Queen Abdicates Throne!

[Asteriktos]

Orange succession: Queen Beatrix to Prince Willem-Alexander

Queen Beatrix spent 33 years on the throne and will be succeeded by her son, the Prince of Orange, Prince Willem-Alexander.
 
She ascended to the throne when Queen Juliana abdicated on her 71st birthday, on April 30, 1980. Beatrix announced Monday that she will step aside on April 30...

[NightOwl]

Barring the U.K., I have to admit I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

[Fr.Aidan]

It's all about having money flow from other people's purses, into your own. And despite the appearances of "impotent monarchy," these monarchs do wield power due to their incredible wealth and involvement with the satanic One World Government cartel.

Not too long ago, the Queen of England dissolved the Canadian parliament for the third time in three years. In 1975 she removed Australia's Prime Minister from office. This is done, procedurally, through the monarch's "Governor-General."

Unfortunately, the British and Dutch royal families are involved in a lot of globalist activity, which aims to bring about a One World Government to prepare the way for the Antichrist to dominate the entire planet. I won't go into the moral turpitude issues with these families, because they are too shocking to write about in public. Anyone who cares to know, contact me privately.

Quite naïvely and innocently, many still respect the British and Dutch monarchs. I think the heart of these reverential persons is in the right place, but they simply don't have much information on how things work in this world.

And I have strong monarchist tendencies, with sympathy for the ideal of "synergy" between an Orthodox state and the Orthodox Church. And boundless reverence for the Holy Royal New-Martyrs of Russia. So I'm not some sort of anti-monarchist.

[orthonorm]

Barring the U.K., I have to admit I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

Don't bar the "U.K.".

There is no purpose outside one or two. It just part of the Disneyesque experience Europeans must put on for well-heeled and high-brow tourists.

Still not as good as the real Magic Kingdom though.

[orthonorm]

One World Government cartel

Have you been youtubing Brother Nathaniel again?

[Fr.Aidan]

No, have you?

[Tallitot]

they're just boy bands for adults.

[orthonorm]

No, have you?

No. But I am due. I do like to laugh. Keeping posting about "satanic One World Government cartels" and I may never have to check out Brother Nathaniel again.

Thanks.

[Achronos]

No, have you?

No. But I am due. I do like to laugh. Keeping posting about "satanic One World Government cartels" and I may never have to check out Brother Nathaniel again.

Thanks.

Br. Nathaniel is so much more interesting and funny than Alex Jones could ever be.

[orthonorm]

No, have you?

No. But I am due. I do like to laugh. Keeping posting about "satanic One World Government cartels" and I may never have to check out Brother Nathaniel again.

Thanks.

Br. Nathaniel is so much more interesting and funny than Alex Jones could ever be.

Guess I'll have to google that as well, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Fr.Aidan]

If you are unaware of the existence of this movement and its organizational structures, things which are openly documented in a large number of mainstream media reports, please don't let me wake you.

The New York Times can report something, but when I repeat it, I'm made out to be a kook? Interesting how that works.

Many people see and hear precisely what they wish to.

Look, we can disagree, but for you to denigrate and belittle people based on their having read news reports, is a bit much. I don't disrespect you, so please don't disrespect me.  

[Tallitot]

All these articles about European "monarchs" are so similar, I wonder if the writers have a program that writes the stories for them. "immensely popular" "beloved by the people of <insert name of country here>" "worked tirelessly to promote charitable groups in <insert name of country here>" "gave the once remote monarchy a human touch" etc. I'm sure Ms. van Orange is no exception.

[Tallitot]

p.s.: when I first saw the title of this thread I thought it was about me  

[orthonorm]

If you are unaware of the existence of this movement and its organizational structures, things which are openly documented in a large number of mainstream media reports, please don't let me wake you.

The New York Times can report something, but when I repeat it, I'm made out to be a kook? Interesting how that works.

Many people see and hear precisely what they wish to.

Look, we can disagree, but for you to denigrate and belittle people based on their having read news reports, is a bit much. I don't disrespect you, so please don't disrespect me.  

Oh this should be fun. Can you cite for me the NYT article about the Satanic One World Cartel and how the irrelevant Dutch royalty play a part in it? Heck, I'll even accept an op-ed.

