I’m afraid I hadn’t bothered to listen to this. I knew it would be tedious and discouraging, given that Carney, who brought this officious commie WEFfer to Canada and Charles himself are both main drivers of the revolution that is obliterating the most fundamental of human rights. But after filming Bath-Shéba van den Berg last night, speaking publicly on the state of the law, and the Helen Grus hearings as well as many who were charged with “mischief” or had their bank accounts frozen, sometimes for months for being adjacent to those who participated in the Freedom Convoy, I felt I had to. She mentioned in an en-passant remark that Charles had mentioned something about sweeping legislative changes to come in Canada.
Initially the plan was to clip out the best (worst) parts of this speech and post a compilation of them, but after watching, so far about 65% of it, I thought that frankly everyone should probably see it.
It is a mixture of some bizarre kind of leftist jingoism, an attempt to unify Canadians by opposing them all to Donald Trump’s America, excited noises about joining European military efforts, whatever-that-may-mean, also noises about increased military cooperation with the US somehow, a LOT about the removal of gun rights from Canadians, I guess except the ones going to fight in Europe’s wars or something? I dunno. Charles opens with a land claims acknowledgement. The King of England opens his speech with an explanation of how the land the British and French settled, really all belongs to tribes no one can pronounce.
This of course is amusing on the surface. But the likely real purpose of the land claims BS is to disenfranchise Canadians that they have any title to the Canada which they and their ancestors built, and who’s laws reflect their culture and history, such that they have no reasonable grounds to oppose the total replacement of Canadians with Africans and Muslims. And African Muslims. In other words, the land claims BS is a dialectic attack on Canadian identity.
So here it is. I would watch it with far more attention and awareness than you want to. It is every bit as tedious as you imagined it would be. But probably a lot more dangerous.
The truly funny bit though is around the middle, where he fumbles through a book of notes as he reads Trudeau/Carney talking points as if there was a bad smell on the page. I mean it’s right out of the Liberal Campaign book.
This doesn’t make Charles a Liberal party supporter anymore than the CBC is.
Like the CBC and the Liberal party, King Charles is an agent of the revolution. And like the CBC, should the Liberal Party or its Cabinet or its leadership stop serving the interests of the COMINTERN, they will be replaced.
So here it is.
Please leave comments with any observations you may have. This is simply not as trivial as we want it to be.
Anyone know what happened to King Charles the 1st? And why? I wonder if he does.
The King’s most offensive and foolish comments were his phrases on the Indegenous ‘ownership’ of vast expanses of Canada.
There was never any nation before the Canadinas established one.
The Liberals have done a lot of harm and continue to do so with their babble of First Nations. When will this nonsense be stopped? HJK
Firstly he spoke as the King of Canada, not as the King of the United Kingdom.
Secondly since the middle 19th century in British North America, and much earlier in the British Isles, the Speech from the Throne has been provided by the Prime Minister to be simply read out by the monarch or his/her representative.
Thus the king did not give his own remarks or thoughts.
Blame Carney, the actual author!
Yes it was clear that he was reading from Carney’s notes.
I will unapologetically decline to view King Chuckles the Third’s attempt at a speech. I have better things to do.
Me too, I am very tired of listening to psychopathic authoritarianism.
Me three.
it was hard to watch
the globocommie takeover is all but complete in (former) Canada
I used to think that Chuckles and his family hated us, the indigenous peoples of England because of his German extraction but looking at the way Germany is being destroyed, I’ve changed my opinion. Chuckles and his gang hate everyone.
But, old Chuckles does seem to have an affection for islam. I wonder why. Is because it celebrates hatred?
Readers, Vlad.
Here, a daily report on Canada from Moose on the Loose. He covers Trudeau endangering Canadian spies in a field operation, the importance of energy that Canada is not being permitted to produce, move and sell, and we hear from Poilievre.
Without identifying and repeating that we are undergoing a communist takeover nothing will stop. People must hear the word “COMMUNISM” to shake them from complacency. They must hear it repeated until they wake up. Everything and everyone blabbering and complaining in any other manner amounts to controlled opposition at this late stage.
https://youtu.be/5f8zJBX4CDw?si=sSV52s9xT8rQ2qFT
But then it might lose its kick.
Like promiscuous use of the word “genocide”.
Who’s = contraction of who is.
Whose = possessive of who.
Let’s eat, Grandma!
……..Let’s eat Grandma!
Had added a humorous comment to a now-deleted post:
I know the guy is there because he’s Andrew’ older brother; but the gal who fornicated behind Princess Diana’s back like a John Major?
More like a whose who’s who.
Thank you Eeyore, what we’re seeing is Ingsoc in action.
Orwell’s Oligarchical Socialism is a strategy of Kapitalists installing communism for “wealth goes out, poverty stays in,” as they say in South Africa under the well-paid satraps of the ANC- well paid, that is, by Oppenheimer deBeers with mining contracts and business concessions.
Raw resources and labor are kept cheap for exports, while manufactured goods are imported in to a consumer class of workers. This the Tudor model of ‘raw out, manufactured in’ that the American colonies rebelled against.
I am an American, so I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. I do have to ask those of you who are British, Canadian, etc…
What’s the point?
A friend of mine is related to the Hapsburgs, and is an American and a monarchist. Over the years I have checked out several blogs touting the benefits of the monarchy, one of them is Canadian, and conservative. I respect that. Many people talk about Queen Elizabeth II very positively. I’m sure that she was a fine person.
But what’s the point?
All that has affected the UK and the Commonwealth occurred under the British crown. At what point does the sovereign say, “Enough. No more non-British people here. No more people bringing their toxic culture to our land. No more rape gangs. No more Communism. I will not assent to the destruction of my realm.”
Neither the Queen or King Charles said anything while their “realm” was undermined. They rode their horses, flew on their vacations, and visited their castles. If you tell me that they are just figureheads, things to amuse the tourists, and to sell Royal trinkets, well, then okay. I get it. But if you assert that they have a real political function, well then, maybe you should, as a people, rethink things. They aren’t working.