I found it all a bit weird and creepy in a way I never have before. Masonic, ritualistic, archaic and yes, why all the secrecy? Maybe it's because the veil has fallen for me on so many things after C19.
The anointing is hidden because there is no "profound spiritual transformation" within the king. That's why they hid them in ancient times as well.
That way they can play Rock Paper Scissors behind the screen and nobody will know the better.
I doubt that there's anything sinister about it. BBC dude was probably kicked out, because they would have killed him on the spot in ancient times. He broke protocol.
However, I do think there are evil and creepy people within ALL of the royal families. People with that much power, and nothing to do but keep appointments, get bored with life. We all know what they say about idle hands.
Well, either really. I have no love for either and suspect the team Harry v William is just another way the media divides people. Once again, just like the covid parties people are angry at the wrong thing. Andrew should have just said ‘look, yeah, Epstein introduced me to this girl, I thought she was older, i was an idiot’ etc but he was furious that he, a member of the royal family was being called out. He doubled then tripled down. Anyone with half a brain could see he was lying. And don’t get me started on Charles and his dodgy mates- Saville for example. They’re so removed from reality . Pompous, egotistical, out of touch. If I’m to respect anyone in this world they have to earn it and the royals are generally insufferable. They need to get in that if they want to increase their popularity
Because it's a hell of a lot better than electing people who only have their own self-interests in mind, or those of their captors, as head of state. It's been 86 years since we had a monarch who out his own interests before the country.
It's ironic but it makes us more of a democracy than any other country in the western world. We don't have to put up with the posturing of wannabe presidents who sell out to all and sundry.
Our monarchy, ironically, is envied by many, seemingly not by some of those who still have him as their King, but look how well those are doing who have been turned into republics.
Another question that has cropped up a lot recently is inheritance tax. Why shouldn't Balmoral, Sandringham, Windsor Castle and Buck House not be taxed after the queen died? Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that there is no such thing as "private wealth" in the royal family. Can you just imagine Balmoral being sold off to Trump to clear death duties? Or how about Bill Gates living in Buck House? The reality is that everything they have is effectively owned by the state.
No? Neither can I.
The British monarchy brings in far more money than they cost the country and there are very few people who would swap places with them if they had the choice. I certainly wouldn't!
Don't be stupid. He has no political power to do anything. And don't be dumb enough to believe that we will put up with the WEF bullshit simply because we have a monarchy.
There are plenty more powerful people in the WEF who can actually enact laws and buy politicians. Charles is the least of your worries. He will woke himself out of a job if he carries on the way he is right now.
I'm a fan of having a monarchy, as opposed to having corrupt presidents with executive power to fk everyone... and I'm not just referring to the US either.
I am not against having a monarchy but I think it should be downsized and that the monarch should understand their role as the queen did - I.e., not to meddle in politics. There’s a really good book called ‘and what do you do?’ That really digs into the financial aspect/ wealth etc as well as lots of other things. The guy who wrote it is a staunch republican so if you support the monarchy you may not be interested but I think it’s worth a read whatever you feel about the royals.
I hope you enjoy your time in the field with the rest of your friends. At least the weather is getting better for you.
However, if you're trying to suggest, in a rather unintelligent manner, that I'm a sheep, you're sadly mistaken. I'm also not bitter and twisted in the same way that many "republicans" are.
We are all dealt a hand when we are born. Whether that's a result of choice or simply random is up for debate in another place at another time. Either way, you cannot escape that not all humans are equal in any respect and some are born in places and to people they would, apparently, not have chosen.
Maybe this is going a bit too deep for you so you can go back to nibbling at grass for another few days.
As an Australian (where the issue of becoming a republic is always simmering away), I tend to agree with you. And when Queen Lizzie was around, it was hard to find fault with her & the way she carried out her appointed duties.
However, I think Charles is a different kettle of fish. Already he has shown that he wants to take a more active role in world affairs. If he had done the right thing and ceded the role to William, we would have had a king & queen that could conjure up more popular support. Whether or not we want to dig into the more sinister aspects of the monarchy & its association with the City of London & the One World Government.
But Charles - and Camilla - will make a laughing stock of the entire monarchy. Only the most dedicated monarchists will join in the loyalty pledge of the people or whatever they call it. I certainly won't! (And didn't.)
So why don't you elect a king as the americans do then?
That's the way it was done long ago, on your little island as well as elsewhere in Europe. The people elected spokesmen who elected a king from their own circle, in times when aking was needed. It's not until the slave cult of Rome becomes monodominant that the title becomes inherited.