If not, I am not sure how well we are going to getting along with respect when you make such hysterical claims then attempt to suggest mainstream and conservative publications like the NYT carry such content.

But maybe I am wrong. I don't read the NYT often, but I will accept it as the paper of American record, even given its rather conservative slant.

Mods, sorry if this is getting political. I am never sure when things become political. I am more interested in the substantiation of the wild claims made above that such rhetoric is common place in conservative media.

[ialmisry]

All these articles about European "monarchs" are so similar, I wonder if the writers have a program that writes the stories for them. "immensely popular" "beloved by the people of <insert name of country here>" "worked tirelessly to promote charitable groups in <insert name of country here>" "gave the once remote monarchy a human touch" etc. I'm sure Ms. van Orange is no exception.

Why not?  I see the same crap for the president of <insert name of country here>.

And don't even get me started on the celebrities on the Left coast and NYC.

[Achronos]

And don't even get me started on the celebrities on the Left coast and NYC.

Please start.

[NightOwl]

Barring the U.K., I have to admit I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

Don't bar the "U.K.".

There is no purpose outside one or two. It just part of the Disneyesque experience Europeans must put on for well-heeled and high-brow tourists.

Still not as good as the real Magic Kingdom though.

I bar the U.K. (why in quotation marks?) for two reasons mostly, the Commonwealth and the Crown Estate, through which the monarchy still has significant political and economic clout, respectively...

[William]

I want Cyrillic to post in this here thread.

[Tallitot]

but then again, I'll never abdicate.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

[Tallitot]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

I have a thread on this subject in plitics        where the validity of hereditary monarchs can be further discussed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49522.msg871730/topicseen.html#msg871730

[NightOwl]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

I have a thread on this subject in plitics        where the validity of hereditary monarchs can be further discussed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49522.msg871730/topicseen.html#msg871730

Why can't we discuss it here? 

[Tallitot]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

I have a thread on this subject in plitics        where the validity of hereditary monarchs can be further discussed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49522.msg871730/topicseen.html#msg871730

Why can't we discuss it here? 

if a mod weighs in and decides that's not a political topic, i guess we could.

[NightOwl]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

I have a thread on this subject in plitics        where the validity of hereditary monarchs can be further discussed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49522.msg871730/topicseen.html#msg871730

Why can't we discuss it here? 

if a mod weighs in and decides that's not a political topic, i guess we could.

Or they could just move this thread to the Politics forum and delete yours, since this one has more of a substantial discussion going...

[JamesRottnek]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

I have a thread on this subject in plitics        where the validity of hereditary monarchs can be further discussed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49522.msg871730/topicseen.html#msg871730

Why can't we discuss it here? 

if a mod weighs in and decides that's not a political topic, i guess we could.

Or they could just move this thread to the Politics forum and delete yours, since this one has more of a substantial discussion going...

I would not call this discussion "substantial."

[NightOwl]

I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

word.

I have a thread on this subject in plitics        where the validity of hereditary monarchs can be further discussed:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49522.msg871730/topicseen.html#msg871730

Why can't we discuss it here?  

if a mod weighs in and decides that's not a political topic, i guess we could.

Or they could just move this thread to the Politics forum and delete yours, since this one has more of a substantial discussion going...

I would not call this discussion "substantial."

It is by comparison to the thread in the Politics forum, which besides the first post has nothing to do with "Politics" (or anything else, for that matter).

[Shanghaiski]

All these articles about European "monarchs" are so similar, I wonder if the writers have a program that writes the stories for them. "immensely popular" "beloved by the people of <insert name of country here>" "worked tirelessly to promote charitable groups in <insert name of country here>" "gave the once remote monarchy a human touch" etc. I'm sure Ms. van Orange is no exception.

Why not?  I see the same crap for the president of <insert name of country here>.

And don't even get me started on the celebrities on the Left coast and NYC.

I don't know. Apart from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, there's a lot more drool in a certain country's media over a certain country's President.

[Fr.Aidan]

Below I provide what was asked for. Please note the obvious, that "satanic" is my own adjective. Not that anyone here would have, at any moment, thought I was quoting the New York Times in using that adjective. But I want to forestall any thread drift into "But the NYT doesn't use the word 'satanic' at all."

