Cult or Monarchy Family?

Monarchy or Cult – Mind Control

Episode 122

Introduction

The podcast this week looks at the constituent parts that make up any Monarchy, but in this case we are looking at the UK Monarchy, as an institution referred to as The Firm, and as a family. We will look at the rules and regulations formally recorded and referred to from time to time, in order to make clear the boundaries set around what the Monarchy exists for, and how to go about its business. In recent years, when individual members have dared to express independent thought about how something could be handled, or ways in which visits to other nations are to be conducted and why, or even in terms when some individuals have thoughts on relationships/business arrangements with people or person, internal or external to the UK there are barriers or open doors offered, dependent upon who wants to go through. It seems in summary, The Firm has a whole host of rules and regulations which appear to function much like an iceberg with the much promoted rules and regulations about titles and importance in the structure of The Firm and therefore the associated privileges being very visible above the waterline. Every other code of behavior and how one operates in the structure, depends on the order of birth to the ‘right’ person and their position in the Line of Succession. Anyone who deviates from the official rules and regulations in terms of expectations and outwardly voices their wishes on practice and customs, is kept in control by such things as protocols. Protocols are used like a heavy weight metaphorical cricket bat, or a newly erected barbed wire fence. They are rules meant to keep people from thinking outside the expected norms, and they are applied only to certain members of the family; usually those with the ability of comprehension skills along with critical thinking methods. There are applied with no mercy to those who refuse to see why things cannot progress, but the bottom line is “protocol” is not the law, and protocol is not custom and practice for everyone to adhere to anyway. Immediately one begins to see the inequality emerge. As nothing is ever written down, it is made even harder to make a case for oneself should ever such a situation arise.

The Royal Standard of the United Kingdom waving with the UK flag with blurred Buckingham Palace in the background.

When we look at a family set up, and what constitutes a family, the theory is very interesting in comparison to the reality in day to day life. That being said, most families are free to do certain things and a few are restricted according to customs and practice.

When we look at the current position of the UK Monarchy, not least the age profile of designated Working Royals, and the total number of Royals that the UK taxpayer funds, blurred lines appear between The Firm and Family. The closest analogy I have used previously in a similar exercise some years ago, are groups of people who come together with a common interest. The groups live in the same area, with a clear designated boundary line. Within those designated areas, over time, rules and regulations are put in place, in order to ensure that all understand the basic framework of the group and the protocols of the group. Remember, protocols are not the law, but many of these groups have a strict policy on what rules and practices cannot be ignored or randomly amended to suit smaller groups within the large group. Much like a family, and the designated Head or Heads of the household. The final word goes the Heads of the household, and everyone else lives by those rules until they become adults and then have free choice to leave and set up a home of their own, with their own set of rules and practices.

The groups or families that do not allow people to leave freely, and who do not allow independent thought, no matter how it is presented through rose coloured spectacles, it can become an oppressive regime. The structure and the behaviour rituals can be likened to a Cult.

This podcast will look at the Rules and Regulations of Groups, as well as the protocols. We will explore

Traits of Narcisstic Leaders in both clusters,
Indoctrination,
Monarchy and Groups,
Cult Leaders,
What is a Cult? What is a Hereditary Monarchy?

We will map out the similarities and link to evidence in The Firm and The Monarchy. You decide whether it is a Cult and if it has become one, or always was, should public funds be allocated to it moving forward? Should the Monarchy or whatever it is called in the future if it was to be funded differently, then the ‘business’ model exists for how most Cult groups organise their finances with their followers and supporting organisations and groups.

Let’s open the creaking door to this domain which is rarely opened with a critical eye. There are a number of smaller groups that need these larger entities to exist, in order for the smaller clusters have a rationale to exist and be paid for whatever notional title has been allocated to them, to give them an element of credence. E.g. Royal Reporters & also Royal Experts. Chat shows with presenters who are sleeping partners or openly support members of the Monarchy or Cult, and who in turn add income to their coffers by speaking or writing about them. Chat shows with invited right wing panels who only talk about one couple who removed themselves from the increasing risks to the life of their family. Apparently there are no other topics that the UK needs to discuss anymore. Everything is based on one group and members who escaped. The relationships between top societal groups are there for all those who care to look closely. For everyone else, it is business as usual. Hate sells in the UK like no other place unless it is referred to as a regime. How soon before the UK is labelled throughout the world in the same term?

What is a Cult? What Defines it?

