Rulers of the World: Queen of England

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

British Queen accused of drug trafficking

"Some of the wealth of the Queen of England comes from drug revenue."

Stated] Jacques Cheminad, French presidential candidate in 2012 elections

The UK's financial regulator has fined the Queen's bank for failing to comply with anti-money laundering procedures, and French presidential candidate said that part of the Queen's income comes from drug trafficking.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FSA) imposed a fine on the bank of the British Queen - Cutts Bank in the amount of 8.75 million poundsfor the fact that the bank did not conduct proper checks on "public officials" and for the fact that it did not interfere with money laundering.

“Bank Cutts committed serious and systematic violations that lasted almost three years. As a result, there was an unacceptable risk that Bank Cutts processed illicit money , - said in an official statement on the website of the Financial Control Department.

The news came less than a week after an outsider in the French presidential race stated that the queen owes her wealth to drug money laundered by "Jewish bankers in the City of London".

On March 21, Jacques Cheminad, an independent candidate for the French presidency, said that "Part of the queen of England's fortune comes from drug trafficking".

“No, not all property, there are several more sources. But this is a series of traffic, in which, yes, there is drug traffic, said J. Scheminad, speaking on the parliamentary television channel LCP.

Bank Cutts, known as the British Queen's banker, has been criticized for "significant, widespread and unacceptable violations," as Tracy McDermott, acting director of financial crimes at the Treasury Office, put it.

“The size of the penalty shows how serious we consider these violations,” McDermott said.

Britain is the Land of the Covenant

Bnei- Brit (English, Hebrew בְּנֵי בְּרִית, German. Translation: Sons of the Covenant) is one of the most famous and oldest Jewish public organizations. Has lodges (branches) in 40 countries.

• Brit milah, which means " covenant of circumcision ", (literally covenant circumcision - I. G.) is a Jewish ritual performed on a baby boy eight days after he is born … It involves the removal of the foreskin from the penis by a mohel, who is a person that has been trained to safely perform the procedure. Brit milah is also known by the Yiddish word "bris." It is one of the most well-known Jewish customs and signifies the unique relationship between a Jewish boy and God. Traditionally, a baby boy is named after his bris (in this paragraph we are talking about the rite of circumcision on the eighth day after the birth of the child.

• It is enough to remind that all persons britAnskoy male royal family undergoes a mandatory circumcision rite. In particular, the circumcision of Prince Charles was announced 10 years ago in the program of Alexander Gordon by the descendant of Aaron, the brother of Moses, the cohen, the rabbi Zinovy Kogan. - Approx. I. G.

• Brit (in Hebrew) translates into English as covenantwhich means - covenant. Ish (in Hebrew) - Human. British - Briton - man of the covenant.

Under the dictatorship of the British queen

For several centuries now, all the main threads of control of world power go to the royal family of Great Britain. Let's try to understand this issue.

It is officially considered that the UK has a "constitutional monarchy". As if limited.

But.

• english Queen has the right to DECLARE WAR (without legal restrictions and without giving reasons);
• english Queen has the right to dismiss the government (similarly);
• english Queen has the right to dissolve parliament;

• once a year, she speaks to parliament and voices her demands for the near future (that is, in fact, she forms the policy of the state).

In household chores, the Crown's powers are broad. Appointment of ministers, privy councilors, members of executive bodies and other officials. In addition, the monarch is the head of the military (British Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and Intelligence). The Sovereign's prerogative is to declare war, make peace, direct military action.

Concerning the prerogatives of the queen and foreign affairs: discuss conditions and ratify treaties, unions, international agreements; parliamentary decisions are not needed. The Sovereign also accredits British High Commissioners and Ambassadors, and receives foreign diplomats.

Also, the Sovereign is revered as a source of justice, and appoints judges for all types of cases.

The general law is that the Crown “cannot be wrong”; the monarch CANNOT BE TRIED in court for felony.

In fact, the queen controls ALL branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial. And finally, the monarch is the supreme ruler of the Church of England and can appoint bishops and archbishops (that is, the head of not only secular, but also spiritual power, which is not found anywhere in the world, even in Iran).

