It's The Muppet Show!

User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

So, you know my feelings about Ed Miliband and Rishi Sunak, there is just something about the two of them that tells me it's the same actor. But here's an interesting clip from the House of Commons that would suggest I'm totally wrong, so let's attack it head on.

Ed Miliband stands in for Keir Starmer at PMQs: 'Just like the old days'


I wonder what the real reason they have Rishi in a mask for this particular PMQs. At no point in this video does he seem engaged with what is going on.

rishi-ed-1.gif
rishi-ed-1.gif (6.54 MiB) Viewed 2892 times

But I did notice something interesting behind Boris Johnson's head. How can those two arms possibly not touch each other? You can see one appears to disappear behind the other with no contact.

arms.gif
arms.gif (21.76 MiB) Viewed 2892 times

I would suggest it is for the same reason the roller doesn't actually flatten the dog.

flat-dog.gif
flat-dog.gif (7.03 MiB) Viewed 2892 times

If you can do the following, why have actual real people sitting in the House of Commons playing with their iPads? Think of the money your political party could embezzle in the way of MPs salaries... And factor in the 76 MPs that stood down before the 2019 GE, and a further 77 that lost their seats. That's 153 in total or 23% of the 2017 elected intake gone. What were they replaced by months before the Coronavirus Act was pushed through Parliament without any objection at all?


And remember what Zelensky is selling to other world governments under the cover of the Ukraine war.


So is that PMQ's exchange above any proof that Ed Miliband and Rishi Sunak are not played by the same guy? ... See semitransparent Margaret Thatcher for another example.

Image
User avatar
Unreal
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:06 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by Unreal »

The videos above and maybe especially the "Heartstopper simulated audience" video makes your point very clearly - the "real TV" show that is presented in most countries of their elected representatives is a performance that can be altered at will. Quite a powerful tool - an obsession of the rich for a very long time has been to be sure the public are unaware of their whereabouts. This would mean that in the unlikely case the mob would turn on the Elite, they would not be able to locate them to do them any harm.
-
The Margaret Thatcher "transparency glitch" makes a point that is counter-intuitive but very logical and rational : The Elite have better technology than we are ready to believe. Be that from MainStream Media or the ALTernative Media.
-
Consider how media deception uses a variety of tools wherein tricks and strategies for magic makes for some of the most powerful means to perpetrate hoaxes. It only makes sense that hiding technology and altering public perception of technological capacity is of the uttermost importance for the efficient implementation of public deception.
-

The fishbowl magic trick by magician "Chung Ling So" from the movie "The Prestige"
>a fun fact is that the magician this act build upon in the movie faked being chinese
User avatar
Unreal
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:06 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by Unreal »

It is hard to imagine the british Parliament Channel being created WITHOUT deception in mind, and possibly that this initiative had the very trick of false presence(s) at the core of its hoaxing strategy.
-
" Before being taken over by the BBC, the channel was known as the Parliamentary Channel, operated by United Artists Cable and funded by a consortium of British cable operators. The Parliamentary Channel launched as a cable-exclusive channel on 13 January 1992. The channel was purchased by the BBC in 1998, retitled BBC Parliament and relaunched on 23 September 1998. "
— Wikipedia
-
Looking at the Thatcher video above, we have to assume the technical set-up was solid and failproof, 30 years ago...
-
The channel was cable-exclusive for he first six years before the BBC took over (24 years ago). Quite likely, the project was always the same, to broadcast freely to the widest audience possible - the first six years serving to "proof" the concept with possible deniability for technical troubles as a cable exclusive channel only. This type of channel no doubt has very low attraction and viewership - but the reason to be for the parliament channel is of course elsewhere.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

It's funny you should say that @Unreal , I was just creating a related post.

The House of Commons was first televised from November 1989, though it was for news clips rather than live broadcast. There was a stringent set of rules on how cameras would be used - straight on close-ups showing the MP speaking only - as I remember. Likely created with a mind to fakery, and facilitate technical limitations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gow#: ... Parliament.
In 1988 MPs backed an experiment with cameras in the chamber, and 1989 Commons proceedings were televised for the first time on 21 November. Technically, Gow was not the first MP to appear on camera in the chamber, as Bob Cryer, the MP for Bradford South raised a point of order before Gow presented the Loyal Address at the opening of Parliament.
It's hard to know exactly, the Thatcher grab, video here, is dated 1990, the year she was deposed from office and replaced by John Major. Forrest Gump came out in 1994, so it does fit the timeline that they were in some way faking back then.