The word cult can be broadly defined as “formal religious veneration,” “a system of religious beliefs and its body of adherents,” “a religion regarded as ‘unorthodox or spurious,'” “great devotion to a person or idea” as well as “persons united by devotion or allegiance to an artistic or intellectual movement or figure.”

These general definitions could potentially include everything from Barbie doll collectors to so-called “Trekkies” and die-hard Elvis fans.

American history is particularly rife with religious groups that can be seen as cults, such as the devoted followers of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, or the Mormons united through their devotion to Joseph Smith. Both of these religious groups were at one time also regarded by many as “unorthodox or spurious.”

But the most salient concern to the general public, law enforcement and government officials today regarding groups called “cults” is what potential they might represent to do harm.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, who once taught at Harvard Medical School, wrote a paper titled Cult Formation in the early 1980s. He delineated three primary characteristics, which are the most common features shared by destructive cults.

A charismatic leader, who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose power. That is a living leader, who has no meaningful accountability and becomes the single most defining element of the group and its source of power and authority.
A process [of indoctrination or education is in use that can be seen as] coercive persuasion or thought reform [commonly called “brainwashing”].

The culmination of this process can be seen by members of the group often doing things that are not in their own best interest, but consistently in the best interest of the group and its leader.

Lifton’s seminal book Thought Reform and Psychology of Totalism explains this process in considerable detail.

Economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie.

The destructiveness of groups called cults varies by degree, from labour violations, child abuse, medical neglect to, in some extreme and isolated situations, calls for violence or mass suicide.

Some groups that were once seen as “cults” have historically evolved to become generally regarded as religions. Power devolved from a single leader to a broader church government and such groups ceased to be seen as simply personality-driven and defined by a single individual. For example the Seventh-day Adventists, once led by Ellen White, or the Mormons church founded by Joseph Smith.

Some groups may not fit the definition of a cult, but may pose potential risks for participants. Here are 10 warning signs of a potentially unsafe group or leader.

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.

Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader.

Followers feel they can never be “good enough”.

The group/leader is always right.

The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

From Wikepedia:-

Cult is a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who tightly controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant (outside the norms of society).^[1] This term is also used for a new religious movement or other social group which is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals,^[2] or its common interest in a particular person, object, or goal. This sense of the term is weakly defined – having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia – and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.^[3]^[4]^{: 348–356}

From Reddit

This sounds like such a new concept to most people, but it’s hypocritical to label Modi, Xi and Al Saud as having a cult of personality, while not addressing that very reality with western monarchies. I have no love for the aforementioned three, but would the UK have much of a solid identity without the monarchy? Almost everything is branded for them, like Royal Mail, Royal Air Force, etc. On top of that, almost every event they have is turned into a massive spectacle for the masses- just think of the many Jubilee’s or the various royal weddings. This, much like any other cult of personalities, is specially engineered to keep power. For many; that’s dictatorial or political power, for the royals? it’s to keep their massive tax funded empire of wealth going indefinitely. Apotheosis never comes without design.

Side note: If any of you bring up my username I’m gonna be honest- It was an inside joke at age 15 and after everything has that name it’s hard for it not to stick

Unherd:-

here are only three forms of government: monarchy (rule of one), oligarchy (rule of few), and democracy (rule of many). Monarchy is good because it is better than oligarchy. Democracy is neither good nor bad — it is just impossible. With today’s voters, at least. It is not just that voters are not wise enough to control the government. It’s worse: the voters are not powerful enough to control the government. They — or at least the politicians they elect — have not had significant power for decades.

Monarchy is both the most common form of public-sector governance in history, and the universal form of private-sector governance (all corporations have CEOs). Any private-sector firm could operate as a republic or other oligarchical form. None do. There are no senates, assemblies or supreme courts in the private sector — let alone anything like the administrative state. Monarchy —ideally accountable monarchy, with a board of directors or some other safety mechanism — just works better.

So either the whole public sector today is mad, or the rest of human history was mad, and so is the entire private sector. As an American monarchist, I choose the former. But in Britain, how should you feel about it? You already have a monarchy. Not monarchy as a form of government — but as a theatre of government. It’s a sort of official soap opera, one that has been on-air a long time — about 300 years, by some counts.

Only a monarch can control the elites Democracy enables the deep state to rule us

Cult and a Hereditary Monarchy

Hereditary monarchies are the antithesis of a human rights culture

Monarchs hold sway over 43 states worldwide; the UK should take the lead in dismantling this archaic system of unaccountable power

Extract from Open Human Rights

“In 1945 the United Nations was set up to promote human rights, development, peace, and security across the globe following the catastrophe of the Second World War. The preamble to the UN Charter, a key instrument of international law that binds all 193 member states, reads: “We the Peoples of the United Nations … reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small … to promote social progress and better standards of life.”

