There is no cross on that can.
Φφ Phi is the 21st letter of the Greek alphabet. (a drink for the 21st century?)
Phi is also used as a symbol for the golden ratio and on other occasions in math and science.

"666" in Hebrew would be written "Tav Resh Samech Vav," or "six hundred sixty-six."


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/monster666.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi

the O with a line through it is phi look up symbolism. next thing this un educated woman will say is the sign for murcury is the devil. look up symbolism lady is my only advice. if you study satans words ie magik and occultism as well as the bible its easier to tell whats true satanic symbolism is. this is clearly not. but good of her to look up hebrew, about the only thing that makes sense out of all she has said.

What gets my goat is, most of the flag waiving zealots don't even familiarize themselves with the official 'rules' for displaying a flag. For instance, I see them wearing flag pants, shirts, socks, underwear, hats, scarves, etc. ALL of these are considered desecration and denigration of the symbol and are clearly not allowed. Neither is displaying a flag at night without proper lighting, or leaving it outside in the rain if it's not made for all weather flying (most aren't). Displaying a flag sticker mounted backwards on your car (a thing I see all the time) is really bad. There are many rules for properly displaying an American flag that most flag waivers ignore completely in their zeal to show how much they love the flag. Sometimes it's really hard to be proud to be an American.

Are you fucking kidding me? It's called nationalism, and America is far from alone in having it. Yeah we like our flag, but that's because it is a symbol of our country and in general, despite it's faults, we love our country.
We also believe that people have the right to burn our flag, piss on it, wipe their ass with it, or whatever they want to do with as a freedom of expression. But whatever you do, don't get spanked on the ass with the Mexican flag! Oh and by the way, this woman is a complete ignorant bitch. Couldn't watch the whole video, due to her stupidity. It's America, fly whatever fucking flag you want, but if you're American just fly ours higher out of respect.

another argument for why overly expensive symbols are dumb?

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

I'm no monarchist. But you're tilting at windmills. The symbolism you speak of is dead, because everyone knows how ridiculous they are. The government treats them with disdain and are always cleaning up after one of them goes gobbing off. The constitutional veto that the Queen nominally has, for example, would be impossible for her to exercise.

The British tourism industry is based almost entirely on the history of the Royal family and the USP is that we still have one - they're not just figures from history, we have, as Mr Stanhope points out, the genuine article still in residence. It's a zoo.

She still owns half the land. The military, police and intelligence services all swear their oaths to her above us. The higher courts belong to her along with the Judges & QC's. The Prime Minister has to meet her once a week, she can veto any law parliament passes (and to pass it must gain "royal ascent"), or even dissolve parliament itself. etc. etc.

But more than any of that it is a genuine fucking embarrassment to me that in the 21st century we still accept any member of our society declaring themselves our natural betters in law, or indeed the rest of us as being "subjects".

You are not a free citizen of the UK, you are a "Subject" of the crown in law. Even if this was pure symbolism (which I don't agree with anyway), what it symbolises is disgusting and backwards. (that could be the UK's tagline "disgusting and backwards" )

If you have a nation built upon a principle of Nepotism the end result should come as no surprise to anyone. The only good argument I've ever heard for keeping the monarchy is that due to the amount of land they own, paying their "wages" works out considerably cheaper than the rent they could charge the government......

...But if that's not a reason to strip them of their power AND rights to the land WE live on I don't know what is. They want to hold us to ransom? The mature response would be to give any such people a stark lesson about the collective consensual prerequisite of personal property. Not put a fucking crown on their heads and bow to them like the feckless goons we are .

Fuck the Queen, fuck her castles and fuck her family. The Corgi's I can turn a blind eye to, they seem quite friendly.....


"Struck a nerve Mr. Woo?"
Yes I fear you have! Please try not to take that as an attack on yourself however Mr. Flowers, you're not the one I'm being angsty at if you see what I mean.

Smoke DMT. Stop being weaklings and DO IT. Yes, it will be "the most intense experience of your life". But, at least you'll have a good understanding of what is actually possible.

