King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Peasant Woman: “Order”, eh? Who does he think he is?
King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays…]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying about in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
From “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, written by written and performed by Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin, 1975
[image]
(Michael Palin as Dennis in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, 1975)
THE DATA
From January 1990 to January 2023, the percentage of the U.K.'s populace who felt unfavorably about the monarchy increased by 430%, from 10% to 53%.
And they haven’t even gotten wise to the human sacrifice and cannibalism part, yet.
In January 1990, just 10% of people in the U.K. felt unfavorably about the monarchy.
From 2015 to May 2022, the percentage of 18 to 24 year olds in the U.K. who felt that Britain should abolish the Monarchy increased by 109%, or more than doubled, from 31% to 65%.
From 2015 to May 2022, the percentage of 18 to 24 year olds in the U.K. who felt that Britain should abolish the Monarchy increased by 55% , from 49% to 76%.
In May 2022, the 67% of 18 to 24 year olds in the U.K. who felt that Britain should abolish the Monarchy was 378% greater, or close to five times greater than the 14% of those 65 and older who felt the same. The Guardian’s Matthew Smith omitted the percentage entirely, and called it a “growing generational divide”. Growing , ah, how vigorous!
Don’t let the gold-leafed door hit you on the ass on the way out, my royal bitches.
From December 2022 to January 2023, the 20% increase in the U.K.'s negative opinion of Prince William is 100% greater, or double the 10% increase in the negative opinion of Prince Harry during that same time period.
From December 2022 to January 2023, Princess Kate’s 8-point decrease in popularity was 38% greater than Duchess of Sussex Meghan’s 5-point decrease.
I’d note the the actual 8 point decrease which Kate experienced ties her with her husband, William, for largest decreases among the royal family.
From December 2022 to January 2023, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s popularity decreased by 21%, from 24% to 19%. The Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haigh falsely inflated the decrease by 161%, from the actual 21% to a fraudulently-claimed 55%. I have exposed Elizabeth Haigh’s duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
From December 2022 to to January 2023, The percentage of the populace of the U.K. who have a negative opinion of the Royal family as a whole increased by 22%, from 47% to 53%. I hate to break it to you, but that’s a majority of the populace.
But, then, that’s what happens when you reject someone from your family based solely upon their race.
The U.K. Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haigh said it was because “the Duke of Sussex’s mudslinging memoir tarnished the whole royal family”.
Just wait until the populace figures out the human sacrifice and cannibalism part.
From December 2022 to January 2023, The percentage of the populace of the U.K. who have a negative opinion of Prince William increased by 20% , from 41% to 49%. The U.K. Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haige described it as “eight percentage points”.
She said that because percentages are larger than percentage points, and because points are positive. You score points.
From December 2022 to January 2023, Princess Kate’s popularity decreased by 13%, from 68% to 60%. The Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haigh called it “-7”, which falsely downgraded the decrease by 13%, from 8 points to 7 points. I have exposed Elizabeth Haigh’s duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
From December 2022 to to January 2023, The percentage of the populace of the U.K. who have a negative opinion of Prince Harry increased by 10% , from 70% to 77%.
On January 10, 2023, directly in the face of a one-month 22% increase in negative opinion of the Royal family, Time Magazine’s Yasmeen Serhan said “Prince Harry’s Book Didn’t Change Minds About the Royals”.
That’s because the first rule of Politics is “deny, deny, deny”.
THE ARTICLES
On September 16, 2022, the U.K.'s Guardian said “Britain may look united in grief – but polling shows a growing generational divide”.
Where author Matthew Smith said “growing generational divide” because, as a propagandist, he knows that seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, and his hedging generality goes a long way toward “compartmentalizing” awareness of the scope of the exponential decrease in trust in the Monarchy which he is attempting to obfuscate.
He said “polling shows” to give the subconscious of the Coincidence theorist reader the green light to say “oh, but they can make those polls show anything!”
As a propagandist, Matthew knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
In journalistic parlance, Matthew “buried” this five paragraphs down:
"Currently, only 47% of 18- to 24-year-olds say Britain should continue to have a monarchy, compared with 86% of Britons aged 65 and over. Even this level of support among young people may be temporarily inflated: just 33% had voiced their desire to keep the crown in May, at the time of the platinum jubilee.