The choice of words here is of critical importance. It is the will of the people—not the will of a ruling class or family—that gives a state its legitimacy. The development of a human rights culture requires a recognition of the inherent value of all human beings, universal respect for human rights, and promotion of social progress and better living standards for all.

These values are borne out in the International Bill of Human Rights, which stipulates that states must respect, protect, and fulfil a comprehensive set of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights unto all individuals in their jurisdiction. These inaugural human rights treaties, and the more specialised human rights instruments that followed, effectively set out a bare minimum set of duties and responsibilities that state parties owe to all people.

Importantly, human rights treaties focus on how states should serve the people, rather than how people should serve the state. The latter framing is often used by authoritarian regimes, which typically employ a combination of nationalist propaganda and repressive laws and policies to simultaneously restrict the human rights of individuals and promote patriotism and loyalty toward the state and its ruling elite. Monarchies lean toward authoritarianism by reducing citizens to “subjects” (from the Latin sub and jacio, meaning one who is under the power of another) of their monarch.

A hereditary monarchy impedes the development of a human rights culture in a number of ways. Firstly, it undermines the rule of law. In the UK, King Charles is exempt from civil and criminal proceedings under the legal doctrine of “sovereign immunity.” This rule applies not only to his public duties but also his private and business affairs. Police are barred from entering private royal estates without the sovereign’s permission to investigate suspected crimes. Successive British governments have maintained that the rule of law is a fundamental British value, but there is no rule of law unless it applies to everyone.

Secondly, monarchies are inherently undemocratic. Not only are individual monarchs not voted in, but the concept of a hereditary monarchy as a political structure has never been put to a popular vote. In the UK, fewer than half of the population of under-45s support the monarchy, despite its extensive propaganda in the popular media, and only around a quarter of the population tuned into the recent coronation of King Charles. If the UK had an elected head of state today, it’s very hard to imagine how a campaign calling for a hereditary monarchy would make its case. It exists simply because it always has, and ruling elites do not tend to give up power voluntarily.

Thirdly, all members of any royal family are born into a life of unearned privilege. In comparison to other European monarchies, the British royal family is particularly excessive: King Charles’s inherited private fortune is worth an estimated £1.8 billion. Inexplicably, the royal family is not required to pay inheritance tax. For reasons that baffle many UK taxpayers, they are required to pay their billionaire royal family a vast annual sovereign grant (£86.3 million in financial year 2021–22).

Outside of Europe, the situation is even worse.”

“Freedom of expression and assembly are cornerstones of a human rights culture. However, the police crackdown on protestors at King Charles’s coronation on May 6 revealed these fundamental rights can be withdrawn at whim if they present an inconvenience to the royal family. The new Public Order Act, encompassing a controversial expansion of police powers to stamp out peaceful protest, was hastily passed into law just days before the coronation, despite the UN high commissioner for human rights and other prominent voices calling for it to be reversed.

The new repressive legislation led to dozens of highly questionable arrests, including eight members of anti-monarchy group Republic, who were detained for 16 hours on suspicion of “going equipped to lock on,” and three Night Star volunteers, who were arrested and detained while trying to provide vulnerable people with rape alarms in Soho. Human rights barrister Adam Wagner told the Home Affairs Select Committee that he was concerned the new laws would have a “chilling effect” on democracy and human rights.

Finally, the UK monarchy not only threatens the development of a human rights culture in the UK itself, it also stifles progress across 14 Commonwealth nations, where, somewhat bizarrely, King Charles is officially head of state. Many of these states are in favor of independence from Britain and the establishment of an elected head of state. If King Charles were to step down, these states could enjoy full self-determination and autonomy.

The dismantling of the British monarchy, the most famous monarchy in the world, could have a positive ripple effect; it could encourage citizens in other monarchies to challenge their own political structures. As Thomas Paine said: “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” In the 21st century, hereditary monarchies are not even superficially right. They directly challenge the human rights of citizens. There is no excuse for them to continue.”

Kate Bermingham is a social affairs journalist and alumni of the Irish Centre for Human Rights.

How Cults Manage Their Members

What is cult manipulation?

