Answering the Royalists ~ Part Duh!

Before the Tea Party, before Ford Nation, there was the Monarchist League, a collection of sad authoritarian fetishists who wanted to exterminate any further efforts to render Canada free from the British Crown. They were as rabid, vicious, pernicious and determined as the Ayn Rand followers of today that have crystallized into the Tea Party of the United States, and the Ford Nation of Toronto. Their degenerate influence still lingers, and have since the 1970’s gained prominence and control in our nation’s schools, governments and civil services, spreading their anti-democratic slobber far and wide across Upper North America.

What is disappointing is the incredible lack of strong Canadian republican voices in the political and information arena who are loud and proud about their ideas and willing to fight for them. The only republicans who have managed to say anything about the monarchy or monarchists are insufferable modest home rule advocates who are only interested in debate and not real change, and treat monarchy the same way some folks treat evolution: as a controversy. First of all, there’s no controversy. Monarchy doesn’t represent the people. A republic with an elected head of state and legislature does. A country with a “constitutional monarchy” is only half-democratic. Representatives are supposed to get the consent of someone they supposedly represent in order to represent them. When it comes to representing a body of people, they choose or “elect” that representative. How in the holy fuck royalists consider any form of royalty to represent the people should be beyond the reasonable thinking of any decent human being on the face of the earth. Sometimes it takes a revolution to initiate real change and a republican revolution of independence must be initiated. Monarchy is not democratic, and must be totally destroyed.

So I’ve read a rather disgusting article about the monarchy, called The Monarchy Debate Is Missing A Piece Of The Puzzle, in the Huffington Post by a South African emigre named Johanu Botha. And by disgusting I mean it’s centrist moderate monarchist garbage. It claims that the debate is missing something, and that something turns out to be one of the stupidest questions imaginable.

During a Montreal citizenship ceremony in the autumn of 2011, an American friend of mine surreptitiously snuck up the aisle to snap pictures as — hand over heart — I became a citizen of the country I had lived in since 2002. A bright history major, he had no problem paying tribute to a ritual not his own. Until, that is, it was time to pledge allegiance to the Queen, Canada’s constitutional monarch and head of state.

It begins with an autobiographical story, the kind Obama would use in his speeches to galvanize the gullible before screwing them with a big thick knife in the ass because he’s just so nice to the GOP, in order to have the audience gain some emotional attachment to what he’s about to say.

My American friend loved the themes of multiculturalism, immigrant success stories, and general tolerance not always found so generously in his own country. Yet swearing loyalty to an unelected elderly lady was too much for even his open mind. And until a year before my ceremony, it might’ve been too much for me as well.

So he’s one of those folks who thinks that an “open mind” means to accept whatever one’s told without that important filter of rational thought, reason, or logic. To have an open mind, to this guy, is to accept “knowledge” in any form, however irrational, ignorant, misleading or false, without questioning.

I grew up a very Afrikaans kid in a South African town that was very Afrikaans. This meant being raised on the horrors of British dominance over Afrikaners, with Boer War concentration camps described in vivid detail (the horrors of Afrikaner dominance over Africans were conveniently glossed over). Despite the more moderate and politically tentative English friends at school, my young perspective on the British Crown was remarkably similar to that still etched into the American political consciousness — the Crown was something to be constantly rejected and thrown off in order to maintain a sense of freedom.

Because the idea that you can’t either choose your leaders or become chosen as leader is something to embrace and only Americans are in favour of choosing your government. And apparently Boethe seems to ignore the fact that Aparteid had existed. His town was very Afrikaans because blacks and “coloureds” wouldn’t be allowed to live in their town. The black people had their place, coloureds had their place, and all whites had their place, which were put on top, while the rest were left the crumbs.