ANY PERSON IN THE WORLD DOES NOT HAVE A GREAT CONCENTRATION OF AUTHORITIES … Even the Korean Juche, portrayed by the "democratic media" as an example of a dictator, nervously smokes in the hallway.

Moreover, almost absolute internal power is not enough for her. Apart from dozens of countries of the British Commonwealth, which are formally independent, in 16 countries the British Queen OFFICIALLY considered the head of state and represented by the APPOINTED queen governors general.

Among these countries, for example, Canada, where the British Queen travels every two years with a "friendly visit", which is actually an inspection. The Governor-General assures the Queen of his loyalty, reports on the current state of affairs and listens to instructions for the near future. If the queen is not satisfied with something, she dismisses him and appoints a new one.

What kind of democracy, what are you talking about? A rigid vertical of power, not controlled by anyone.

For some reason, it is unreasonably believed (I suspect that this is the result of a powerful ideological brainwashing) that all royal prerogatives are fiction and a tribute to tradition.

Meanwhile, in case of special need, the queen will exercise full power. So, in the 80s, she deprived (temporarily) of Margaret Thatcher of information coming from MI-6 intelligence. She personally led the troops into the areas covered by the miners' unrest.

And it was the queen in the highest instance who made the decision to send troops to Iraq.

In addition, one should take into account such a little-known fact: Prince Charles controls the so-called "Island Club", which includes 4,000 oligarchs from all countries of the Commonwealth. This is the financial and economic "fist" of the British monarchy, with the knock of which it can open or knock many doors.

Moreover, 117 corporations headquartered in the City of London are among the 500 largest corporations in the world. And the owners and heads of virtually all of these corporations are members of the House of Peers (including the infamous Rand Corporation).

I am not promoting any conspiracy theories here - these are all well-known facts that are freely available on the Internet. The only thing I did was put them together and looked with an unbiased look.

By the way, about democracy and parliamentarism. Elected in Britain is only lower House of Commons … The upper, which has the power to overturn the decisions of the lower - The House of Peers is HEREDITARY.

Representatives of this aristocratic elite practically without exception lead their own genus from representatives of such "worthy" professions as racketeers, robbers, smugglers, drug dealers, weapons and slaves, pirates. It's just that instead of "ostrich shoes" they have magnificent coats of arms and personalized liveries.

By the way, about piracy. According to numerous circumstantial evidences, threads from Somali, South Chinese and other pirates lead straight to the British Admiralty. It is from there, according to sources, that information is being leaked to pirates, who, where and when to rob. After all, mind you, despite the constant tricks of the captains to bypass dangerous waters, route changes and other tricks, pirates consistently know where ships will pass, when and what cargo will be on them (and choose the most unprotected and expensive ones).

I cannot give irrefutable evidence here (if I had it, I would have submitted it to the court long ago), but there are a lot of indirect indications of this.

And, we must not forget that it was the British crown that was directly involved in the drug trade for at least two centuries (this is for those who have forgotten about the "opium wars" ) … And it was not tea that was carried by "tea clippers" - because of tea, the American War of Independence would not have started. It's just that patriots are tired of the fact that their people are being destroyed with drugs, and they drowned another batch

However, the British special services still control a significant part of the drug trade. The American invasion of Afghanistan began because the Taliban launched a war on drugs, destroyed all crops of poppy and opium on their territory, and also reduced drug traffic through their territory tenfold. And losing forty to fifty billion dollars in drug trafficking was too unpleasant for the British, and they provoked their agents of influence in the United States to invade.

Lyndon LaRouche (and a number of other researchers too) directly says that the Presidential Administration is overflowing with British agents of influence, and their activities are aimed at destroying the United States. The United States, according to him, is rapidly turning into a fascist state, in full accordance with British fascist doctrines (do you remember that the ideology of fascism originated precisely on the Island?).

