The WEF-ing King
Do we need a royal reset?
British people are asked to believe that the monarch serves a symbolic role in their society, much like an ornate figurehead on the prow of a sailing ship. The ship is steered by a captain and his officers in the form of a Prime Minister and government. These are subject to the approval of the crew, who can put any mutinous inclinations into action once every four years.
An alternative and more uncomfortable view for the British public is to regard themselves as galley slaves whose servitude has rendered them deferent to, and near worshipful of, an above deck tyrant whose subordinates enforce their subjugation.
The notion to which people are asked to subscribe is that royalty reflects something of the enduring and eternal. Its rituals outlive the fleeting life of the individual and in its pomp and circumstance is expressed something greater than the present moment.
The ceremony of royalty fulfils an emotional deficiency, a need for belonging, and is suggestive of a collective, a tribe, of nationhood. Pageantry elevates regal rituals above the mundane nature of a subject’s existence so that even the lowly downtrodden serf may feel a sense of pride in their role of service to the crown. In reality the monarch is a man or woman being exalted and lavished with luxuries whilst the masses are exploited, left with precisely the levels of comfort and information required to curtail dissent and subordination.
A revolution was feared once. In the aftermath of the French revolution of 1789 unrest across Europe was monitored closely. Napoleon was finally defeated in 1815 and British authorities were disinclined to encourage any similar upheaval on home soil. When, in 1819, a huge crowd calling for expanded suffrage gathered on St. Peter’s Fields in Manchester, it was brutally suppressed by cavalry wielding sabres, leaving an official count of 18 dead and up to 700 injured in what became known as the Peterloo Massacre.
Since then a series of Parliamentary Reform Acts (which ultimately extended the vote to all adults over the age of 18), have served to give the public the impression that they have a say in the running of the country. Power was apparently peacefully and beneficently ceded to the great unwashed.
Land apparently remained in much the same hands it had since 1066. “Just 0.3% of the population – 160,000 families – own two thirds of the country. Less than 1% of the population owns 70% of the land.”
Those who labour under the apprehension that the monarchy serves no more than a perfunctory role may be surprised to learn that the late queen Elizabeth II exercised a veto on parliamentary legislation, including on bills that directly concerned royal finances, taxation, inheritance, and trusts.
“The queen has vetted 1,062 bills which are in theory presented by the people's representatives: "Under the procedure, govt ministers privately notify the Queen of clauses in draft parliamentary bills and ask for her consent to debate them."
"When asked by the Guardian, the Queen’s representatives refused to say how many times she had requested alterations to legislation since she came to the throne in 1952."
“The investigation uncovered evidence suggesting that she used the procedure to persuade government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to conceal her private wealth from the public.”
The queen has not been the only royal in modern times to influence parliamentary legislation. After government attempts to preserve secrecy failed, it was revealed that the then prince Charles was made privy to, and engaged with, internal cabinet memos.
Graham Smith, CEO for the anti-monarchy group Republic commented:
"The disclosure of cabinet papers to Prince Charles is quite extraordinary and completely unacceptable. Not only because they would contain highly classified information but because it gives him considerable advantage in pressing his own agenda when lobbying ministers.”
"Charles is essentially a minister not attending cabinet. He gets the paperwork and has private meetings with ministers about policy."
"Charles has no legitimate need to see Cabinet papers at all. His political and private interests and the high degree of secrecy... surrounding his lobbying mean there is a real danger this information can be abused without any possibility of accountability."
A member of the Commons constitutional affairs committee, Paul Flynn said of Charles that,
“There is no control over his lobbying,”
“He is not only the most influential lobbyist, but the best informed.”
“He is lobbying for his own interests, which are not always benign or sensible.”
This rare sight of the naked influence of royalty on government was soon ended as the veil was again brought down.
“But this is likely to be the only glimpse the British public gets of Charles’ correspondence with ministers. Since the original Guardian request to see the letters the government has tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to provide an “absolute exemption” on all requests relating to the Queen and the heir to the throne.”
The government had been keen to hide Charles' influence lest the public consider him to not be neutral. The concern was not about the reality but the perception.
The desire for secrecy in royal affairs also extends to finances -for which data is withheld.
"So, a report by the committee…which looks at the finances of the royal household should be scrutinised by those who are after the facts. There's an immediate problem for us though - there's relatively little data in the 35 page report."