A king is only legal if elected by the people he is to defend - not rule, not govern; defend as the leader of soldiery made up out of the people, since you can't have a democracy on the battlefield...
The Americans don’t elect a king, they elect someone who is rich enough or corrupt enough to either serve their own interests before anyone else or those of the ones who paid to get him (so far no her yet) elected.
America has the best politicians that money can buy.
May 10, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
True. Why on earth does monarchy exist in this world? Oh yeah, because, as has been proven time and time again over the last few years, the world is full of lazy, ignorant people who can't determine their own destiny even if they were afforded the first freedom to do so.
May 10, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
The more elaborate, mystical, secret-yet-public the ritual, the more real and just and righteous it seems: hence the kicking out of someone who may just have been trying to sneak a glance.
This is because just as the ritual is mystical and hinges on every step being followed when the spell is cast, so must the peresecution of any profaner be, since that too plays into making the magical real.
If the profaner is not persecuted - in public - the ritual loses its magic and becomes obvious for the vulgar and glamourous spectacle it is.
Dosn't matter if it's a coronation, catholic church, mosques, L Ron's taxdodge-cum-religion, synagogue or other - it's at its root the exact same thing.
A magical theatrical play to assure and convince the slaves and serfs that the ruler is just, righteous and approved of by insert-deity-of-choice.
May 10, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
The more I learn about world leaders, WEF agendas, and 18 and 33° Freemasonry rituals utilizing Scripture and sacraments, the less trouble I have believing Chuck was masturbating with the oil.
As I understand it, the AntiChrist is a charismatic figure who people follow willingly. I doubt that Charles fits the bill!
Charles is a pompous wannabe - but regardless, there could well have been something fishy (even satanic) about the anointing ceremony. The point is, we don't know, and that in itself makes people suspicious.
One aspect of royalty is identification with the land. If the King or Queen visits Canada, no passport is required because he/she is the personnification of the land itself, sort of like a country walking on two legs.
This concept is so ancient that it feels strange to the modern mind
excellent, Jean Marc Benoit. We have so much to learn about royalty, now that that the republican tendency has become rather obstructed as to making progress.
May 10, 2023Liked by NE - Naked Emperor Newsletter
Pure, unadulterated horse pucky. Love how these elite OWG minions love to play the ritualistic games of humanistic pomp and circumstance to suppossedly elevate themselves to a holyer than thou standing. This is what pride, position, and rituals do for these folks. Lest we forget, our acceptance by God has nothing to do with coronations and bloodline but everything to do with being born again. Sitting on a rock doesnt accomplish such.
Camilla was allegedly anointed but without any screen at all. I didn’t see that aspect of the ceremony on tv, just the presentation of a ring, touching the bible then a crown put on her head. I might have momentarily dozed and missed it!
That's very interesting! However, I suspect that her "anointing" would have been pretty much a token thing, as she is not going to be mothering any heir to the throne, and her role is overall a token one.
I found it all a bit weird and creepy in a way I never have before. Masonic, ritualistic, archaic and yes, why all the secrecy? Maybe it's because the veil has fallen for me on so many things after C19.
Notice the 3 angels on the screen Isis Horus and Set the unholy trinity.
The anointing is hidden because there is no "profound spiritual transformation" within the king. That's why they hid them in ancient times as well.
That way they can play Rock Paper Scissors behind the screen and nobody will know the better.
I doubt that there's anything sinister about it. BBC dude was probably kicked out, because they would have killed him on the spot in ancient times. He broke protocol.
However, I do think there are evil and creepy people within ALL of the royal families. People with that much power, and nothing to do but keep appointments, get bored with life. We all know what they say about idle hands.
There are evil and creepy people everywhere. Royal families do not have executive power.
.
Royal people have actual followers who trust them without question, which is never good. And opens the door to more creep ass opportunities.
Yep. Always think that. Imagine being born into royalty and what it does to your psyche and ego! I think Prince Andrew is the perfect example
Andrew isn't the perfect example, I think that he was no different from so many others who were drawn into Epstein's web.
The perfect example is Harry... or more to the point, Me Gain
Haha! "Me-Gain."
It's almost as bad as "Bernie Made-Off" or "Sam 'Bank-Man' Fried."
Well, either really. I have no love for either and suspect the team Harry v William is just another way the media divides people. Once again, just like the covid parties people are angry at the wrong thing. Andrew should have just said ‘look, yeah, Epstein introduced me to this girl, I thought she was older, i was an idiot’ etc but he was furious that he, a member of the royal family was being called out. He doubled then tripled down. Anyone with half a brain could see he was lying. And don’t get me started on Charles and his dodgy mates- Saville for example. They’re so removed from reality . Pompous, egotistical, out of touch. If I’m to respect anyone in this world they have to earn it and the royals are generally insufferable. They need to get in that if they want to increase their popularity
We have movement on the Epstein case https://www.theinteldrop.org/2023/05/08/googles-larry-page-missing-due-to-ties-to-epstein-pedo-trafficking-suit/
Notice the 3 angels on the screen Isis Horus and Set the unholy trinity.
It is a moment of transformation to and back from their reptilian body.
Privacy would be paramount.
Thank you, Mr NE, for this thorough explanation of an ancient ceremony that may well have meant a great deal to lots of people.
Unfortunately, I couldn't relate but that's probably my loss. The mystery and magic that used to surround our elite has dissolved almost completely.
However, I thought the horses looked good.
Horses always look good!
Maybe he saw King Chuck had his fingers crossed throughout? ;-)
He couldn't cross his chubby, sausage sticks with the help of his entire entourage!
A little bit difficult with those walls bangers!
Why do we still have a monarchy in the UK?
Because it's a hell of a lot better than electing people who only have their own self-interests in mind, or those of their captors, as head of state. It's been 86 years since we had a monarch who out his own interests before the country.
It's ironic but it makes us more of a democracy than any other country in the western world. We don't have to put up with the posturing of wannabe presidents who sell out to all and sundry.
Our monarchy, ironically, is envied by many, seemingly not by some of those who still have him as their King, but look how well those are doing who have been turned into republics.
Another question that has cropped up a lot recently is inheritance tax. Why shouldn't Balmoral, Sandringham, Windsor Castle and Buck House not be taxed after the queen died? Maybe it's got something to do with the fact that there is no such thing as "private wealth" in the royal family. Can you just imagine Balmoral being sold off to Trump to clear death duties? Or how about Bill Gates living in Buck House? The reality is that everything they have is effectively owned by the state.
No? Neither can I.
The British monarchy brings in far more money than they cost the country and there are very few people who would swap places with them if they had the choice. I certainly wouldn't!
"The reality is that everything they have is effectively owned by the state" - It's really not but as I said the monarchy debate is for another post.
Your correct
https://justiniandeception.wordpress.com/
I hope you enjoy owning nothing, being happy, and living in your 15 minute city now that the WEF have a king on the British throne.
Don't be stupid. He has no political power to do anything. And don't be dumb enough to believe that we will put up with the WEF bullshit simply because we have a monarchy.
There are plenty more powerful people in the WEF who can actually enact laws and buy politicians. Charles is the least of your worries. He will woke himself out of a job if he carries on the way he is right now.
I'm a fan of having a monarchy, as opposed to having corrupt presidents with executive power to fk everyone... and I'm not just referring to the US either.
I am not against having a monarchy but I think it should be downsized and that the monarch should understand their role as the queen did - I.e., not to meddle in politics. There’s a really good book called ‘and what do you do?’ That really digs into the financial aspect/ wealth etc as well as lots of other things. The guy who wrote it is a staunch republican so if you support the monarchy you may not be interested but I think it’s worth a read whatever you feel about the royals.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I hope you enjoy your time in the field with the rest of your friends. At least the weather is getting better for you.
However, if you're trying to suggest, in a rather unintelligent manner, that I'm a sheep, you're sadly mistaken. I'm also not bitter and twisted in the same way that many "republicans" are.
We are all dealt a hand when we are born. Whether that's a result of choice or simply random is up for debate in another place at another time. Either way, you cannot escape that not all humans are equal in any respect and some are born in places and to people they would, apparently, not have chosen.
Maybe this is going a bit too deep for you so you can go back to nibbling at grass for another few days.
So lets forget about elected people chosen by the people( we know there are flaws) So lets accept Charlie best friend of Jimmy Saville
As an Australian (where the issue of becoming a republic is always simmering away), I tend to agree with you. And when Queen Lizzie was around, it was hard to find fault with her & the way she carried out her appointed duties.
However, I think Charles is a different kettle of fish. Already he has shown that he wants to take a more active role in world affairs. If he had done the right thing and ceded the role to William, we would have had a king & queen that could conjure up more popular support. Whether or not we want to dig into the more sinister aspects of the monarchy & its association with the City of London & the One World Government.
But Charles - and Camilla - will make a laughing stock of the entire monarchy. Only the most dedicated monarchists will join in the loyalty pledge of the people or whatever they call it. I certainly won't! (And didn't.)
So why don't you elect a king as the americans do then?
That's the way it was done long ago, on your little island as well as elsewhere in Europe. The people elected spokesmen who elected a king from their own circle, in times when aking was needed. It's not until the slave cult of Rome becomes monodominant that the title becomes inherited.
A king is only legal if elected by the people he is to defend - not rule, not govern; defend as the leader of soldiery made up out of the people, since you can't have a democracy on the battlefield...
That's the root of the whole deal.
The Americans don’t elect a king, they elect someone who is rich enough or corrupt enough to either serve their own interests before anyone else or those of the ones who paid to get him (so far no her yet) elected.
America has the best politicians that money can buy.
More like selected. Do the skull and bones boogie and you're in.
It’s all owned by the Vatican https://justiniandeception.wordpress.com/
We have a monarchy in order to be our servants
Represent the interests of the people in parliament as per the Bill of Rights, 1688
True. Why on earth does monarchy exist in this world? Oh yeah, because, as has been proven time and time again over the last few years, the world is full of lazy, ignorant people who can't determine their own destiny even if they were afforded the first freedom to do so.
That must be one hell of a tattoo Charles is trying to hide from public view.
Thank you 😂, I needed that!
Why don’t you just ask the sr bbc employee what happened? If he isn’t employed any longer, perhaps he will spill the beans?
The more elaborate, mystical, secret-yet-public the ritual, the more real and just and righteous it seems: hence the kicking out of someone who may just have been trying to sneak a glance.
This is because just as the ritual is mystical and hinges on every step being followed when the spell is cast, so must the peresecution of any profaner be, since that too plays into making the magical real.
If the profaner is not persecuted - in public - the ritual loses its magic and becomes obvious for the vulgar and glamourous spectacle it is.
Dosn't matter if it's a coronation, catholic church, mosques, L Ron's taxdodge-cum-religion, synagogue or other - it's at its root the exact same thing.
A magical theatrical play to assure and convince the slaves and serfs that the ruler is just, righteous and approved of by insert-deity-of-choice.
The more I learn about world leaders, WEF agendas, and 18 and 33° Freemasonry rituals utilizing Scripture and sacraments, the less trouble I have believing Chuck was masturbating with the oil.
Snap! Or being anointed by the high priest,
I will tell you. Because Charles is the AntiChrist, and could not say or receive the annointing oil.
As I understand it, the AntiChrist is a charismatic figure who people follow willingly. I doubt that Charles fits the bill!
Charles is a pompous wannabe - but regardless, there could well have been something fishy (even satanic) about the anointing ceremony. The point is, we don't know, and that in itself makes people suspicious.
I'll tell you who can receive the anointing oil.
Here's a hint: recite the 23rd Psalm (The Lord Is My Shepherd). Take note of this line:
"Thou preparest a table for me in the presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over."
There you go. Nailed it.
Oh boy, that's about as pathetic as it gets.
One aspect of royalty is identification with the land. If the King or Queen visits Canada, no passport is required because he/she is the personnification of the land itself, sort of like a country walking on two legs.
This concept is so ancient that it feels strange to the modern mind
excellent, Jean Marc Benoit. We have so much to learn about royalty, now that that the republican tendency has become rather obstructed as to making progress.
“Why? What did the BBC employee do to justify being frogmarched from the premises?”
He might have offered a leaky pen. Charles has a thing about pens. 🤔😋
And level-headed Camilla couldn't find one that works in time.
Pure, unadulterated horse pucky. Love how these elite OWG minions love to play the ritualistic games of humanistic pomp and circumstance to suppossedly elevate themselves to a holyer than thou standing. This is what pride, position, and rituals do for these folks. Lest we forget, our acceptance by God has nothing to do with coronations and bloodline but everything to do with being born again. Sitting on a rock doesnt accomplish such.
In the style of Monty Python's; Ho;y Grail, "It's only a rock!"
Perhaps his hands, chest are not the only parts anointed.
Yes, the King has a penis. What have you to say about it?
So why would Charles need a more enclosed privacy screen than Elizabeth, back in 1952?
I would think that privacy, especially for a woman, would have been taken more seriously, if anything, in her case & at that time.
Camilla was allegedly anointed but without any screen at all. I didn’t see that aspect of the ceremony on tv, just the presentation of a ring, touching the bible then a crown put on her head. I might have momentarily dozed and missed it!
That's very interesting! However, I suspect that her "anointing" would have been pretty much a token thing, as she is not going to be mothering any heir to the throne, and her role is overall a token one.