What happened to my perspective in Canada after my family moved here was something that has happened in this country since the Fathers of Confederation themselves came to it as a mere colony: I moved from a republic to a monarchy and found more real freedom in the latter. In the early 19th century Irish nationalist Thomas D’arcy McGee fled his homeland to trumpet expansive republicanism in the young United States. Indeed, this founder to be of Canadian confederation declared that “either by purchase, conquest, or stipulation, Canada must be yielded by Great Britain to this Republic [the United States].”

Apparently, there’s no real explanation as to how exactly there was real freedom in the latter. He just suddenly cuts to a rambling piece about McGee. Did he immigrate to Canada during or after Apartied? Is putting Afrikaaners in concentration camps the only thing that made him hate the British? Where are the black people, Botha? They’re not mythical creatures.

The best kind of political fervour, however, requires tangible improvement in peoples’ lives, and he therefore quickly grew disheartened by Boston and New York. Richard Gwyn writes that:

“McGee grew restive in [the United States]. Its practice of slavery disgusted him, as did, more personally, the anti-Irish bigotry of the anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement. McGee came north to Montreal in 1857 and to his astonishment found there, after all his years fighting the English, ‘far more liberty and tolerance enjoyed by those in Canada than in the U.S.’”

Then, four years later, the American Civil War broke out, which rightfully proved that sometimes a little bloodshed is necessary for radical change. In the end, slavery was abolished and the United States stood triumphant in the end reunified and remained as a republic. Jim Crow laws indeed had replaced the slave laws, but it took dedicated people, men and women, of all colours who even lost their lives, to abolish those, and ensure that the Bill of Rights applied equally to everyone at every single corner of the United States. Meanwhile, we didn’t officially have a Bill of Rights until the 1950’s, and even still there are elements of the Charter of Rights that are questionable, such as the Not Withstanding Clause. So there is a difference between cultural attitudes and government policy.

Similarly, I found in 21st century Canada a political arrangement with an incredible capacity to accommodate differences. It paradoxically accepted separatist elected representatives in the national House of Commons, its immigration policy actively supported the identity with which immigrants arrived, its social policies were decidedly more progressive than its freedom-trumpeting southern neighbour, and its relationship with First Nations — while fraught with elements of dysfunction — had a history of treaty negotiations that provided glimmers of hope for the future.

Yet the Crown itself had no influence at all considering any these developments. It’s a blind rubber-stamping puppet of Parliament, regardless of whatever party was in power. Botha is blind to the fact that a recent bill restricting voting was passed and, without any input by our unelected absentee head of state, will become law next month. Treaty negotiations have also been fraught with corruption, and their ratification have been fraught with voting irregularities.

What role, if any, does the monarchy play in all of this? First, a head of state not directly elected by ‘the people’ tends to avoid the sort of populist impulses that can so heavily flirt with xenophobic nationalism. Second, a non-partisan head of state embodies the hopes, dreams, and security of person for every citizen, and is not just representative of the group that votes for him or her (a Presidential Office may in the abstract represent all, but it is always occupied by a partisan politician).

The first “role” that Botha spews out may not spell it out, but he does tease Godwin’s law, this myth that Adolf Hitler, who hated democracy and was supported by the German monarchists, was elected. Let’s be clear: Hitler was never elected (and no royalist ever specifies exactly what was he supposedly elected to) but was appointed Chancellor of Germany thanks to an aging yet firm monarchist named Hindenburg and another monarchist named von Papen in an attempt to control someone who would inevitably become the Teutonic reincarnation of Pharaoh. In other words, the monarchists in Germany helped summon the Third Reich, just as the monarchists in Italy backed Mussolini. Also, Botha is echoing an age-old anti-democratic mantra, that the people are too stupid to govern themselves, that they’re incredibly impulsive. This would be true … under a direct democracy, where people themselves govern directly rather than representatives that they elect to govern for them, to make decisions for them provided that the rights of the individual is protected by law. Also, a democracy, especially a representative one, cannot function without a sound education system that would be mandatory for all citizens to enrol. Freedom isn’t free, especially of obligations are to be properly and soundly educated. People are unwilling to educate themselves, and those who try without proper guidance often become conspiracy theorists or conservatives or worse, which is why the state should be obligated to educate the people. Further, populist impulses don’t flirt with xenophobic nationalism (unless your culture is xenophobic and racially “aware”), and Botha never explains how it does. In fact, populist impulses leans against xenophobic nationalism and toward economic and social needs. People want good jobs, good wages, time with their family, and to have their lives, liberty and property protected by good laws. While the qualifications for President can be changed for the better, the qualifications for monarchy can’t. Nevermind this having to do with the sex of the first-born. Changing that doesn’t make monarchy any better. It’s a way to ensure only whites are heads of state, regardless of who their puppet is in Canada, such as Michelle Jean.