Such disillusionment is a relatively new development. As recently as 2015, 69% of 18- to 24-year-olds said that Britain should remain a monarchy. By 2018 this had fallen to 47%, and in polls from 2020 onwards, prior to the Queen’s death, it has averaged at just 35%."
For grade school children studying the subject in the future, asking the average citizen in the U.K. in 2022 to read five paragraphs is like asking someone from the U.K. from 1910 to recite the Magna Carta from memory.
Did you notice how Matthew spewed a bunch of figures, so that you couldn’t really get a clear picture of the “growing generational divide” that he described only-generally in the headline?
So, I had to do the math to learn:
From 2015 to May 2022, the percentage of 18 to 24 year olds in the U.K. who felt that Britan should not remain a Monarchy increased by 109%, or more than doubled, from 31% to 65%.
The article goes on to say:
“Currently, only 47% of 18- to 24-year-olds say Britain should continue to have a monarchy, compared with 86% of Britons aged 65 and over. Even this level of support among young people may be temporarily inflated: just 33% had voiced their desire to keep the crown in May, at the time of the platinum jubilee.”
Thanks, Matthew, for only going halfway, by simply providing the numbers. Here’s how an honest journalist would write it:
In May 2022, the 67% of 18 to 24 year olds in the U.K. who said Britain should abolish the Monarchy was 378% greater, or close to five times greater than the 14% of those 65 and older who felt the same. The Guardian’s Matthew Smith omitted the percentage entirely, and called it a “growing generational divide”. Growing, ah, how vigorous!
The article goes on to say:
“The notion that the monarchy is good for the country also no longer seems to wash with young people. While 61% of 18– to 24-year-olds were convinced of the benefits in 2015, today that figure stands at 33%, and the 24% it was in May probably better reflects attitudes in more stable times.”
Did you notice how Matthew spewed a bunch of figures, so that you couldn’t really get a clear picture of what he’s talking about? Here’s how it reads when it’s written by an honest person:
From 2015 to May 2022, the percentage of 18 to 24 year olds in the U.K. who were unconvinced of the benefits of the Monarchy increased by 55%, from 49% to 76%.
Here’s Matthew Smith’s picture, in a Satanic purple shirt:
[image]
(Matthew Smith)
I’ve includes his photograph so that you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist Freemason in a position of marginal influence looks like.
He figured that the rubes would never notice the coded visual imagery.
They are all related to one another through the maternal bloodline. They comprise between twenty and thirty percent of the populace, and are hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth. It’s how the few have controlled the many all the way back to Babylon, and before.
But they say that the hardest part of solving a problem is recognizing that you have one.
Don Croft used to say “Parasites fear exposure above all else”.
On January 9, 2023, the U.K.'s Daily Mail said “No one has been Spared! William, Kate and Charles see their popularity with Brits plunge - with Harry and Meghan also down after Duke of Sussex’s mudslinging memoir tarnished the whole royal family.”
Where author Elizabeth Haigh said “plunge” and “down” because, as a propagandist, she knows that seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, and her hedging generalities go a long way toward “compartmentalizing” awareness of the scope of the exponential decrease in trust in the Monarchy which she is attempting to obfuscate.
As a bonus, she said “plunge” “down” as a thinly-veiled reference to the fallen Lord Lucifer.
[image]
(The fall of Lucifer, from “Paradise Lost”, by John Milton, 1667)
Elizabeth said “see their popularity with Brits plunge” to walk it back a step from Kate and Charles actually experiencing it, and to imply that their popularity hadn’t decreased suddenly and exponentially in any nation other than Britain.
The article goes on to say “Figures released by Ipsos Mori suggest less than a quarter of Britons hold a favourable view of the Duke of Sussex- but the royal who has suffered the most since the furore began is his brother Prince William.”
“Suffered the most” (takes a pinch of snuff, throws self on fainting couch). The cold truth is that William is the biggest royal asshole, hence his biggest decrease in popularity. Wait - since he’s royal, do I capitalize “Asshole”?
Elizabeth tacked “figures” on the front end to give the subconscious of the Coincidence theorist reader the green light to say “oh, but that Ipsos Mori can make those figures suggest anything!” Then she demurred “suggest” to imply that the figures were somehow uncertain.
As a propagandist, Elizabeth knows that many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
The article goes on to say “The heir to the throne saw his popularity decline by 8 percentage points since December 22, with his wife Kate tied with Prince Harry at a loss of 7 points. Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, also had her rating drop.”