Cult manipulation refers to the tactics used by cult leaders to control, influence, and manipulate their members. These tactics can include psychological manipulation, emotional manipulation, mind control, and other forms of exploitation. The cult leaders aim to exert power and control over members by isolating them from the outside world and making them dependent on the group for identity, meaning, and security.. This can result in members giving up personal autonomy and blindly following the leader’s commands, even when they go against their own values and interests.

Tactics used by cult leaders

Cult leaders use various tactics to manipulate, control and coerce their members.

Manipulation: Control information and emotional manipulation to create dependence.
Isolation: Cutting off members from friends and family to increase dependence on the group.
Fear: Using scare tactics to control behavior, such as threats of punishment or doom.
Charisma: Creating a larger-than-life image to attract followers and establish authority.
Flattery: Telling members they are special, chosen, or destined for greatness.
Confusion: Overloading members with complex ideas and information to disorient and create dependence.
Guilt: Inducing feelings of guilt to control behavior and keep members in line.
Deception: Lying and misleading to control information and maintain the illusion of power.

Conclusion

Over the last 8 years, the Monarchy has attracted less and less numbers of supporters, and most of the supporters are above 65 years of age. The support base of all age groups who are Royalists are 44% and 70% of those are of pensionable age. Whether or not the loud minority dominate UK media in all its forms, the facts are there. Natural processes will ensure that support for an outdated group to be funded by a taxpayers will come to an end. Those who want it can pay for it, but I am sure that would not fund all those sitting there with their hands out, never mind the media organisations who make money from their Hate for Hire business model.

High-control groups may encourage their believers to disengage from so-called ‘world affairs’, shun or limit interaction with nonbelievers, and maintain a distinct identity separate from mainstream culture, reinforcing group cohesion and control. The emphasis on isolation and exclusivity can likewise contribute to the group’s sense of identity and reinforce adherence to its beliefs and practices

Cult (Monarchy) Manipulation Tactics’ Effects on members

Cult manipulation can have a profound and lasting impact on the psychological and emotional well-being of its members. The tactics used by cults to control and exploit their members can result in the loss of personal autonomy, the erosion of individual identity, and a range of negative psychological and emotional effects.

One of the key effects of cult manipulation is the loss of autonomy. Cults subject members to strict rules and constant monitoring, controlling their movements, thoughts, and actions. This oppressive environment causes feelings of helplessness and traps members, hindering independent decision making and erasing their personal identity.

Human Rights & UK Monarchy Rules Extract from my first SGUK article in 2021

Introduction

Have you ever wondered whether the British Royal Family and their Associates in the British Media (particularly those in the Royal Rota) live in an alternative universe compared to the rest of us? Are there different forces operating in their zone? Does the UK Monarchy use a different rule book when it comes to interaction with the Sussexes as opposed to every other family member? Is slavery still alive and thriving in the UK Monarchy? Is the chasing of Harry and Meghan around the world, for breaking of faux rules and/or protocol part of a new reality show that we have not been informed about? Is the mission to break them psychologically part of a new game show of Endurance, and if so, who is behind the concept, and which tv network is financing it all? When does this new game show come to an end? When is the last episode? Is this a nod to the Matrix, except in this case, there is no rule of law, just permission to chase two people who dared to have independent thought and wanted to live outside the location that has been designated for them? Is this a new game show based on a group who are enslaved, and told that they are fortunate because of all the luxuries they can enjoy, but the downside is that you have no rights, abuse is regarded as character building for Royal life based on standards which enshrine preservation of the Institution. Anyone who dares to question this abusive oppressive society is pounced upon with the aim to break their spirit and to then rebuild them in the clone like stature of the other members. If that is not acceptable to any objectors they are treated like slaves gone bad, and they are treated like prey – hunted down around the globe until they break or their heart stops beating.

All the key groups who are acting as oppressors are those who benefit from the current set up. More importantly, if groups or individuals outside of that protected cluster did half of what has been going on for centuries in that protected bubble, it would be considered against the law; In my opinion it is against international law, which makes it illegal in national law.. The 2021 article is a foray into basic human rights legislation, and how it is used when it suits certain people within that protected cluster, but how it equally is ignored when it comes to fake outrage about whatever Harry and Meghan are doing on any given day. Most of the time, things have not been done or said or meant in the way the outrage is reported, but as Squad members know, truth is not a necessary element in this game, just like there are no established rules.