Third, the steady distancing between the monarch and policy-making (versus revolution) has produced a political culture quite comfortable using the tools of government should it yield better policy outcomes. The United States, in contrast, has a curiously adversarial relationship with its democratic government, as if it constantly needs to be fought rather than instrumentalized. This has led to some of the most ineffective policies — see health care and gun control — among developed countries, and — ironically — it hasn’t led to a lean, efficient bureaucracy.

People are going to disagree with each other all the time. There will always be partisanship about one idea or another. Economics, religion, politics, philosophy—like an asshole, everyone has an opinion about them. People are always going to fight each other one way or another. The reason that we have what remains of our healthcare system and effective gun control, while the Americans don’t, is not because of monarchy, but because of ordinary citizens from all walks of life were fighting tooth and nail to get those things established in Canada. The monarch had no part in it whatsoever. In fact, by doing nothing and saying nothing, she’s condoning it, and considering the elitist and reactionary and imperialistic nature of monarchs, she probably would’ve preferred the total opposite, to ensure her peasant subjects paid for their own healthcare and bought their own guns lest they were used to oppose her royal police or soldiers. She probably would’ve preferred if there were no politicians to represent any of the ignorant, unwashed peasantry, or wouldn’t have minded limiting the vote to the highborn few. This demonstrated by her doing nothing.

And fourth, the relationship between First Nations and the Crown has often been healthier than that between First Nations and the Canadian state. Indeed, when I contacted a PhD student studying Canadian-Indigenous relations to get his thoughts on this blog he noted that one of the concerns of a Canadian republic is that it will handle treaties in the historical manner of the federal government and not the Crown, the latter being perceived as more just.

Yet Botha never provides examples or explains how the latter is perceived as “more just.” He ignores the fact that the actions of the Canadian Government are done not in the name of the Canadian state but in the name of the Canadian Crown. Furthermore, let’s explain something here: the British monarch represents imperialism, of colonialism. The natives in this pretend country have been colonized, and have been subjected to the brunt of imperialism. The treaties not only have done little to their benefit, but have also prevented us from moving forward as a country.

The question Canadians should ask as they continue to debate the monarchy in this country is: how to square the institutional benefits of a non-partisan Head of State with the monarchy’s obvious democratic deficit? The discourse often focuses on the value of taxpayer’s money versus the historical importance of the Queen or old school affection for the individual royal personalities versus grassroots democrats. While these are important debates to have, the institutional contribution of non-partisan governmental machinery should be carefully assessed when contemplating the monarchy’s abolishment.