U.S. Secretary-General calls for global governance in New York Times op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=0.

And in his interview with Los Angeles Times, he states, "“We will establish a global governance structure": http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16

In a Bloomberg News interview in 2009, David Rothschild opines that the Copenhagen summit will finally open the door to the establishment of a global government structure which he lamented was elusive to attain: "We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda... it’s very hard to actually activate.”

In 2000, then French president Jacque Chirac gave a speech at The Hague, stating that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.” Source appears to be the website of the French presidency(?): http://www.elysee.fr/

Murdoch's U.K. Times sponsored a conference at Oxford in July 2009. Al Gore spoke on July 7, and stated that the U.S. Congress' climate bill will help bring about “global governance.”

In Dec. 2009, EU President Herman Van Rompuy said that the Copenhagen conference was, “The first step towards the global management of our planet.”

The New York Times printed an op-ed by Henry Kissinger in Jan. 2009, in which he outlined the construction of a New World Order to include global systems both of political activity and of financial structures: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/opinion/12iht-edkissinger.1.19281915.html?pagewanted=all

And there is an interesting piece in Bloomberg from a few years ago which is somewhat related: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-01-28/secret-banking-cabal-emerges-from-aig-shadows-david-reilly.html

Quid multa?

[Shanghaiski]

The world's governments are already run by idiots. A global president, etc. is just window dressing.

[orthonorm]

You're lucky I let you include op-eds . . .

Yeah not only was satanic your word but One World Cartel was as well.

In short, your hysterical language has no basis in reality.

OK.

Do some people believe in global governmental structures or supra-national governmental agencies? Yes. I am one of them.

And the CEO of the company I work for has more to power in such a would be scenario than some monarch from Netherlands.

So the impotent figure head tourist attraction also is a non-starter.

[Fr.Aidan]

When you have a group of powerful people, in different categories of professional or vocational activity, working together in league, in a structured fashion, to implement common goals which benefit themselves, it is scarcely unreasonable to call them, collectively, a "cartel."

Inclusion of op-eds is neither here nor there. Whether the paper published the statements as op-ed, or whether a reporter reported on a public speech's or published book's content, documentation is made of the intentions and statements of the involved.

So, orthonorm, you admit that there is a group of powerful people of the world, who in league and with the presence of a structured ordering of common activity or coordination, are planning to institute structures of global government, or if you prefer other but equivalent words, global governance?

[orthonorm]

When you have a group of powerful people, in different categories of professional or vocational activity, working together in league, in a structured fashion, to implement common goals which benefit themselves, it is scarcely unreasonable to call them, collectively, a "cartel."

Except this has nothing to do with most uses of the term cartel. Which would suggest a relative small group of entities providing relatively similar (usually the same) goods or services for sale who collude as to increase their own profits which would be diminished if such collusion didn't occur. See OPEC for an example.

Your very first sentence nullifies your use of this word. If Coke and Pizza Hut and Home Depot want to pool resources as to be more profitable that doesn't make them a cartel.

Inclusion of op-eds is neither here nor there. Whether the paper published the statements as op-ed, or whether a reporter reported on a public speech's or published book's content, documentation is made of the intentions and statements of the involved.

It is here and here as op-eds don't reflect journalism of record of any serious sort. You must have a rather low view of journalism if you think the mere passing on of the words of a guest writer passes for the investigative, analytical, and synthetic nature of real journalism.

So, orthonorm, you admit that there is a group of powerful people of the world, who in league and with the presence of a structured ordering of common activity or coordination, are planning to institute structures of global government, or if you prefer other but equivalent words, global governance?

Actually, I would suggest you look at the Fortune 100. Look at their CEOs and board members. The number of people that group is made up of it shockingly low. Really, look at it sometime. And the amount of wealth the Fortune 100 manage is incredible.

So do I think such groups exist? Yes. However they are not governmental in nature, although these groups do pose an inordinate amount of pressure on government at all levels.

So without getting too partisan here, you are wrong.

What we have is the concentration of capital which outstrips the means of governmental agencies to regulate its circulation (which is exactly the goal of a true blue capitalist, this is not a statement of moral judgement, it is a statement of simply the internal logic of capitalism).