Do you still not believe that this is possible? Then remember the names of the founders US Federal Reserve (private office) - these are Warburgs, Morgan, Rockefellers and Rothschilds. Or British peers, or bankers of British peers.

By the way, Sir Henry Morgan received the title of peerage and the post of governor of Jamaica for piracy. As did Sir Francis Drake and many others.

At the moment, Britain is developing several directions at once, in which they hope to regain their former power and implement their project of a global English monarchy.

First, there is a channel through which the British elites influence the American ones. Here a special role is played by the so-called. "British-American Community", the role of which is revealed in his works and speeches by politician, scientist and researcher Lyndon LaRouche. There is a whole network of organizations, clubs and research centers (including the far-right Domestic Fascist Network) that indirectly shape US policy, while being British in ownership and in essence.

Secondly, England seriously intends to expand the composition of the Commonwealth member states. So, at the summit in Trinidad and Tobago Rwanda was admitted there. The unusualness of the situation was that this country had never been an English colony - before it belonged to Belgium and Germany. At the same time, when the genocide of the Tutsis began in Rwanda in 1994, the "West" connived for a long time.

This indicates that Britain has launched some kind of geopolitical offensive designed to establish hegemony in the third world. By the way, plans to expand the BS were announced back in 2007 by its Secretary General Don McKinonan. At that time, Rwanda, Yemen, Somalia and Israel were named among the candidates.

In addition, from the former British colonies, Iraq, Egypt and Israel did not want to be part of the British Commonwealth. In addition, there are oil fields in Libya and Iran that were previously owned by British Petroleum.

Can you tell me where the American aggression was directed? And where have "spontaneous popular performances" been taking place lately? Strange, in these countries!

The technology of trying to carry out the "velvet revolution" in Iran is 90% the same as that used in Ukraine in 2004. Even the symbols and "chips" practically coincide, only the green color of Islam is chosen instead of orange.

At one time, Pakistan also left the British Commonwealth (which also ended in dire consequences for it, the coup d'état of 1977 and the coming to power of the military). After which, a few years later, he again entered the British Commonwealth.

The practice of organizing uprisings and supporting separatists has been characteristic of Britain for centuries. Colonel Lawrence, nicknamed Arabian, organized the famous Bedouin uprising against Ottoman rule in 1916-1918. The films portray him in a romantic light, but in reality he was a typical British officer, cold-blooded and calculating, whose task was to weaken the Ottoman Empire.

Did the Arabs get freedom after their uprising then? No, just a couple of years later they fell under the British "protectorate". And already British companies (the notorious British Petroleum) began to pump Middle Eastern oil.

In general, there are many authoritarian rulers in the world. And in Asia, and in Africa, and in Latin America. But the "enlightened West" has no claims to many of them, since they do not object to neo-colonial policies, the pumping of natural resources from their countries and the robbery of their peoples. And the term "undemocratic regime" applies only to those of them who resist robbery.

Who are the main tyrants in the world? Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Lukashenko. What do they have in common? There is only one thing - everywhere in these countries the nationalization of natural resources was carried out (in the case of Belarus, no privatization was carried out), which does not allow the Empires to steal their resources with impunity.

We can say with a high degree of confidence that "undemocratic" in the distorting mirrors of Western propaganda has long meant in reality "patriotic, acting in the interests of his country."

And to act on the sly, undercover, intrigue and cunning, is not new for the British crown.

Aldous Huxley, a British famous for his dystopian "Brave New World!" Even bribed monarchs, including the Russian Alexander (why the hell otherwise he was to lead an army near Austerlitz, where Napoleon defeated him?), using the Rothschild banking network for this.

It was in countries that were colonies Great Britain, the term “ comprador - a person who represents the interests of foreign capital in his country … Because the British ruled not only by force of arms, but also actively bribed and corrupted the local elites. Moreover, not only the military and political, but also the intelligentsia (forming dissidents from it) and merchants.

By the way, it was the comprador bourgeoisie that most actively opposed the national liberation and socialist movements in the colonies, never supporting them and always acting as a "fifth column".