You can’t fit a square peg in a round hole because monarchy isn’t democratic. To try to make the monarchy democratic would be to try and teach both creationism and evolution in a fucking science class! “Intelligent design” or whatever its name is the wolf of creationism disguised as science. If we want real democracy, sever the ties to the British Crown, and absolve ourselves of all and any allegiances to it, and stamp out all other versions of it at the lower levels of government. The discourse that places the value of taxpayer’s money over democracy has the echoes of Ayn Rand, who hated democracy simply because of a childhood trauma she suffered in Russia when she saw mobs running rampant through the streets when it transitioned from one form of dictatorship to another. These sort of people place more value on money, on their on wallets, than in any form of human dignity or public service. And on this whole idea that the head of state should be non-partisan couldn’t be any more stupid. Non-partisanship should only be reserved for the courts. The monarchy isn’t non-partisan because that it allows only family members to inherit the crown, and denies Canadian citizens to either access it or have a say in who should be head of state. As the office of President is owned by the people where anyone can access it, the “office” of monarch isn’t an office at all but private property that is owned by one person and their family, no matter how many times royalists attempt to rehash or rebrand it or “reinvent it.” The head of state isn’t a supreme court justice and doesn’t preside over any court proceedings. Nor should it. Monarchy also doesn’t embody the hopes and dreams of every citizen because it doesn’t allow citizens to become head of state, nor should even an elected head of state embody the hopes and dreams of everyone considering that no one would elect any fascist, racist, intellectually infirm or psychologically unstable person to office considering the hopes and dreams of such deviants are the stuff of nightmares.

Mediocrity is the Mantra or Fuck You, Tom Freda

Canadians are mediocre people with mediocre ambitions who put mediocre efforts into mediocre causes. Take, for example, Tom Freda’s supposed fight against merely an oath to the Queen … for newcomers to Canada.

Today, the Ontario Superior Court ruled that forcing immigrants to Canada to swear an oath to the Queen is constitutional, even if it violated their free speech rights.

Nevermind, you know, actually severing ties with Britain and establishing a republican form of government that works. Nevermind pummelling royalists at every corner of every street and every building. Nevermind radicalizing Canadians against such an evil institution. Nevermind trying to propagate why monarchy is evil and should be destroyed as swiftly as possible. Nevermind trying to explain why a republic (specifically of a constitutional democratic secular form) is the greatest form of government human beings has ever conceived. And as lame as it is, nevermind changing the oath for ALL Canadians who enter into any public office. No. Tom Freda and Roach decided to dedicate years and money to engage in a selfish, mediocre endeavour designed solely to appease only new Canadians who don’t like the monarchy.

I’m sorry, but I’m a natural-born citizen of this country who himself is non-white, who grew up in two provinces, and I absolutely hate the monarchy, because it is an absolutely evil institution that must be destroyed. Yet my ambitions are far higher than Freda’s, or his CCR organization. The ambitions of them are so utterly weak that it would’ve been defeated by a fly between the two in a boxing match. So much time and money wasted on a useless endeavour that was doomed to fail to begin with. We should be better than this. Your ambitions should be far higher, and should be inclusive of all Canadians. But it wasn’t. Instead, the CCR, which has an official position of what kind of republic Canada they want, has colluded with royalists, and has a history of outing or purging “radicals”, decided to pretend to represent only republicans from other countries who come here. Not challenge the status quo. Not try to challenge Canadian’s who fear the concept of an executive that has real power and is able to counter the abuses of the legislature and the judiciary, and vice versa. Not to wage total war against the monarchy and the monarchists, to try and drive some away and others to convert to republicanism. Not to continuously insult and piss off the monarchy and monarchists, both of whom are evil and stupid and irrational.

We’ve got to do better than this, people! Enough! Our country cannot remain as a weak, divided, poor country that stands on fake pride and a dead, diseased system that has been nothing but problems. The idea that a constitutional monarchy is best is wrong. We don’t control nor own the head of state. We’re not a colony and we shouldn’t be colony. Instead, we the Canadians must, as quickly as possible, sever all political ties to Great Britain and the British crown, absolve ourselves of our allegiances to the Crown, and establish for a time a provisional constituent assembly composed of the brightest minds of the country that are not affiliated with any political party to draft a new constitution that would establish Canada as a democratic secular republic with the intent of government being to act in the name and interests of the people, to protect their rights and to provide for their security and welfare. We can’t rely on Parliament to do that. The elected elites in this country now, federally and provincially, in every political party, are not interested in representing the people, in exerting their will and catering to their interests, but in self-preservation. They would also want to keep a system of government where the executive doesn’t wield any power that would counter an abusive legislature. Nor should we use parliament as a legislature in our future republic, because it is unstable, undemocratic and unreliable in a republican system.