The chair of the committee was confused.
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Where monarchists point to a supposed positive royal influence in attracting tourists to the UK, it has been pointed out that for a financial audit “If it isn't countable it doesn't count,” with "the true (annual) cost of running an extended royal family being multiples of £35.7m."
“Campaign group Republic, which calls for the abolition of the monarchy, claims that it’s own research shows the monarchy costs the UK £334 million a year, with each “working royal” costing the taxpayer £18.5 million a piece.”
Left-wing blogger Another Angry Voice writes,
“The royal apologist likes to add income generated from tourism into the mix, however they carefully exclude the possibility that tourism revenues could actually be massively increased by opening up the royal palaces to tourism (making one of them the most uber-exclusive hotel in the entire world perhaps). The Palace of Versailles is the single most lucrative tourist attraction in France, it's hard to imagine that it would generate quite as much revenue if it were still a private monarchical residence. How much do you think might be raised through the sale of over half a million acres of land, all those castles and palaces, and all that treasure? If just 1% of it per year were privatised, that would raise far more than this imaginary net contribution of £160 million."
This is before we consider the astonishing profligacy of the family of state beneficiaries.
In recent years the supposed neutrality of the royals has been brought into sharp focus. In June 2020, Charles launched the Great Reset, saying “We have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path.”
WEF CEO Klaus Schwab chorused, "The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world."
Schwab had industriously written and published his book on the Great Reset in a matter of weeks whilst the world was surprised by the ongoing lockdowns.
For Prince Charles the Great Reset is a social overhaul based on the false premise of anthropogenic climate change. “We have no alternative because otherwise unless we take the action necessary and we build again in a greener and more sustainable and more inclusive way then we will end up having more and more pandemics and more and more disasters from ever accelerating global warming and climate change so this is the one moment as you've all been saying when we have to make as much progress as we can.”
Charles describes an agenda driven by unfounded fears.
The Reset proposals include economic inducements and penalties to enforce public compliance with the Davos driven diktats delivered under a guise of environmental concern. Where Charles speaks of capturing “the imagination and will of humanity,” and “incentive structures,” it becomes clear that the reset relies on propaganda and the modification of public behaviour.
In something of a propaganda coup for the lockdown that provided the opportunity for Charles’ Great Reset, he and the UK Prime Minister and Health Secretary all contracted the alleged novel coronavirus in the first week Britons were required to stay at home. Evidently all three survived. The PM was later shown to have lied about the severity of his illness. Charles’ bout of the plague clearly did not make the required impression on his family who were repeatedly observed breaking lockdown restrictions. Could it be that they knew the rules were not for them? One video in which William and family were caught breaking the rules was rapidly removed from the internet and the royals characterised as victims of media harassment.
Prince William is also an advocate of the WEF’s royally led revolution. Speaking at Davos in 2019, three years after the WEF had issued its notorious warning to the people of the world that they would “own nothing and be happy,” he said,
"The next 10 years present us with one of our greatest tests - a decade of action to repair the Earth.” This is a timescale that aligns with the UN's Agenda 2030.
Like his father, William has called for urgent action to combat man-made climate change, even urging young people to turn against their elders on the subject.
Even the most ardent royalist would have to concede that advocating for an overhaul of the social structure on the basis of unproven contentions, is not an apolitical stance. They could only argue that the royals are misguided or misinformed. Given that the royals are as well placed as any to be informed this seems unlikely.
The royals also strikingly stepped out of apolitical line when they pushed the covid shots on the unsuspecting public. Despite the absence of long term safety data, fertility data, and warnings from scientific and medical communities, the royal family led people to believe that they themselves were being injected with the dangerous and supposedly experimental serum. This seems unlikely in the extreme.
One after another the royals joined the propaganda onslaught to promote the lethal and sterilising injections.
Despite the media soap opera of supposed differences between Harry and other members of the family, as with the Punch and Judy show of party politics, on the key agenda points there was unanimity. Harry contributed as follows.
Perhaps the royal advisors neglected to mention that coercion and prejudice violated the Nuremberg code and accepted norms of informed medical consent? Did a family that does not travel together due to the risk to the royal lineage all roll up their sleeves for mRNA shots for which prior research has always precluded human usage?