Where, with brazen deviousness, Elizabeth puts the brown girl last, and then uses the general “drop” to hide the fact that Princess Kate’s eight-point decrease in popularity was almost forty percent greater than Meghan’s five-point decrease.
Elizabeth said “saw his popularity decline” to walk it back a step from Prince William actually experiencing it.
Using a time-honored propaganda technique, Elizabeth “buried” the data in a separate table.
And, unfortunately for Elizabeth, I did the math, and Kate’s 13% decrease in popularity from 68% to 60% is an eight-point decrease, versus the 7-point decrease that Elizabeth fraudulently claimed “tied with Prince Harry”. Elizabeth downgraded Kate’s decrease in popularity by 13%, from an actual 8 points to a fraudulently-claimed 7 points. I have exposed Elizabeth’s duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
Even more, er, magnificently, Elzabeth claimed, with a completely straight face, that Meghan’s popularity had decreased by 55% from December to January, and that Kate’s had decreased by 13%. Let’s do the math!
From December 2022 to January 2023, Princess Kate’s 8-point decrease in popularity was 38% greater than Duchess of Sussex Meghan’s 5-point decrease.
From December 2022 to January 2023, Princess Kate’s popularity decreased by 13%, from 68% to 60%. The Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haigh called it “-7”, which falsely downgraded the decrease by 13%, from the actual 8 points to the fraudulently-claimed 7 points. I have exposed Elizabeth’s duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
From December 2022 to January 2023, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex’s popularity decreased by 21%, from the 24% to 19%. The Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haige falsely inflated the decrease by 161%, from the actual 21% to a fraudulently-claimed 55%. I have exposed Elizabeth’s duplicity by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
From December 2022 to January 2023, The percentage of the populace of the U.K. who have a negative opinion of Prince William increased by 20% , from 41% to 49%. The U.K. Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haige described it as “eight percentage points”.
Here, I must beg the reader to note that the most popular figure in the U.K.'s Royal family is viewed unfavorably by half of the populace.
From December 2022 to to January 2023, The percentage of the populace of the U.K. who have a negative opinion of Prince Harry increased by 10%, from 70% to 77%.
From December 2022 to January 2023, the 25% increase in the U.K.'s negative opinion of Prince William is 100% greater, or heading double the 10% increase in the negative opinion of Prince Harry during that same time period.
Now, it’s significant to note that 70%, or a supermajority of the populace of the U.K. already had a negative opinion of Harry going into the, er, race. However, the bloom is obviously off the rose for his golden-boy brother, as well.
From December 2022 to to January 2023, The percentage of the populace of the U.K. who have a negative opinion of the Royal family as a whole increased by 22%, from 47% to 53%. I hate to break it to you, but that’s a majority of the populace.
But, then, that’s what happens when you reject someone from your family based solely upon their race.
The U.K. Daily Mail’s Elizabeth Haigh said it was because “the Duke of Sussex’s mudslinging memoir tarnished the whole royal family”.
Just wait until the populace figures out the human sacrifice and cannibalism part.
Here’s Elizabeth Haigh’s picture, where she’s making a puportedly-secret Masonic “gesture of recognition” with her left hand:
[image]
(Elizabeth Haigh)
I have included her photograph so that you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist Freemason in a position of marginal influence looks like.
She figured that the rubes would never notice the coded visual imagery.
They are all related to one another through the maternal bloodline. They comprise between twenty and thirty percent of the populace, and are hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth. It’s how the few have controlled the many all the way back to Babylon, and before.
But they say that the hardest part of solving a problem is recognizing that you have one.
Don Croft used to say “Parasites fear exposure above all else”.
On January 10, 2023, directly in the face of a 22% increase in negative opinion of the Royal family in one month, Time Magazine’ Yasmeen Serhan said “Prince Harry’s Book Didn’t Change Minds About the Royals”.
That’s because the first rule of Politics is “deny, deny, deny”.
Here’s Yasmeen Serhan’s picture, where she’s using the same purportedly-secret Masonic “gesture of recognition” that Elizbeth Haigh is in the photo immediately above:
[image]
(Yasmeen Serhan)
Can you see how the photograph is centered on her left eye? That’s because, to followers of the Left-hand path like Yasmeen, the left eye is the “eye of Will” or the “eye of Horus”.
But don’t take my word for it:
‘The right eye is the Eye of Ra and the left is the Eye of Horus’.”