Is this aggregation of capital into fewer hands satanic? That seems loaded but within the Odox parlance, one could say such a thing I suppose.

Is this aggregation of capital the result of a cartel? It can't be, unless one would push the sematic limits of cartel to the point of meaninglessness.

Is there one force at work? No. As few players as you will find even within the Fortune 100, there is more than one group which is aligned. It's quite interesting to see who sits on whose board. Working for a Fortune 25, I can tell you who will NEVER be on the board in the next decade as forming something like a cartel is for now totally at odds with profit in the industry I work in. Not too mention that in the Fortune 100, you have groups of producers: Exxon. And consumers: Walmart. The adversarial role between producer and consumer at this level of commerce is hard to underestimate. I can assure you some one would probably get killed if they sat a board member of Walmart on the board of the company I work for.

So, nothing you said has much truth. If there is concentration of power anywhere in this world, it is not within the governments of it, for better or worse.

[Fr.Aidan]

Or this dictionary definition of "cartel": a combination of political groups for common action. There's no requirement, in a cartel, for homogeneity. Splitting hairs, really.

I didn't enter into any concept of "journalism." Just documentation in the public record. And that is present in abundance.

It is interesting, and illustrative, to see the whole situation in terms of an aggregation of capital. However, my focus was more on the morphing into a global government, which clearly sets the preconditions for the kind of reign which is attributed to Antichrist in the Holy Scripture and Orthodox tradition.

I disagree that governments lack power. They have incredible power. But also the governments have been co-opted by the largest corporations, so that in many cases they simply do the bidding of those who call the shots, who are admittedly not governmental heads of state, e.g. But the establishment of global government would be a different model altogether, no? It is that model to which I call attention.

[orthonorm]

Or this dictionary definition of "cartel": a combination of political groups for common action. There's no requirement, in a cartel, for homogeneity. Splitting hairs, really.

I didn't enter into any concept of "journalism." Just documentation in the public record. And that is present in abundance.

It is interesting, and illustrative, to see the whole situation in terms of an aggregation of capital. However, my focus was more on the morphing into a global government, which clearly sets the preconditions for the kind of reign which is attributed to Antichrist in the Holy Scripture and Orthodox tradition.

I disagree that governments lack power. They have incredible power. But also the governments have been co-opted by the largest corporations, so that in many cases they simply do the bidding of those who call the shots, who are admittedly not governmental heads of state, e.g. But the establishment of global government would be a different model altogether, no? It is that model to which I call attention.

Sigh.

I must at least keep the kidz on the straight and narrow:

A cartel is a formal agreement among competing firms. It is a formal organization where there is a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

A system whereby producers divide up the market between themselves, avoiding direct competition and not encroaching on each other's share of the market.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095552738

a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cartel

(MW is one of the worst lexicons especially in how the definitions are put into order. They go primarily by order of earliest use. Which is why everyone who cares about the common usage of a term should use the Oxford American.)

In any case, cartel as used to mean anything that another word in the English language cannot, thus its only real meaning for the most part, is what I suggested above.

If you want to extend cartel to mean group, then everything is a cartel.

In any case, you got my drift in my post. If you want to take this further it will have to be in politics and at another time.

[orthonorm]

I lied, a little.

It just occurred to me from a silly geo-politics class I took which examined the history of the EU that in political discourse at least in German Kartel does retain some of its older / rarer connotations in English and has been revived a bit to describe the rise of supra-national and transnational and international governmental organization.

If you have any German:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatenkartell

Oh . . .

They have what amounts to a translation of the German page in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_cartel_theory

Note the references are nearly all German.

[Fr.Aidan]

At one point you said, "So without getting too partisan here, you are wrong."

A hieromonk is never wrong. He bloviates precisely how he means to.

[Father H]

At one point you said, "So without getting too partisan here, you are wrong."

A hieromonk is never wrong. He bloviates precisely how he means to.

partisan politics, "party" or otherwise have no place in the Church.  Bloviating, however, ...  well, I better stop right there. 

[Santagranddad]

Barring the U.K., I have to admit I don't really see the purpose of modern European royals with the fall of nationalism and rise of cultural homogeneity...