My feeling is that clip was produced in 2015 using a composite of historic footage. I'm now of the opinion Jeremy Corbyn's back story was substantially padded out and his election in 2015 as Leader of the Opposition palmed onto the public as seemingly "grass roots", a strategy to implode the EXIT side of the EU Referendum vote. His part of the clip was likely filmed in 2015. Him and Diane Abbott next to him look out of place compared to the other people on the back row, or maybe it's that the people directly in front of them look cut out. It's also interesting to note the almost exclusive use of the front row and the back row in these types of exchange, probably better for faking.

Image

But that still doesn't answer the question why Thatcher is transparent, she is clearly not filmed in the same shot as the people sitting around her. And they are historic members of the front bench. The interesting thing is though, Margaret Thatcher famously didn't have any female ministers in her cabinet, it therefore is highly improbable someone in 1990 would put her next to a junior minister during PMs Questions. I therefore think her background is footage filmed during John Major's tenure as PM where the woman in green, Angela Rumbold, was a Front Bench Minister. Maybe they did it to remove MPs who were not part of the deception and are still alive so could be asked about the clip. Either way, it would suggest filming MPs pretending to listen goes back a long way.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

THE CLAIM: The current unelected Conservative leader and Prime Minister is played by the same actor as the former defeated Labour Leader and current Shadow Secretary of State for CLIMATE CHANGE AND NET ZERO. So when we vote Rishi out at the next election, we'll just be voting Rishi back in with a different plastic face on.

ed-rishi-commons-crop.png

In an earlier post I asked the question, "I wonder what the real reason they have Rishi in a mask for this particular PMQs." ... It dawned on me. It was very important for them to set up the subliminal notion that Ed and Rishi are separate people, but equally, it is risky putting the same face opposite itself in the House of Commons, so they put Rishi in a mask.

We begin to see the point of having different parties and different factions within these parties. It is so the general public are only concerned with the subgroup they identify with. I know, because I did this. This fact dawned on me in 2015, and I started to watch all sides, particularly if I was told by the Guardian not to. This is one of their most important strategies. IDENTITY POLITICS. It's all to keep us in our boxes, then they can safely reuse the same actors on both sides.

ed3.gif
ed3.gif (2.8 MiB) Viewed 2799 times
rishi1.gif
rishi1.gif (3.18 MiB) Viewed 2799 times

A little history on Rishi Sunak; he was elected as the MP for Richmond (YORKS) in 2015, taking over the seat from retiring frontbencher William Hague. This was the same year JO COX was elected. I had a placeholder for him in 2016, the fact I have nothing other than his official portrait confirms to me he has no MSM backstory prior to him becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer on 13 FEBRUARY 2020. Meanwhile, "the first two cases of COVID–19 in the UK were confirmed on 30 January 2020 [the day before UK's official BREXIT] in two Chinese nationals who were staying in YORK." The COVID-19 LOCKDOWN was announced by Boris on the 23 MARCH 2020.

As for Ed Miliband; he served as Opposition leader for five years up until Labour lost the 7 May 2015 General Election, he resigned the next day and disappeared into hiatus for five years though still serving as an MP. Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership on 12 September 2015 which encompassed the entire five year BREXIT ordeal, being replaced as Labour leader on 4 April 2020. Ed Miliband returned to the front bench on 6 APRIL 2020 as 'Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy', then on 29 November 2021 switched posts to 'Shadow Secretary of State for CLIMATE CHANGE AND NET ZERO'. All nicely fitting a set of contrived events based on actor contracts running five years at a time. So we can imagine there will be another two years of COVID and Ukraine to come until we hit 2025 and a General Election and Labour government and the final crisis running up to 2030.


Orson Wells was clearly disgusted by what his profession had become by 1974. - "What we have now cannot be excused in those terms."
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

I said in an earlier post I would address what I think the 44 days of Liz Truss premiership was actually about. It goes back into history, something interesting I found out; Queen Elizabeth of England died without heir in 1603, James of Scotland had been approached to become king of England because he was Protestant. He had agreed, but had laid down certain legal conditions that would stop Scotland from being subsumed into England after his death, one being the freedom of the Church of Scotland from the monarchy. These stipulations meant, while all it needed was for the Queen to died for Charles to become King of England, to become King of Scotland he needed to agree to the terms of the contract of Union. Failure to do so would have dissolved the Union, and so this was the ceremony we saw on the day the Queen's death was officially announced.