In the last fifteen years, we’ve witnessed a great example of the errors of having both a presidential system, where the president is both head of state and of government, and a parliamentary system, where the president is neither, in one of the most powerful and culturally significant nations on earth since Rome: the United States. The former was helmed by the manifestly incompetent George Bush, who ravaged the Bill of Rights, ruined the economy, committed various war crimes, and other heinous acts that have, since 9-11, utterly ruined the country and the world, acting like an elected monarchy. The latter is helmed by the manifestly weak and incompetent Obama, who lied his way into office, only to continue the actions of his predecessor, on top of constantly capitulating to the right-wing who hate him because he’s black, and allowed the restoration of neo-Jim Crow Laws in the states and of the replacement of a republican form of government with a puppet show run by the corporations at the expense of the worker. Obama has, to quote the documentary Class War by Class War Films, “singlehandedly destroyed belief in our political system than any previous combination of the hustlers and phoneys who were his immediate predecessors.” He acts like a rubber-stamping puppet, with the occasional veto but on minor issues. These are the dangers of having a presidential system of republic or a parliamentary system of republic.

For Canada, it should be something balanced. A congressional legislature and a divided executive of moderate power. Strong enough to be able to counter the abuses of the legislature and to act quickly, efficiently and effectively in times of emergency, but weak enough to ensure the legislature is able to counter its abuses.

There will be, without doubt, times when we’ve elected the wrong guy, who is either an aspiring monarch or an unprincipled non-entity. The point of a democracy, and of term limits, is not only to be able to choose our governments but also to change them, so that in the face of blunders, errors or catastrophes by one face, the ability of people to elect a new face gives us the opportunity, the chance to do things better, to change things, to undo and reverse the damage done by their predecessor, to change our leaders for the better. Even after Obama, who is serving his second and final term, there is that opportunity.

But for the Americans, not for us. We, the Canadians, are forced to accept whoever assumes the throne, without our consent, while we indirectly elect our prime minister by giving a political party a majority in the legislature. There are no term limits, even for party leaders. Elections are called whenever Parliament feels like it, and some MPs have unfair influence in the executive branch by becoming Premier or Prime Minister.

Yet the royalists, forever in their drive to destroy the right of the people to govern themselves, will always use the myth of a demagogue with absolute power (completely ignoring the point of democracy … and of a legislature … and a constitution) and the myth of Hitler getting elected (when he in fact wasn’t elected President of Germany but appointed Chancellor … which happens to be … a Prime Minister) to dismiss and discredit democracy and the concept of a republican form of government. There do exists countries that are only republics in name only. Pol Pot wasn’t head of state … but Prime Minister.

Hmmmmmm … Mussolini was Prime Minister. Hitler was Prime Minister. Pol Pot was Prime Minister. Is it just me … or is there a pattern here?

Monarchy + Propaganda

Monarchy has always promoted itself as flawless, divine, righteous and wise, when it is occupied by human beings who are none of those things, with only a few wise people becoming fewer thanks to our education system. And because of our flaws, we tend to cling to those who are mystified so easily thanks to the constant propaganda machine of Buckingham palace, its minions abroad, and general supporters of an all-perfect ruler that has no need to be chosen by the people.

On April 13th in the morning I read an article from the Guardian, a newspaper from the homeland of our masters, where the reviewer of a play became disturbed by its portrayal of our monarch as a perfect counterpart to the flawed elected officials that are elected to office. In this case, the monarch serves as a therapist to every prime minister that came and went under her reign. These PMs would make frank admissions about their personal lives and political conflicts, with only eternal wisdom spewing from the old whore’s lips through the ages, even though some of it was put in her mouth, the same way monarchists would make up words that came from her mouth.