As a well travelled European I am a little puzzled by the 'rise of cultural homogeneity', unless this is a reference to the all pervacive 'American film, television and celebrity culture'. 'Diversity' seems for the most part a reality across continental Europe, only enthusiasm or a lack thereof distinguishes one region from another.

The so-called European project is definitely an attempt to wield the EU into a Federal European State, with all the trimmings of such.

[Kerdy]

If you are unaware of the existence of this movement and its organizational structures, things which are openly documented in a large number of mainstream media reports, please don't let me wake you.

The New York Times can report something, but when I repeat it, I'm made out to be a kook? Interesting how that works.

Many people see and hear precisely what they wish to.

Look, we can disagree, but for you to denigrate and belittle people based on their having read news reports, is a bit much. I don't disrespect you, so please don't disrespect me.  

Fr. Aidan,

This is what he does.  Pay him no mind.  You will find a great number of people are blind to many important things and sadly, it’s usually a willing blindness.  Even gloomier, they think themselves clever for not having seen these things.

[Cyrillic]

I want Cyrillic to post in this here thread.

I have arrived.

All these articles about European "monarchs" are so similar, I wonder if the writers have a program that writes the stories for them. "immensely popular" "beloved by the people of <insert name of country here>" "worked tirelessly to promote charitable groups in <insert name of country here>" "gave the once remote monarchy a human touch" etc. I'm sure Ms. van Orange is no exception.

Our queen really was awesome. She worked tirelessly for this country and did much good for the economy and diplomacy. In politics too she was often one of the few sane persons which is one of the reasons she got side-lined by parliament. Beatrix was the main reason why I supported the monarchy. I do have some doubts about her heir.

Unfortunately, the British and Dutch royal families are involved in a lot of globalist activity, which aims to bring about a One World Government to prepare the way for the Antichrist to dominate the entire planet. I won't go into the moral turpitude issues with these families, because they are too shocking to write about in public. Anyone who cares to know, contact me privately.

Quite naïvely and innocently, many still respect the British and Dutch monarchs. I think the heart of these reverential persons is in the right place, but they simply don't have much information on how things work in this world.

The Bilderberg conspiracy theories never get old...

[Romaios]

Then you're wrong. Our queen was awesome. She worked tirelessly for this country and did much good for the economy. In politics too she was often one of the few sane persons which is one of the reasons she got side-lined. She was the main reason why I supported the monarchy. I do have some doubts about her heir.

Great to see the Dutch stand up for their queen! I hope her son will prove himself a worthy successor. 

[Ansgar]

It strikes me that I know very little about the dutch royal family. I need to do some research.

[Achronos]

No, have you?

No. But I am due. I do like to laugh. Keeping posting about "satanic One World Government cartels" and I may never have to check out Brother Nathaniel again.

Thanks.

Br. Nathaniel is so much more interesting and funny than Alex Jones could ever be.

Guess I'll have to google that as well, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Google "Alex Jones and Piers Morgan Guns" actually do the search on YouTube.

[Achronos]

The Bilderberg conspiracy theories never get old...

Funny how I bring Alex Jones up and you mention this.

You ever see that Obama deception doc? Where his argument that the Bilderberg group is conspiring is because the fire alarm went off in a hotel?

The guy is a nut.

[genesisone]

Not too long ago, the Queen of England dissolved the Canadian parliament for the third time in three years. In 1975 she removed Australia's Prime Minister from office. This is done, procedurally, through the monarch's "Governor-General."

Unfortunately, the British and Dutch royal families are involved in a lot of globalist activity, which aims to bring about a One World Government to prepare the way for the Antichrist to dominate the entire planet. I won't go into the moral turpitude issues with these families, because they are too shocking to write about in public. Anyone who cares to know, contact me privately.

Quite naïvely and innocently, many still respect the British and Dutch monarchs. I think the heart of these reverential persons is in the right place, but they simply don't have much information on how things work in this world.

Quite frankly, as soon as I see how seriously misinformed (or purposely deceptive) a writer is with the expression "Queen of England" I know the rest of the message is pure drivel.

"Moral turpitude issues"? Really? You mean like the sins of countless members of any community?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Other Topics > Topic: Queen Abdicates Throne!