From “Freemasonry - Religion And Belief - The 3rd Temple”
Facebook: “Welcome to the Left-Hand-Path-Network, where Satanism is not about worship, but it’s study.”
I have included Yasmeen Serhan’s photograph so that you could get a better idea of what a generational Satanist Freemason in a position of marginal influence looks like.
She figured that the rubes would never notice the coded visual imagery.
They are all related to one another through the maternal bloodline. They comprise between twenty and thirty percent of the populace, and are hiding in plain sight in every city, town and village on Earth. It’s how the few have controlled the many all the way back to Babylon, and before.
But they say that the hardest part of solving a problem is recognizing that you have one.
Don Croft used to say “Parasites fear exposure above all else”.
In the old days, this is what was known as “hard-hitting journalism”.
As you can see, the trust upon which the great, ages-long Confidence game is based is collapsing, and will never be regained.
Remember, when Con’s collapse, they do so in a rush, like a house of cards.
Denouement - noun - the final part of a play, movie, or narrative in which the strands of the plot are drawn together and matters are explained or resolved
On October 12, 2021, bbc.com said "Masterchef: Elizabeth Haigh’s book pulled after plagiarism claims".
Where the uncredited author from bbc.com carefully walked “cookbook” back to merely “book”, and then sneeringly implies that the plagiarism claims are false.
For those unaware, anytime an author is uncredited, it is proof that said author is an Intelligence operative.
The curiously-uncredited author from one of the world’s premier news organizations goes on to say:
"A cookbook by former MasterChef contestant Elizabeth Haigh has been pulled from circulation over claims she plagiarised the work of another chef.
Fellow cook Sharon Wee claimed Haigh’s book Makan “copied or paraphrased” recipes and anecdotes from her 2012 book, Cooking in a Nonya Kitchen. Both cookbooks draw on the authors’ childhoods and Singaporean heritage."
Can you see how the uncredited Intelligence operative from the BBC deviously walked Sharon Wee back from “chef” to “cook”?
Can you see how they put “copied or paraphrased” in quotes, to call it into question?
The article goes on to say:
“Haigh has not yet publicly commented and has not responded to a request for comment from BBC News.”
The BBC is supporting Elizabeth in the propaganda technique known as “stonewalling”.
The article goes on to say:
"New-York based chef Wee alleges Haig’s book Makan: Recipes from the Heart of Singapore contains at least 15 copied recipes and personal stories from her own book.
Her book Makan was released in May by Bloomsbury, who have now said it has been withdrawn 'due to rights issues’."
Chef Sharon Wee and I have exposed the duplicity of Elizabeth Haigh by using what was known in the old days as “fact checking”.
The article glowingly goes on to gush:
“Haigh competed on MasterChef in 2011, and went on to win a Michelin star at the London restaurant Pidgin. She currently runs Mei Mei restaurant in London’s Borough Market, which she opened in 2019 to showcase Singaporean kopitiam food.”
Here, you can clearly see how pathologically-lying, sociopathic generational Satanist Freemasons get to go on big TV shows and win Michelin stars, and such and such.
The article goes on to say:
“In a statement posted on Twitter Wee said: 'I was distressed to discover that certain recipes and other content from my book had been copied or paraphrased without my consent in Makan by Elizabeth Haigh, and I immediately brought this matter to the attention of the book’s publisher, Bloombsury Absolute. I am grateful that Bloomsbury has responded to my concerns by withdrawing Makan from circulation.”
Makan is still available to buy through Waterstones, Foyles, and Amazon but is no longer promoted on Bloomsbury Absolute’s website."
Here you can see how the BBC, which purports to be a news organization, acts instead as an advertising agency for the pathologically-lying plagiarist Haigh, who is still merrily selling her pirated book on the generational Satanist outlets of Waterstones, Foyles and Amazon.
We’ve also learned, instructively, that getting busted for plagiarism in no way stops a generational Satanist journalist like Elizabeth Haigh from going on to get a high-paying and high-profile engagement with the Daily Mail, writing about royals.
In which she went on to continue her pathological lying, as I’ve painstakingly elucidated above.
How long do you think that these people have left in power, now?
Please consider doing what you can to help speed the process.
Jeff Miller, Libertyville, IL, February 2, 2023
If you’d like to be added to this free mailing list, or know someone who would be, please send me a note at [email protected]