The queen rewarded the chief protagonists in the covid fiasco with honours. For the suffering they inflicted on the British people through unscientific lockdowns, attendant restrictions, and debilitating injections, Professors Chris Whitty and Jonathan Van-Tam were knighted as was Tony Blair, who had pushed for vaccine passports.
Dr Jenny Harries, chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, and Dr June Raine, head of the vaccines regulator MHRA, were both made dames. June Raine has admitted the regulator was transformed from a watchdog to enabler after it tore up the rule book.
Also knighted was Sir Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca’s chief executive officer, despite the roll-out of the AstraZeneca injection being halted across Europe and the UK, amid safety concerns and hundreds of thousands of reports of harm.
The AZ vaccine developer Prof Sarah Gilbert and the former chair of the UK vaccine taskforce Kate Bingham were both recognised with damehoods.
As evidence emerges that the covid shots serve a depopulation agenda, royal approval of the injections looks increasingly ill-advised or ill-intentioned.
The unity of purpose in the recent political input from the royal family is in line with Prince Philip’s remark that, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” This is often dismissed as joke but he was obviously concerned with reducing the population.
Elizabeth II was often exempted from the criticism afforded to other members of her family due to her status as an old lady and venerable head of state. Yet she raised two sons who separately contrived to become closely acquainted with the two most notorious paedophiles of the day, with Charles befriending Jimmy Savile and Andrew, Jeffrey Epstein. Is it possible that intelligence services failed to adeqately vet these friendships? Were advisors again inattentive?
Elizabeth became publicly complicit in these sordid activities by paying the £12 million settlement to one of Andrew’s accusers that kept the disgraced prince out of the courts. Those the queen honoured for their efforts to inject her subjects joined paedophiles Savile, Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall, and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, as recipients of royal honours.
An unpleasant pattern is further suggested by the queen’s second cousin once removed, and prince Philip’s maternal uncle, Lord Mountbatten, having a documented “lust for young boys.” Elizabeth’s unfortunate choices for honourees are compounded by the appointment of an advisor who was a founder of a paedophile support group.
In this context curious anomalies like the queen’s bizarre but apparently innocent induction into a druidic order take on a new character. Questions arise about Prince Philip and the queen’s cousins, Michael and Edward of Kent, and their association with freemasonry -Edward’s being one of 55 years. What should we make of the strange symbolism at the coronation and of the pyramid at balmoral?
The royal family’s involvement with paedophiles and their advocation of dangerous injections prompts consideration of allegations relating to Philip and Elizabeth’s involvement in the disappearance of children from Kamloops residential school in Canada, where a raft of abuses have been exposed. As with King George V’s unusual prescience in relation to the sinking of the Lusitania (that ended hopes of peace and brought the United States into World War I), recent events give credence to the idea that the royals operate to an agenda that is kept hidden from a public with whom their interests do not necessarily align.
Essentially royalty is a state-sanctioned idea that some people are more important than others. It is an institutionalised form of racism that is woven into the fabric of society. The WEF’s Great Reset exemplifies this view. The WEF is a self-professed elite making decisions on behalf of their human chattle. When Yuval Noah Harari, who acts as a sort of WEF high priest, openly asks in relation to the digital revolution, “What shall we do with all these useless people?” he does not provoke the outrage he might if he inserted an adjective such as black, homosexual, foreign, disabled, old, or poor. Yet he speaks as though with the divine right of kings to act over people who only have use if they are of service to his clique.
The nominally apolitical Charles and William are aligned with this organisation, its plans, and ideology. Their promotion of the covid injections can be viewed in this context. Are the majority of people viewed as little more than farm animals to be herded, injected and sterilised at will?
There comes a point where the benefit of the doubt runs thin.
Absolutely brilliant, Francis. How can people not see what you so clearly and reasonably describe here? Given the level of brainwashing and inversion we have been subjected to for centuries, maybe the lack of close attention and discernment by the masses is understandable if not forgivable. When you start to see through the veil, it all becomes so clear.
Late to this well reasoned piece. I didn’t like them all but swore allegiance to the kind, slightly hunchbacked old lady. …Who was able to conceal what a bunch of pompous, entitled shysters they are. There is talk that a British monarchy may hold a world government at bay so queue the disappearance from official duties & the obvious lies. 🙄