Most "secular" or "Religious" people have not had this experience. But, once you have seen "The Light" you will understand the symbolism is everywhere. I'd also say - go read some Lanza - a respected astrophysicist that has controversial ideas on this which he calls "Biocentrism". I do not believe that I understand anything and remain humble to the fact that what I have seen is so bizarre and beyond anyone's imagination or lives themselves. As far as I can see... HELL YES when you die you will go to a non-material realm in another Universe. But, how do we prove that to our monkey brains that believe in Standard Models that have only existed for 1 second and cost 55 Billion Euros to create to prove the centerpiece of the model even exists?

From the Wikiofpedia:

"A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past"

Yes, 20 years would definitely make it a tradition. Good call.

Rex Curry is the nation's leading authority on the Pledge of Allegiance. You're right to post the video. The video is completely accurate. The salute used by the Nazis was NOT derived from the socialist Mussolini. And the gesture was not based on the so-called "ancient Roman salute" because the "ancient Roman salute" is a complete fictional, as stated above.

Jacques-Louis David's painting "The Oath of the Horatii" did not associate the salute with classical Rome, and David never said such a thing, and the painting does not show the gesture, it shows three people reaching for weapons, including the use of the left hand. The Horatii lie is a very modern lie, fabricated circa 2006(?) on wakipedia in order to cover-up the Pledge of Allegiance's putrid past.

The socialist Mussolini did NOT adopt what he thought was the Roman salute.

No one should stand for nor chant the Pledge of Allegiance because it was the origin of the Nazi salute and Nazi behavior (see the discoveries of the historian Dr. Rex Curry). The early pledge began with a military salute that was then extended outward to point at the flag (thus the stiff-arm gesture came from the pledge and from the military salute). The pledge was written in 1892 for kindergartners to be forced to recite under the flag at government schools (socialist schools). The pledge was written by an American socialist who influenced other socialists worldwide, including German socialists, who used the gesture under their flag's notorious symbol (their symbol was used to represent crossed "S" letters for their "socialist" dogma -another of Dr. Curry's discoveries). The pledge continues to be the origin of similar behavior even though the gesture was changed to hide the pledge's putrid past. The pledge is central to the US's police state and its continued growth.

What i see is vigilantes and crazy people wanting to get shot down and martyred by cops.

I'm pretty sure that when you ask the citizens in a warn torn country where guns are actually a requisite to survival what they feel about people carrying guns out in the open and i'll bet they don't like it either. They just have to do it. You, on the other hand, carrying one in USA don't actually need it. If you open carry, you just like to scare people.

The whole "i'm allowed to do what i want" theme goes out the window when the symbol in question actually is designed to kill living things. I had to think hard what is the difference between other freedoms, say, gay pride parade. You have to just accept it no matter what you think about it. One could say the same about freedom to carry guns but that's where i draw the line: does it kill you or not. If it doesn't, deal with it and move on. If it does, remove it from the public. Not against guns in the privacy of your own home but they DO NOT belong to streets unless they are carried by a professional.

And no, i don't trust the law enforcement blindly but they enforce laws that we have allowed our representatives to put in place.. if you have a problem with laws, you take it where the laws are made, not to the people enforcing them... And definitely you don't scare everyone else getting one either, which this "open carry activism" WILL lead to: you see guns out in the open, "I think need one now just to pop to get some milk, better get my AK".. Stupid stupider gun-nut. The same people are "rolling coal" plus a host of other symptoms.

Having more guns will just leave to more violence, that is a fact that is definitely shown in study after study. The way non-carrying citizens react to this should be a clear sign: society does NOT want that. Isn't that enough reason to stop?

CIA Chief of Station in Berlin has just been expelled from the country. Pointless symbolism, but I'll take it.

Up-vote for my own banter with a view to drawing-out other assholes for a discussion and the trademark symbol....

Some people love their rulers. That's why they submit to them with such enthusiasm. But then we have the growing number of those who don't like the current situation very much. And, at a different level, you have the Samsoms and the Thiels...

It's not surprising, then, to see how Samsom pretty much lies (or, is at least being evasive to the point of being misleading) about the fact that the Dutch monarchy being merely "symbolic." Far from it!