As elected officials fail to do their job, people are becoming more and more fond of unelected officials to resolve the country’s problems. While a strongman is needed to resolve a countries woes, they should only appear rarely to resolve the issues of the day. To preserve them perpetually would be not only pointless but dangerous, and that their actions cause more problems than resolutions, though inaction would also result in the same thing.

Observe any communist, anarchist, or fascist literature that rails against democracy, and you’ll notice a pattern. Particularly in the realms of fascism and communism, where individualism and individual liberty are regarded as a danger to either everyone else or to the state itself, and you’ll find where the monarchists draw their arguments from.

Canada’s Queen Raids Coffers

Speaking of money, as the royalists cloak the eyes of an unsuspecting and apathetic public (too apathetic to care about the queen, yet too apathetic, cowardly and stupid to do anything about it), Canada’s Queen gets a pay raise … of $58 million.

In a report by Acence France Presse that’s been carried by the Huffington Post, the Old Slag herself is getting what royalists call a 5% raise from all the land she has loaned out to the British government, which in turn had decided to compromise democracy instead of seizing the loot, cash and lands and all.

Fuck Victoria Day, And Fuck You Too!

Every time we have to celebrate the birth of this dictator, I cringe. I cringe at the millions of Canadians being utterly smug by their bondage to a foreign power. I wrench from the Natives that demand to retain colonialism as a way of relieving themselves from the plight that the same Crown allows to happen to them. I nearly shit out my insides knowing that Canada is still, now, a colony of a long-dead empire. Death to monarchy, to dictatorship, to inequality! I, a rational man, am sick of this blind reverence to someone whom we didn’t elect, nor have a say in, that is synonymous with absolute power, arbitrary power, tyranny, and abuse of power, which rules for life, is accountable to none, and is succeeded by blood. Power is private property in a monarchy, inherited like trinkets by someone we have no “right” to vote for.

Go Ask Your Mother

or The Queen Refuses to Hold an Inquiry into Electoral Fraud; Elizabeth May and Royalists Proven Wrong AGAIN

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/05/queen-elizabeth-elizabeth-may_n_3020303.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality” ~Dante

Once more, for the 1175th time, the constitutional monarchy has proven itself why it is so wrong on so many levels. Months after Elizabeth May, the US-born leader of the Green Party, wrote a letter calling upon Old Liz to launch a royal inquiry into accusations of election fraud (or as the lamestream media would call it, the “robocall scandal”) against the Conservative Party, the Old Hag of Windsor wrote back, saying that she didn’t want to, because we have a Governor General as the Queen’s representative and that we should go to her representative instead. The idea of having an unelected monarchy as head of state is absurd. The idea of a non-partisan office (or, in the monarchy’s case, “office”) is not only absurd, but also very dangerous, because it is a form of tyranny, where the power to protect and correct is deliberately denied to the people, and on behalf of those in power. She allowed parliament to be suspended twice. She allowed non-violent protesters to be subject to police brutality and wrongful arrest. She rejected calls to intervene on behalf of the so-called hunger strike of the Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, and refused to summon a Royal Inquiry into the so-called “Robocalls Scandal” (or, to put it more accurately, electoral fraud). In each of her condescending nonsensical responses to the last two letters, one sent by a man in BC who was concerned for the Chief, and the other Elizabeth May, she merely refused to intervene, and referred them to her representatives. It’s being lazy, folks. It’s also tyrannical, yet done so softly, so quietly, so gently, that the most gullible would rally behind her to justify her actions, since they care more about class and style than policy and substance. Better to have an elected partisan politician that can take the side of the weak and the oppressed, than the callous, cruel, indifferent eye and deaf ear of a non-partisan monarchy that doesn’t change and doesn’t heed to the cries of the people when they are in agony. And even if she did anything, that doesn’t merit her, someone who isn’t elected, as a credible, reliable and even necessary protector of democracy. How the fuck is even this monarch a protector of democracy, when she refuses to intervene on the behalf of democracy? And furthermore, since some claim her as a representative of the people (she isn’t because she isn’t elected), then why the fuck would this representative . . . have a representative?