And this is where Liz Truss comes in. It clearly required the Prime Minister's signature as a witness on the legal document, and here is Liz signing it.

ScreenShot-VideoID-0srbj9sqg7g-TimeS-301.png

Would it have been legally binding if Kermit the Frog had instead signed that document? Would the courts accept, if challenged, that a fictional glove puppet had any legal standing to make Charles King of Scotland?

HDJqP.jpg
HDJqP.jpg (27.68 KiB) Viewed 2729 times

It is my contention that both Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have the same legal standing as a piece of green felt with plastic button eyes. Johnson had to stand down, so we had the excuse of him eating a cake during lockdown. We then had the pretend leadership contest so MSM had something to talk about instead of the stuff they were not allowed to mention. Liz slinks in days before the Queen's death, and stays in office for the official mourning period.

FcPNHvSWYAEayw2.jpg

Government was shut down for just about the entire time Truss was PM, I suspect because they didn't want to subject a human person into signing anything as PM that might have grounds to land her in prison at a later date, and hence why she was replaced so quickly with another appointed glove puppet character once the Union contract had come into force assuming it had the usual cooling off period.
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

If I understand correctly Liz Truss isn't a character/puppet? I've never heard of her before she was chosen as PM but I don't really follow UK politics. The connection to Elizabeth I is interesting, I find it weird that Truss uses her second name rather than her first name Mary, she allegedly doesn't like it. Apparently, "truss" refers to a support structure so the name "Elizabeth Truss" fits the role she was given.

On the other hand, it seems to be a lot of complications just to make the document more legit, even though, it could be justified since a change of monarch doesn't happen very often. From my point of view, these kind of ceremony could be used to reinforce the idea that the elites are not above the law when they really are above the law. There already are a lot of case with people of lower rank in society, where the justice isn't blind so for the royal family, it must be theatrical.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

Yes, these are my observations from watching the game being played. And no, I don't think any of these people are above the law. What they do is rely on our ignorance of the law and their own ability to frustrate and bully us into accepting what they present as fact. Also, you might well be totally correct with the name, but it's not really about the name in itself, it's about whether the name is bonded to an individual or not, that's what gives it legal standing.

If we follow any of the alternative law research from the likes of Romley Stewart then we get the idea we all have legal persons, but the point of them isn't actually bad, they were created so people can trade and transfer property, buy and sell independently, basically anything beyond direct barter. So in that sense we are all attached to a puppet character that allows us to operate in the world of the dead, and it is this entity that fines and penalties are attached to, as well as things like child benefit and pensions.

SURNAME and Christian Name
SURNAME and Christian Name

For anyone, including "the elite" to hold property in the system, they have to hold a legal person, which means that they are subject to the same rules as everyone else within the system. As they do well and are allowed to accumulate wealth over generations, they protect the system while finding loopholes in which to operate. They do this because it is only within the system that they get to claim property, accumulate wealth over time and use the system to subjugate others.

With regards to the monarchy and Scotland; it is a different country to England, it has a different legal system, and it used to have a different king. Looking back into history, on Queen Elizabeth I of England's death, she had no direct heirs, therefore King James VI of Scotland, a cousin who was also Protestant, was asked to form a union with England and become king of both nations because after Bloody Mary, the people of neither country wanted to give the Papacy any foothold back into the British Isles. King James VI of Scotland was subsequently crowned as King Jame I of the United Kingdom. As an aside, it was this King James that commissioned a Bible to be used as the Authorised Version throughout the kingdom, because if there is only one Truth, there can only be one Gospel message. For any KJV haters, whatever you think, this is a reasonable action of a true Christian.

Fundamental differences between England and Scotland:- In England the king/queen is the head of Civil Law and the Christian Church, though Charles will swear to be King of all faiths. We don't know when the takeover happened, but British royalty now consistently uses symbolism from pagan Rome, so it is unsurprising as soon as they could flip England out of Protestant Christianity, they would. Where as in Scotland, Christ is King of kings and Head of the body, the Church of Scotland is not subject to any earthly power, including king. Still true, as it was ruled unconstitutional for civil law to dictate to the Church that it should close its doors during COVID.
COVID-19: Church lockdown worship ban is unlawful, Scottish court rules
https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-chu ... s-12255414

A judge has ruled that a Scottish government ban on church worship during lockdown was unconstitutional, disproportionate and an interference with human rights.