These are my perceptions of how certain groups have been given permission (direct or implied) to operate outside of established procedures in the pursuit of the two people who are now treated like modern day runaway slaves. UK Monarchy and its partners in the media are acting like an ex partner who cannot believe their other half has left, and in doing so, is publicly using abusive methods to gain sympathy for those with limited clarity on what is happening in front of them, in the hope that the couple will break and return. The aim is for Harry to leave his wife and son and return to the Royal Family and be the acceptable face of the UK Monarchy, until the Cambridge children are adults, and then Harry would be part of the people in the Firm who serve no purpose and who are shoved into the background and form part of the Royal wallpaper pattern. Like I said earlier, if this occurred in any other family setting, legal groups would be concerned for the people within the framework, particularly the children born into that framework who are high in the Line of Succession. Children created to serve the monarchy. Children born without rights. Children who are born first are considered valuable; others are born to support the first born. Children who are not allowed independent thought. Children who are not allowed to fulfil their potential, and who must at all times devalue themselves in order to make the first born look good. In any other walk of life, treatment of children along those lines would be considered anything but positive, and on several fronts, is a breach of human rights.

International Bill of Rights:-

The right to equality and freedom from discrimination
The right to life, liberty and personal security
Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
The right to a fair trial
The right to privacy
Freedom of belief and religion
Freedom of opinion
Right of peaceful assembly and association
The right to participate in government
The right to social security
The right to work
The right to an adequate standard of living
The right to education
The right to health
The right to food and housing

Coercive Control Tactics

Post Separation Control

Is a form of abuse, that a male ex partner uses to maintain power and control over a woman, long after the marriage/relationship is over. Gender can be either. Think of all the groups I have mentioned, particularly the Royal Family, and its partners in the media, behaving as though they are trying to keep control over what Harry and Meghan do in life. Still desperately trying to cling on to power over their actions. The BRF never once anticipated that Harry would leave with his family. The aim was clearly to destroy Meghan, in any way it panned out, and if she remained alive, she would get up and walk away. No one thought that Harry would leave too. The next step was to take away their security and to reveal their location in Canada, and then again in USA (Tyler Perry’s property). Charles was responsible for the security leak and the details of their location, along with stopping funding early on in the 12 month transition period that the Royal family themselves insisted on having in the first place. Charles was willing to place his own son in danger in an effort to force him home and to secure more years for the Monarchy. They would never risk the life to the heir to the throne, but the “Spare” was expendable. ( What a family. The irony of a black man, from an industry that the UK constantly malign as of no importance, stepped forward and provided security and a home for the Sussexes, and sent a private plane to collect the Sussex family from Canada and take them to the LA property, is not wasted on me. Gives me joy every time I think about it. God Bless Tyler Perry. An angel on this earth.

Prince Harry, it is time to recognise the trauma bond that exists and make efforts to cut the cord from those (King Charles 3) who has publicly gone on record in the RAVEC fiasco that the loss of your life would have less of an impact on the UK public compared to those who are afforded security in the family. As mentioned earlier in this podcast, Children created to serve the monarchy. Children born without rights. Children who are born first are considered valuable; others are born to support the first born. Children who are not allowed independent thought. Children who are not allowed to fulfil their potential, and who must at all times devalue themselves in order to make the first born look good. In any other walk of life, treatment of children along those lines would be considered anything but positive, and on several fronts, is a breach of human rights. It is abusive.

The similarity between the two types of groups is clear to me, but you can decide for yourselves. I consider the treatment of Harry and Meghan to be like runaway slaves. The intention is to abuse the slaves in peace, in any way that they want to, but dress it up to others that they are looked after and should be grateful. If they escape they are hunted down and transported back to the plantation. If they keep on running and moving locations, then the slave master tries to justify it others and ensures the remaining slaves never consider that option. It is all brainwashing and control. The Cult Leaders and the Monarch play the role of an ex partner who cannot let go, and refuses to believe that their runaway will not return one day. Tries to destroy any new friendships or business partnerships, in an effort to isolate their target and to force financial problems and the ability to exist outside of the plantation. Coercive Control in full action. Never forget, if any of you need reminding that the Leaders in both styles of group, put the entity as priority over the member themselves. Everything is acceptable if it means the group continues. Anything else is secondary. Monarchys are above the law. No modern society should have such a system, and worse make them the head of the Church, Legal, among many others. Lives have been lost over centuries and not a thing done or said about it. Time for this barbaric system to be brought to an end.

In the interim, Harry and Meghan should only visit those who care about them in the UK. No publicity. Recognise the one way trauma bond and live your life in a way that ensures an enriched life. When a person who states in official documents that the loss of one of his children would have “less impact” than the other sibling, build your life accordingly. That person is not a parent and it is questionable about the standard of being a Monarch.