And yet the royalists claim that “The Crown’s role … [is] to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard . . . should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down.” Well, fuck you and your bullshit. That’s not true in the slightest! How is electoral fraud NOT a threat to democracy? How is electoral fraud NOT a threat to the normal democratic process of election? You fucks have been proven so wrong more than once, and yet you ratfuckers still lie! And fuck you, Michael Valpy, for calling the Rancid Old Whore a “constitutional fire extinguisher.” She isn’t, so you’ve proven to us that you became a professor by sucking a lot of cocks.

Canada’s political system is not based on any logic, but on the bizarre mental fecal matter of asylum inmates mad with power. Monarchy only appeals to three groups of people, all tightly related and working together in a matter reflective to the inbreeding of the monarchy itself: the simple-minded who are easily puzzled by organized society, the inmates of an asylum, and the power-ravenous. If the monarchy is democratic, then war is peace. If the monarchy guarantees and protects democracy, then freedom is slavery.  And if monarchy costs less and is non-partisan, then ignorance is strength.

As for the Americans who yearn for a constitutional monarchy, or a parliamentary system, well, you’re already living in one. Obama’s going to cut Social Security because, well, he’s a puppet of the GOP. Take a hint!

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” ~Desmond Tutu

Is constitutional monarchy willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then it is impotent. Is it able, but not willing? Then it is malevolent. Is it both able and willing? Whence then is its unwillingness to act? How would it not use its to worsen, aid, or make evil? And what right does it have to hold any power when it’s not been earned.

Ze Babies!!! Part Deux

I’m so sick of the Canadian media (especially that ultra-conservative twin of SUNTV called Yahoo! News) has been trying to incite a frenzy among royal cultists/fans over Kate Middleton’s baby. Now it’s about whether it’ll be a girl or not. Not only do I not care, but I think our attention and time would be less wasted if we were to focus on the policies of the baby. Suppose the baby was a transsexual? What is its policies on Canadian . . . oh, wait, that’s right. It’s British. How could we NOT remember that?! This is extremely dangerous, to make monarchy appealing to the youth, especially women who go all giddy about marriage and looking pretty and having babies, who know nothing about politics or democracy. Imagine some decades now, they become royalists because of sickeningly fond memories of . . . well, the news of this. “Oh, I remember how Kate Middleton was having a baby, and whether or not it would be a boy or a girl.” You remembered it, because our shit media, almost all of it which endorsed one of the most corrupt political parties in the dominion in the last federal election, and most evil, deviant, crooked part of the political spectrum in the history of the earth, told you it was, and told you that you should like it.

Brainless fuckups will only admire the royal family. I don’t shit a damn about whether they’re fat old ladies who wish they were young, or thin, or less fugly. To admire this couple, to have this perverted fixation on the sex its baby, and anything royal, is disgusting. People here in Canada are shallow, easily fooled, pretty fucking obnoxious, and easily distracted by shiny objects, in this case the tin hat and stuffed chair that people in a specific family get to inherit, regardless of popular opinion. We’re so pathetic that rather than simply putting our hopes and interests into action by voting for our head of state (and NO! We can’t vote for our prime minister!), we’re hoping the next in line gets something done about climate change or poverty, much like an abused house wife hopes her husband doesn’t gouge out her eyes out like the last time he tried to. And rather than actually doing something about it, we republicans, right now, are merely griping or seeking to compromise because we’re so scared of shedding a drop of blood to get exactly what we want, while howling with pride about how we won a war where we didn’t even exist at the time.