The legal challenge was brought by the Free Church of Scotland (continuing), the Free Church of Scotland, individuals from the Church of Scotland and a number of independent churches.

Their challenge was made in response to restrictions announced by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on 8 January, which made it a criminal offence for churches to hold in-person services.

And forget "interference with human rights", that is a pretend class of law and would have failed if used alone. Anything that relies on 'Human Rights' is basing its standing on fresh air, that's why all cases brought during lockdown failed, because they were brought through controlled opposition using human rights law. We do not have any rights under human rights law, that was the point of its creation. The Christian Church won this case in Scotland because they sit above civil authorities.

Declaration of Human Rights
Declaration of Human Rights

https://vigilantcitizen.com/sinistersit ... ac-france/
The Declaration contains many Masonic, Illuminist and alchemical symbols such as (starting from the top): the Eye of the Great Architect in glory, the Orobouros (snake eating its tail), the Phrygian cap (the red hat under the Ouroboros) and the fasces. Let’s not forget the two Masonic pillars on each side sustaining everything.

“At the visual focus of this illuminated document (and its copies), and set apart with striking contrast, we find a familiar Mithraic motif—a red Phrygian cap set atop the shining white steel of a weapon, itself braced vertically, Excalibur-like, into the presumed bedrock. Should one doubt the symbolic significance of this spear and its Mithraic equivalent, the sword or harpe, attention is directed to the fasces, or barsom, which otherwise would remain inexplicable in this context. Also, the red tassel situated above the fasces is an important Masonic symbol for the ‘Mystic Tie’ that binds Masons, although they might be of diverse opinion and perspective, into a sacred band of Friends and Brothers; the knot or tie, however, is a more ancient symbol of cosmic trans-terrestrial Union.” – Mark Hoffman, Freemasonry and the Survival of the Eucharistic Brotherhoods

The importance of King Charles III signing the Scottish oath and therefore needing witnesses with proper legal standing... When King James agreed to become King of England, it was a partnership, not a takeover. Scotland's constitution still stood, and any subsequent king taking the oath would also have to take the Scottish oath James swore, else the Union would end.

If King Charles III had failed to make the declaration he did, to uphold Scottish law and its constitution, then the contract between the two nations would have dissolved, Scotland would then have been free to crown its own king once more. The English royal family would lose access to all Scottish royal property and would from hence need permission to enter Scotland, else it be considered an act of war. If that sounds farfetched, this is the exact situation the we are in when it comes to the City of London and the Royal family, they have no right to enter the Square Mile without permission, so therefore it belongs to a foreign power. And it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce which Principality that is.



One final thing, I understand it is a Catholic thing to name your daughter Mary, even if you have no intention of using it in every day life.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by rachel »

Failed to win the 2015 General Election. Failed to win the 2022 Conservative Leadership Election. Yet British democracy now comes down to which coloured tie you prefer. That's what you'll be voting for in the next General Election.

Mister Ed in a Red Tie.

Ed Miliband: Labour 'will achieve zero carbon power by 2030'


Mister Ed in a Blue Tie.

Rishi Sunak shares first Party Political Broadcast
PotatoFieldsForever
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 4:34 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: It's The Muppet Show!

Unread post by PotatoFieldsForever »

I can't get onboard with these alternative law researches honestly. Firstly, the idea that without laws, our civilization would turn into the movie "The Purge", I think is a psyop to maintain the current system, most people are good people, there are only a few bad apples in the lot but since people have been brainwashed with this shark mentality, it kinda justifies the existence of the system.

What is the legal system other than a structure put in place to protect the interests of the ruling class backed by the violence of the state? Does it make any sense to own land? own a tree? own air? It seems to go against the observation of nature.

Now being part of the brotherhood has definitely an impact on your experience with the justice system, being brother with the judge must help, like being brother with a cop can help in some situation.

I believe there are unwritten laws that need to be followed though, consent for instance, the system can be used against us because we believe in it. Of course, there are some benefits to the system but picking security over freedom often leads to a bad deal.

Another unwritten law I think is that name holds power, the whole thing about knowing the name of God, or in magical ritual, the part about saying the name out loud. Or the idea that there is a relation between the name of someone and its character. In the same vein, I believe that symbols hold power too, that's why they are so prevalent.

Someone from the elite class giving the name Mary to its child isn't the same thing as your average catholic church member, they probably know why the catholic church has a cult around Mary or why the EU flag has Marian symbolism into it for instance.
Post Reply