and there as there is in ANY institution that has been around for awhile and operates with a bureaucracy. Just read Ponerology for details of how that happens.

Having said that, even with the charitable works, the monarchy costs way more than it is worth.

But human nature is funny (peculiar); in France, they killed off most of their nobility and royals, but they are the most avid royal watchers in the world.

Getting back to the Queen, she's an inter-generational anachronism, one of the few British monarchs who actually was/is a decent person trying to do a difficult job in the best way she can, under very trying circumstances. I really think the whole institution should end with her. She's been a class act from the beginning, and the mic needs to drop when she leaves the stage.
 

irjO

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I must admit that this debate teach us something that we (even having gain some sort of knowledge over the years interacting in the forum) may fall in the ignorance one way or another, the subject about the royal family like many many other subjects are not to be seeing in a black and white way. Thus many have shown a black or white thinking on this matter, first of all, as mentioned before in this thread is not the Queen's fault to be born in a royal family. Imagine having a life where since you were born you are going to be controlled to act in a certain way, being observed by millions of people any time that you are out doing whatever activity you will be doing, to try not ''to make mistakes'' etc. At least she got to have a good marriage (at least that's what it looked like) it even could have been the only good thing this woman had in her life and now that's gone. Now, THIS doesn't mean that monarchy is all good, or that all royals are good, or people who really manage the monarchy from behind the scene have really good intentions. Perhaps yes, the Queen and her family are a tool being used for distractions or other things, but also in difficult times helped people to have hope in the past much like the church, is the church good? most likely no, is the people behind the church good? many of them certainly not. Is the pope a good person? so far he seems to be good person, but again the pope is not a person who really has 100% the control over the church. So, its not white and black thinking like all of things.

Edit: corrections.
 
You don't necessarily have to spend time with the Queen or her family personally, you only have to be educated about how to see the unseen, or how to read between the lines, and how to pick up clues by close and careful examination of what is available in the form of data.

I have experienced firsthand being lied about, defamed, slandered, libeled, threatened, stalked, my family and friends attacked and threatened, and so on. As I noted elsewhere a very early version of the libtard approach to reality was dealt to me and mine, and my work, and I think many of us learned a great deal from that experience. All during that time, the truth of who I am and what I am and what I work to accomplish was easily available to any of the defamers, but they chose to believe the lies and not the words of persons with first-hand knowledge. Thanks to that series of events, which transpired over years and nearly put me in an early grave, I launched into an in-depth study of psychopathology the result of which was knowledge that we have widely shared over the years and which is even now becoming ever more needed and popular among those searching for answers. And another thing that many of us took away from that experience was an ability to "smell" when a similar thing was being done to another person. The instant you catch a whiff of that, you need to stop and think, go back to the beginning, and examine everything you have read, seen, heard or thought about a given situation.

Firstly, thank you for the answer. I understand dangers of lies, slander and defamation without proof and I am trying not to be like that (to slander or defame) so I did not say that Windsors are shape-shifting elephants or whatever. I am sorry for the problems that you have encountered.

Now, let me be clear here since some people need whacks on the head to get them to pay real attention to the written word. At the beginning of this kerfuffle, I wrote that "I think that the Queen is a good person within the parameters of her knowledge and experience." I wasn't making some kind of claim about her being a grand "STO" being (a term that gets used rather loosely and inaccurately around here sometimes). She isn't perfect; nobody is.
I understand what you wrote and I did not think that you were making claim about her being a grand STO being. But after all how do you know what is really her knowledge and experience ?

Let me give you an example: I once joked that "well, we aren't going to get out of this life alive..." followed by some silly remark, and my attackers had a field day claiming that I was leading a suicide cult! I mean, how obvious is it that none of us is going to get out of this life alive, which was my joke??!!

That is just silly, to be attacked for something like that, anyway you do not have to keep your attention on such people too much.
If they did not understand it was a joke, you can say it was a joke if they keep attacking you can just close your attention window.

As for the monarchy itself, it should have been done away with when Edward VII abdicated, if not before that. It's a ridiculous, archaic institution.
I may agree with this, but what when you have a democracy like in USA when you get stolen elections.

Also, I am thankful for what you wrote for the Royals individually but even what you wrote about the members of the Royal Family will probably not make me think 100% that they are exactly as you wrote or similar to that. They may be better or worse. I did not follow them too much, they were just not too much interesting. But it is nice to know what you think about them.

Daily Mail or The Telegraph may occasionally write something about them or other newspapers but that does not mean it has to truth, it can be fabricated reality for the masses.

Also you say that : ". She's been a class act from the beginning, and the mic needs to drop when she leaves the stage" and that "Phillip was a curmudgeon, and probably a bit of a rake on the side, but in general, he did his duty and kept his word."

But what they really did ? And what was the word he kept ? It may seem that their role is pretty much ceremonial or if we believe to conspiracies they may be important players and do the dark stuff behind the scenes.
 
Charitable works is something on very iffy grounds Laura. I have looked into charities and they definitely are not what they say they are.
 
Good analogy. But you're not a dog, and I hope you know enough to know that you should not 'defecate' here.
How can I even do it online ? Do you want to tell me that I should not write here at all anymore or that I should be careful about things I write ? And would you like to tell me where I made a mistake according to your perception ?
 

