Queen Elizabeth Is A Bloated Parasite by Infowars.com

reply to post by stumason


Same reasoning as me then. Those same arguments though are why i do buy into greedy super rich taking over everything. By greedy super rich, i mean those that actually own all the mega corporations.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Bravo.

Thank you for posting.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


I have seen similar things but they include Crown land, which as has been explained by others, is not the same as land the Queen solely owns.

In terms of richest families of landowners, how about the evil Kidman family in Australia? Nicole Kidman comes from a long line of reptilian shape shifters! Sorry, got carried away there.........meant to say long line of greedy bas*****.

Well, at least Alex Jones is walking the path---at least using the truth as a springboard.

You might not agree with him making money (don't we all have to make a living?) but he does put in a days work.

What can be said of the Queen?

Every red cent in her bank account comes from the tax payers, or was plundered by her ancestors.

Why criticize Alex?

Is the Queen part of the NWO plan or is she a soldier for truth?

I think the answer is rather obvious.

reply to post by MRuss


Deleted

reply to post by Stormdancer777


agreed most of it does, on wiki, think it says she owns this:

Crown Jewels

Jewels in the Tower of London (including the crown, orb and sceptre) are state-owned rather than private possessions, the Treasury referring to these assets as "vested in the sovereign and cannot be alienated".[15]

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

I have seen similar things but they include Crown land, which as has been explained by others, is not the same as land the Queen solely owns.

In terms of richest families of landowners, how about the evil Kidman family in Australia? Nicole Kidman comes from a long line of reptilian shape shifters! Sorry, got carried away there.........meant to say long line of greedy bas*****.

edit on 18-6-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)

Dude did you read it?!

I know it's long but that article is about the personal wealth that the windsors and (Saxe-wotsits) have invested over many years.

Even if you exclude the crown land, they have so much PERSONAL wealth.
One of the main points here is that every single article, Pro or anti says it's hard to untangle what is the queens personal wealth and they don't have to disclose it to us, who they reportedly serve.

Now why might the Windsors try and obscure what actually belongs to them?

reply to post by Physic


It means they can't just be sold by the Government to raise some cash.

FYI, Wiki is great and all, but it is far from the definitive font of all knowledge.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
At the end of the day we (Brits) do not care what he says, it is up to us if we wish her to remain head of state (which we do) so that bloak can go and bleat at something else.
She makes money for our country and has served us very well, she has put her sons and grandchildren in harms way just like any other forces parent and I for one respect her and enjoy my royal family.
God save the queen

Well I am also from the UK and I can tell you I feel TOTALLY the opposite.

They are only paid mascots anyway to the real elite and I know PLENTY of people who hate her over here as much as Alex!!

Actually the succession of Labour morons we've had in charge have been trying to destroy the idea of being British, we should apparently instead celebrate the diversity of every minority, ethnicity, culture, religion, sexual preference, etc above our own or that of the majority, and this includes of course them hating the Royals, since they are the most British of the British.

Since I hate Labour who took us into illegal wars, have lied repeatedly, had paedophiles on the cabinet caught in operation Ore (which was brushed under the carpet and D noticed), were fiddling their expenses, and have Tony Blair who's now after leaving office worth supposedly £70 million from all of his kickbacks and backhanders - well I bloody love the Queen and all she stands for because of them.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If Labour politicians have been taking huge sums of money from the string pullers, and those string pullers are the Rothschilds and whoever else is involved in the NWO, and part of their agenda is to "dis" the Queen, well then I for one am going to support her and the Royal Family 100% and say get f*cked to the rest of the snivelling wannabe power hungry, greedy ass kissing politicians and ne'er do wells.

reply to post by stumason


conspiracy is not just a theory...

reply to post by Power_Semi


Not alone, look at the same thing going on with district of Columbia and the US...this a global conspiracy.

reply to post by stumason

ja ja ja, anything else?

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Understand lot of the big banks and the banks, and private stock and shares are held by the Crown and Queen and family and can manipulate and get insider trader information,..members names of the owners of the Federal Reserve and Central Banks being hidden and not public?

Is there any truth to this?

I haven't read the thread and haven't read the article, but I am familiar with the fact that Alex Jones dislikes the monarchy. He sees it as an arm of the globalists and therefore the enemy.

Life is complicated. There are agressive, greedy people and there are people who moderate their agressivity and greed. There will always be such people. Some of the agressive families elevated themselves to "royal" status and society constructed all sorts of myths about them to preserve their power and to justify acquiescence to a more powerful person.

This success of the agressive families was a double edged sword.

Kingship, because it was alleged to be divinely ordained, became invested with expectations from the public and obligations toward them. Most often these obligations were not fulfilled or fulfilled only partially or grudgingly, but the obligations were still present and acknowledged by the king.

The present Queen of England (and numerous other countries and foreign dependancies, including my own country, Canada) is a constitutional monarch with extremely limited power, who, in matters of state, takes instructions from the Prime Minister. Of course, form is preserved at all times, so that the ruler, even a young Elizabeth, in the presence of a lion like Churchill, still "rules".

Monarchy is a mystery. Simply factoring it down to a case of what appears to be undeserved wealth is a hopelessly inadequate appreciation of it.

Of course Parliament must be aware of financial entailments of monarchy and keep a close supervision of public expenditures. However, those same parliamentarians will be aware of the immense power which flows through loyalty to the monarch. What is the price of that loyalty? Would Tony Blair command such loyalty? How about Margaret Thatcher, or George W. Bush?

The monarchy may be the creature of Parliament but it also maintains a direct link to the People. Does Parliament ever get out of hand? Are the people ever dissatisfied with their representatives? Are the people's representatives ever derelict in their duties? Do they ever pass legislation without reading it? Do the people ever cry out for someone to look out for their interests? In the current situation in the United States would a monarch at odds with Congress have a role to play? Did America throw out the baby with the bath water when it revolted against King George the 3rd.?

The dynamics of the interplay between the institution of the monarchy, the elected government and the people themselves is more nuanced than Alex Jones seems to realize.

As a Canadian, I prize our connection to the UK, to the great family of nations known as the Commonwealth, and to the Monarch, the focus of our heartfelt affection and loyalty.

I also prize our connection to the black sheep of the family, the prodigal son who will always be tangled to a great extent in family affairs, the United States of America.

He better buy that magazine now after ruining it.

How rude.

reply to post by Physic


I don't know about the Fed, but the BoE is owned by the UK Government. It was private, back in the day, but was nationalised in the 50's I believe.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Nicely put, Sums it quite well I think.

Some think loyalty to the Monarchy as being a "sheep", but I and many others view the Monarch as not only link to our past and shared history (good or bad), but as a symbol of the nation itself, which in my book is better than having "President Blair" as the poster child for the UK and beyond...

Is anyone stands in the way of Alex Jones' beloved NWO it's the British Monarchy, hence why he despises them so much

reply to post by stumason

The Monarch is the focus and outlet for a great emotional connection between the People and their Nation and their Government. The fact that the Monarch is a human being is very important.

In the United States the Founders and their successors in government have made a fetish of the flag and turned it into a surrogate for the Monarch, a receptor for many emotional expressions ordinarlily due to a monarch.

There is a a great danger in that, I believe. The flag stands for many positive principles built into the Constitution but unlike a Monarch, the flag never speaks up when the government goes astray, or when constitutional principles are being violated.