"The WORST Sex Crimes In Britain in the 21st Century!" EXCLUSIVE: The Cover-Up That Changed Britain

Winston Marshall ^ | 14/12/24

[caddie]

Used to like the Brits.

But this scandal is so gross and what they have done to Robinson and of course all the victims because of their cowardice, I have concluded the obvious.

They are filth, dhimmis, a fallen nation, ruled by Pagan moose limbs. With a worthless, addled and lazy royalty which has neglected its most important job: To uphold the divine right of kings. To prove that they have been crowned by the Almighty to lead their nations.

For shame.

To listen to them on GBN and really everywhere, rationalize and even justify not rescuing all those girls from the smelly subanimals who raped them over decades. It is to vomit to listen to their effeminate hairsplitting and mincing.

As summarized by Churchill, though the monarch may not interfere with the Commons, he may counsel any and all ministers. Which they should have been doing -- opening their royal pieholes to complain about the idiocy of communism, of migration, of cowering before the heathen. They have been remiss. And their nation may soon die as a result.

Shame on the royals. Really the only meaningful job you had to do over all these years and instead you just sat on your lazy royal asses and let Britain decline into Pakistan. For shame.

[Eleutheria5]

Royals come and go. Even according to British mythology and history, there have been good and bad royals. Edward II was a homosexual, and they impeached him for it, but his alleged heir ascended. The more modern Edward, I forget which number, was a Nazi sympathizer, and was married to a commoner and a Catholic, and abdicated in favor of his brother, George the whatever, Elizabeth II’s daddy. The modern-day royal family is no relation whatever to Richard the Lionhearted, but they are related to Count Dracula. According to Shakespeare’s histories, which are not accurate, Henry VI was an overly-religious fool, Richard III was an evil SOB, and so on and so forth. The idea of British royalty is actually pretty sound. A head of state with limited powers, but who is to be the exemplar for the nation, but rarely is.

These royals have royally failed. Hardly the first. The coming of Tommy Robinson and the less notorious but equally heroic warriors who are fighting the graping gangs and the flood of invaders, tells me that the British Lion is alive, if not well. The very first Churchill was a commoner who gained his title by heroic deeds and leadership at a crucial time. If these royals have let everyone down, the next royal line is waiting in the wings.

[caddie]

I hope William breaks the passive mode. ER2 was very nice as a person and a laudable personal exemplar but did not do anything royal or heroic to reverse the rapid degeneration of the people into a lot of corrupt, woke, feckless, groveling, pervy, communist, atheists. She knew and spoke with Churchill during the Battle of Britain. She knows the character of the people who underwent that test. She must have been sickened by the decline.

She was none of the awful things her subjects have become. She should have piped up from time to time to get the dogs back under the porch. It was within her purview, and as far as I'm concerned, it was her job, far more so than getting duded up and doing ceremonies.

If the role of the royals is just imagery, why not get animatronic Disney puppets that the tourists can see every day? Put them on that big porch out front of Buckingham Palace.

Again, their country may in fact die because they did not rule by the means they still had: divine right, counsel and speaking out.

Someone must display morality and honor in the UK's governance. The Houses of Lords and Commons have none. The Church of England has none. The Ministers have none.

Somebody needs to start driving the Range Rover before it goes off the cliff.