Ursus Minor

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Considering how the cabal likes their symbology and numbers, it is interesting that he died on the 99th day of the year, April 9th, at the age of 99. I wonder what is up with that.

Fascinating what a little numerology can do.

[April 9th, 2021] 4/9 (4+9=13 / 1+3=4) 2021 (2+0+2+1 =5) 4+5 =9 ;-)

Could it be that the Illuminates cannot even die without leaving a numerological trail? :wizard:
 

WIN 52

The Living Force
One more thing that fits, I think I recall the C's saying "Pity those who pity".
I am pretty indifferent to this news. No royals got out their hankies when my dad passed away. No hard feelings. Just the way it is.
As for who has a hard life? All humans on this planet.

This may be the appropriate way to view this discussion.

There are a lot of personal issues on display. Nearly as many as there are posts. The big one seems to be that all are right. But again, that is only my opinion.
 

SOTTREADER

The Living Force
There's a meme doing the rounds with some words that Prince Phillip supposedly said in 1988.

IMG_20210410_205424_526.jpg

Personally, I'm avoiding all coverage of this event. Apparently in the TV it's non stop. I'd much rather concentrate my efforts paying attention to the ever growing victims of the covid vaccines and the erosion of our liberties.

The royal family can be a bit controversial and everyone has their view. My personal view is that they house some really disturbed individuals e.g. Prince Andrew. Prince Charles as well is into the whole world economic forum agenda and all that entails. I don't see the queen as a victim, if anything I see her as a leader. A leader who sits on top of all the dirty laundry of the British Elite incl all the nasty stuff around children. She may not personally be involved in any of that stuff but I don't think she doesn't know. That she hasn't done anything about it to me is an indication of failure in leadership at least in terms of rooting out evil and corruption. This may be a naive view but as mentioned above, it's a personal view, not necessarily representative of objective reality. Yes, there may be decent people within the royal family but in my view, that institution needs to be ended.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
And would you like to tell me where I made a mistake according to your perception ?

You keep hanging around so I will assume you want to know. What you wrote above is an example of what's at issue. You imply not so subtly, that the issue is with the person perceiving you and not yourself.

Attitude
Sincerity
Respect
Willingness (to make the effort to contribute something that adds to the discussion)

These are the attributes I would focus on if you want your situation here to change for the better. No one is going to take the time to explain exactly what you should do or how you should do it. There are forum guidelines that can give you the general expectations.

I will tell you straight up that your opinion doesn't count for much unless and until you demonstrate the ability to contribute something of value. Just because you are you, is not enough.
 

Ant22

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Charitable works is something on very iffy grounds Laura. I have looked into charities and they definitely are not what they say they are.

As someone who has worked for - and with - quite a few charities I'd like to share my experience with UK based not-for-profit organisations.

Let me start by saying that the charities the royals support have to meet certain standards. Having a royal as a patron means they must be squeaky clean and pass frequent audits. Securing funding from corporate sponsors usually isn't much different, a charity cannot afford to do any dodgy business or attract negative publicity as companies would not engage in a relationship that would tarnish their reputation. I realise that corruption and large scale abuse do happen but I wouldn't say it's true about the majority of charities.

And if by "not what they say they are" you are referring to the frequently quoted fact that only a small percentage (often between 10-30%) of donated money goes towards the actual cause then I'd like to point out that it's impossible to run a charity entirely on unpaid volunteers because people need money to live. And most people have very busy lives, too busy to volunteer any meaningful amount of time on top of their work and family obligations. Therefore charities have to spend a large proportion of the money they receive on salaries. They need people to run their projects, manage their operations, accounting & payroll, do the paperwork, market their cause to win grants and support, print posters and marketing materials, manage their online presence, etc. All of those require commercial skills that have a price tag in the job market. Who would agree to give their skills away for free rather than in exchange for a salary? Not to mention office rental, office supplies, equipment, computers, etc. Charities don't get any of that for free - or even at a discount.

Yet although the necessary costs eat up quite a large proportion of charities' income there is still that 10-30% that goes towards the cause. Without charities there would be 0% going towards it. So although I do understand that there are dodgy charities that pay their bosses fat bonuses and run dodgy business in my personal experience the majority of them are honest and genuinely driven by a desire to help.

That said, I am suspicious about a few, especially those that operate in areas that are the most exposed to ponerisation. Cancer Research is a good example. Why haven't they researched IV vitamin C or any other alternative cures that have been reported to help? I follow a person on twitter who was told there was no chance for him to survive his brain tumour but through his own research he cured it with the ketogenic diet. I saw him reply to Cancer Research when they tweeted such harmful posts as (I paraphrase) "there is no evidence that there is any link between diet and cancer so you shouldn't change your diet when you're diagnosed to avoid making it worse". He said that he was in fact that evidence. I also replied that they were called 'Cancer Research' then how about doing 'research' to see if the link is there? No reply. And they deleted a few similar my replies to their tweets too. I suspect they get good money from big pharma and those guys seem to say to charities they sponsor what they say to laboratories that test their products: do not contradict the narrative what helps us make money or we will take our funding elsewhere.

So I wouldn't tar all charities with the same brush but I'd try to research them and assess their operations before donating.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom