The queen has a hotline to the devil?

[ECCOnoob]

To be honest, anything that requires dressing up and having to recite weird oaths is to be avoided like the plague in my view.

 

Don't ever work in the legal system. :hihi:

[ubermaus]

Have you ever kissed a girl?

 

Allegedly.

 

---------- Post added 31-12-2014 at 00:00 ----------

 

Ahh...another Truther! Welcome

 

Knew I liked you for a reason....my spidey senses work, even over the interweb!

 

Good news is, you're not going mad

I knew it! Do you think we are descended from lizards?

[woodmally]

I heard a theory that the queen is in cahoots with satan. As are all heads of state and the freemasons.

It makes sense. This is how power structures keep control. They are all linked.

Am i going mad?

 

If you believe in God and the Devil I would much rather be ruled by the devil than by God.

 

Having read chapters of the Bible God is a vindictive overlord that seems to wipe out huge swaithes of the global population because hes angry.

 

His own son was being tortured to death and he sat on his fat cloud and did nothing. Whereas what actually has the devil done thats remotely evil.

[Alan Ladd]

The Tsar, the Kaiser and George the Fifth were all descendants of the children who filled Queen Victoria's nursery. While it may not have been completely accurate on my part to say that they actually started the war they were criminals in aiding and abetting the calls for war.

I recently saw a five part documentary "Apocalypse WW One" the archival footage which was actually in colour. The suffering and misery endured by millions of British, French and German soldiers in the trenches had to be seen to be believed.

 

By the year 1916 it must have been obvious to all but the simple minded that this war had to be stopped one way or another. Certainly the common soldier in the trenches had by then cast away any illusions that this war was about patriotism or noble cause. Nevertheless they fought honorably and well and were slaughtered in the millions.

 

The Tsar, the Kaiser and George could have exerted whatever influence they had to bring a stop to it but they didn't. George continued to support Lloyd George who continued to support the military tactics of British General "Butcher" Haig so all were complicit directly or indirectly in the whole affair.

 

Something like the same fate that befell the Tsar and the Kaiser should have been meted out to Lloyd George and General Haig and King George forced to abdicate in favour of his eldest son Edward.

 

George V was not a man of much compassion. Over his reign he remained largely indifferent to the hardships of the poor and working classes

 

Your comments benefit from hindsight. In 1916 I very much doubt that had anyone in a position of influence in UK called for a end to the war they would have received support. The British people in 1916 wanted victory. They were aware of the sacrifices made up to that date, hated the Germans for their aggressiveness and were up for the fight.

 

You overestimate the influence of the British King, certainly he would be kept informed but his job was to maintain morale. He had little or no influence on policy. This was entirely different to the Kaiser and the Tsar who were more autocratic and dictatorial.

 

Your comments regarding the average soldier are equally partial, clearly you are influenced by the war poets, their contributions gained great support in the 30s (appeasement) and again in the 60s (peace movement). In recent times research has shown that there was actually a great deal of support for the war from the common British soldier, it was different in France where late in the war mutinies occurred.

 

I feel your treatment of Hague is also unfair. the loss of life was truly appalling, the tactics of all the Generals were based on the experiences of colonial wars or those of the Crimea or indeed Napoleon. Lessons were not learned from the American Civil war. None the less Hague was popular during and after the war with the men who served under him. He came under criticism long after his death by those who sought to blame individuals for the sins of many. He did the best he could under the changed circumstances of industrialized war.

 

If you have not read him already Max Hastings has written very balanced books on the era. I recommend him to you.

[mjw47]

Don't ever work in the legal system. :hihi:

 

Yes good point.

 

Why we persist with such nonsense is strange.

 

You only have to take a look at the opening of Parliament and watch middle aged men walking about in wigs and tights.

 

Do these people have no sense of self awareness and take a look at themselves?

 

Whilst not being a fanatical fan I've no problem with military ceremonies and the odd massed band.

 

Seen the changing of the Guard, been to the Edinburgh Tattoo, enjoyed them both but wouldn't bother going again.

 

But civilians dressing up in eighteenth century dress and carrying out weird ceremonies just to carry out a mundane task that other more grown up countries manage whilst wearing suits and ties is beyond ridiculous in my view.

 

Still, gives the tourists the chance to laugh at us I suppose.

[andyofborg]

Mmmmm... I think it's a bit more than that.

 

From what I've read the ceremonies are very symbolic, and not all that nice. They involve symbolic hanging and stabbing for instance.

 

it would be far worse if they were doing it non-symbolically

 

Anyway, what sort of man would dress up in all the regalia,blindfolds, rolled up trouser legs and all, take elaborate and esoteric vows, and still expect to be taken seriously? Or even sane...?

 

why shouldn't they be taken seriously?

 

the regalia and trouser legs are just theatre a bit of colour to liven up what would otherwise probably be a dull event. I suppose the strangeness reflects our dismal world where everything is grey and the highspot of everyone's week is watching simon cowell being nasty to fools on x-factor.

 

presuming the content is basically be nice to people, what's wrong with making a vow to do the same in front of a group of like minded people?

[Anna B]

 

why shouldn't they be taken seriously?

 

the regalia and trouser legs are just theatre a bit of colour to liven up what would otherwise probably be a dull event. I suppose the strangeness reflects our dismal world where everything is grey and the highspot of everyone's week is watching simon cowell being nasty to fools on x-factor.

 

presuming the content is basically be nice to people, what's wrong with making a vow to do the same in front of a group of like minded people?

 

Nothing wrong with it at all if that's what it is, (and I've read things about it that does make it sound very benign.) But why is it a 'secret' society shrouded in mystery? It's not the Rotary club after all.

 

As with the legal profession, which also wears strange clothes and talks in a particular language, I believe it stems purely from elitism; a closed shop to exclude outsiders.

 

As for being 'nice' to people, don't you mean being 'nice' to other members of the group? And where does this cross the boundary from doing favours, into croneyism and downright corruption? Do you think that's right?

[Harleyman]

Yes good point.

 

Why we persist with such nonsense is strange.

 

You only have to take a look at the opening of Parliament and watch middle aged men walking about in wigs and tights.

Do these people have no sense of self awareness and take a look at themselves?

 

Whilst not being a fanatical fan I've no problem with military ceremonies and the odd massed band.

 

Seen the changing of the Guard, been to the Edinburgh Tattoo, enjoyed them both but wouldn't bother going again.

 

But civilians dressing up in eighteenth century dress and carrying out weird ceremonies just to carry out a mundane task that other more grown up countries manage whilst wearing suits and ties is beyond ridiculous in my view.

 

Still, gives the tourists the chance to laugh at us I suppose.

 

Yeah but those are for the kinky parties after the ceremonies

[andyofborg]

 

Nothing wrong with it at all if that's what it is, (and I've read things about it that does make it sound very benign.) But why is it a 'secret' society shrouded in mystery? It's not the Rotary club after all.

 

 

if it wasn't shrouded in mystery then it wouldn't be secret would it. though everyone seems to know about it and loads of stuff has been published about the ceremonies and rules and stuff, so it isn't really very secret or mysterious.

 

perhaps it's a sign of the times, where everyone and everything is expected to put every bowel movement and cornflake on twitter, facebook and the like, a group who don't do that seems very odd.

 

As with the legal profession, which also wears strange clothes and talks in a particular language, I believe it stems purely from elitism; a closed shop to exclude outsiders.

 

its not about elitism, it's about precision. all words have a meaning and some words have a very precise meaning in a legal setting which they don't have in the ordinary world. using the wrong word in the wrong place in a legal document can have profound consequences. it's also about making sure that your intentions are clear and understandable in 10, 20, 30 years and beyond.

 

a good example, would be the wording of the documents which Graves used when he gifted all the parkland to the city and the way it's prevented the council from disposing of parts of it.

 

there is nothing stopping you from doing anything a solicitor can, though of course, doing it right is another matter.

 

As for being 'nice' to people, don't you mean being 'nice' to other members of the group? And where does this cross the boundary from doing favours, into croneyism and downright corruption? Do you think that's right?

 

nice to everyone - member or not

Edited January 1, 2015 by andyofborg

[mjw47]

Yeah but those are for the kinky parties after the ceremonies

 

Given some of the revelations coming out about the so called 'elite', you may very well be onto something there.