Ahmadinejad to deliver channel 4's alternative christmas message

magick · 26 Dec 2008 at 03:43

The queen is one of the most powerful and richest people on earth. As far as public figures she's up there at the very top of the pyramid and a lot, lot richer than the few hundred million 'The Times 100 Rich List' claims.

Her along with Mr Rothschild own The Bank of England. She's almost certainly one of the owners of The Federal Reserve and so in effect the UK does still own the USA.

As mmj says when England lost overt control of the american colonies they retook it covertly by setting up a private central bank. So yes the UK>USA. She probably owns the central banks in other 'independant' colonial countries too.

Her real wealth could be in the trillions. And let's not even consider all the land she owns and her alleged oil, gold, diamond and mining interests.

neoboy · 26 Dec 2008 at 03:48

Well C4 may be taking this media freedom thing a bit too far. Iranian propaganda machine will have a field day with this.

magick · 26 Dec 2008 at 04:01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iih1aEj2vgI

It's actualy quite a good speech he gives.

Meridian · 26 Dec 2008 at 07:50

magick said:
The queen is one of the most powerful and richest people on earth. As far as public figures she's up there at the very top of the pyramid and a lot, lot richer than the few hundred million 'The Times 100 Rich List' claims.

Her along with Mr Rothschild own The Bank of England. She's almost certainly one of the owners of The Federal Reserve and so in effect the UK does still own the USA.

As mmj says when England lost overt control of the american colonies they retook it covertly by setting up a private central bank. So yes the UK>USA. She probably owns the central banks in other 'independant' colonial countries too.

Her real wealth could be in the trillions. And let's not even consider all the land she owns and her alleged oil, gold, diamond and mining interests.

It's difficult to think of any response to that except: "Oh Dear God". I love the "almost certainly", "probably" etc - i.e., there's no evidence but you read it in a book so it must be true.

Magick mate, as there are actually any conspiracy theories that you think is too far-fetched to be believable?

M

Energize · 26 Dec 2008 at 08:00

vincent1989 said:
english civil war (the most recent one )

the monarchy have had no 'real' power since then, parliament decide the laws, the queen signs them for legality, if she refused to sign one she would be out and thus lose her cushy lifestyle.

she is a figurehead and nothing more

Queens have refused to give laws their royal assent long after the civil war without being thrown out...

magick · 26 Dec 2008 at 08:05

Meridian said:
It's difficult to think of any response to that except: "Oh Dear God". I love the "almost certainly", "probably" etc - i.e., there's no evidence but you read it in a book so it must be true.

Sorry but what exactly is to far fetched in what I said?

Duke · 26 Dec 2008 at 09:00

IceBus said:
I'll be interested to hear what Ahmadinejad says.

I won't be - why are you interested?

dirtydog · 26 Dec 2008 at 09:02

magick said:
Sorry but what exactly is to far fetched in what I said?

All of it.

Tefal · 27 Dec 2008 at 08:32

lewism said:
don't jump the gun sunshine, you'll only get shot.

what, the fact that the crown has no control over any law that is passed in this country. maybe a century or two ago the queen was the most powerful person in the world but if you believe that is still the case you are deluded.

When was the last time she used any of her powers, 99 with the iraq bill? yes she has some power but the most powerful person in the world, hardly.

Did I say "most powerful person in the world" ?

No, i didn't, the queen however is a very powerful diplomat, because much of the world still sees it as a great honour to be visited by the queen. Not to mention she has more diplomatic experience than almost anyone else on the planet.

Which i why i said you don't understand politics and diplomacy, if you think power is solely making laws then you're sorely mistaken.

Sankari · 27 Dec 2008 at 18:59

Strife212 said:
Nope. The queen can abolish the government whenever she wants. It happened recently in Australia.

No. She has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, and the power to dissolve both houses in preparation for an election, but AFAIK she does not have power to abolish the government.

Moreover, the Australian incident to which you refer did not involve or result in the abolition of Australia's government.

The government of the time (a Labour administration under PM Gough Whitlam) was locked in a battle with the Opposition (which enjoyed a Senate majority). The Opposition was calling for a general election after a string of Labour scandals, and Whitlam was resisting this call.

In an attempt to force his hand, the Opposition blocked the passage of supply bills through the Senate (thereby starving the government of funds). Whitlam claimed that this was unconstitutional, and tried to find alternative methods of funding (without success).

The deadlock dragged on for several weeks, by which time the government was facing a financial crisis. The Opposition began to demand action from Sir John Kerr (Australia's Governor General, and an old Labour supporter who had been appointed by Whitlam himself).

Kerr approached both Gough Whitlam (PM) and Malcolm Fraser (Opposition leader) on a number of occasions, with a view to striking some sort of compromise. At a final meeting, it became clear that Fraser was prepared to negotiate, but Whitlam was not. By now, the Opposition was calling openly for Whitlam's dismissal.

Kerr - using powers not exercised since the early 19th Century - dismissed Whitlam as PM, and appointed Fraser as caretaker PM. Fraser immediately requested Kerr to call a double dissolution, which he did.

In the general election which followed, Labour was crushed and Fraser was vindicated. However, Kerr's decision remained controversial and he was deeply unpopular for the rest of his life.

Personally, I believe that Kerr did the right thing. I have tremendous respect for the man.

Strife212 · 27 Dec 2008 at 19:01

Evangelion said:
No. She has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister, and the power to dissolve both houses in preparation for an election, but AFAIK she does not have power to abolish the government.

You're right, "abolish" was the wrong word, I meant Dismiss.

Zom · 27 Dec 2008 at 19:39

Mr Jack said:
The article I read was in Prospects, I don't think they're available on-line?

Managed to find it

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?search_term=iranian&id=10477

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?search_term=iranian&id=10477 said:
Most people think British power has declined over the past century, but not the Iranians. On the 30th anniversary of the revolution they remain deeply suspicious of British motives. These feelings are now irrational, but are grounded in history

SoSolid · 27 Dec 2008 at 20:17

He spoke sense.

Radiation · 27 Dec 2008 at 20:52

mmj_uk said:
There's actually a few conspiracy theories claiming the US is a British Corporation, the jist of it was that we couldn't invade them militarily so instead let them think they'd won the War of Independence and then infiltrated government, setting up the private central banks, income tax etc.

It sounds pretty ridiculous at first thought but then it wasn't long ago our Empire spanned the entire globe, we gave it all up quite easily didn't we? or did we?

It actually does sound possible when you think about it, its funny how America went on with all eyes now on them instead while western power continued on and increased, interesting...