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.

Democracy in Crisis in North America

There has been a coup in the United States. Or rather, to put it grammatically correct, there was a coup that has helped the shutdown of the American government. This cause was made by a simple change in the rules of the House of Representatives where, instead of allowing any member to forward a motion to resume the government, only the leader of the party majority may put forward such motion. This was made in the dead of night without any debate or oversight. In other words, the GOP of the United States has seized power, and is trying to transform their congress into Canada’s parliament, where parliament is not controlled equally by all members of the legislature, but by party leaders with MPs serving as mere puppets under threat of expulsion from the party if they fail to toe the line.

Canadians, perpetually arrogant and self-blind (the very reason why we live under monarchy and a half-formed yet misshapen constitution), fail to understand that our own government has been shut down, that democracy in its current fragmented state has been suspended, in the name of the whim of an executive who has shown us an example why term limits are important to a democracy. While a House Majority Leader is different from a Prime Minister, it nonetheless is an attempt to inch America away from a congressional legislature to a parliamentary one. And while parliaments may be entertaining when the business of a legislature is to govern, they are not as democratic as a congressional legislature, which is what a proper republic wound need in order to function.

Finally, in Ontario, lest we forget, the Privy Council under the unrepentant Dalton McGimpy did something similar by imposing a secret law on the province, without any debate or oversight by the provincial legislature, that expanded police powers dramatically, and that Canadians in Ontario are still living under.

Sometimes, it’s the small things that can have huge consequences.

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.

Appeal To Money

One of the stupidest arguments royalists use to condemn and damn democracy is that elections are so expensive. They use numbers drawn from elections in the United States, the compares them to that of maintaining the monarchy. This is an abhorrent attempt to trick the people into thinking with their wallets at the expense of their fundamental right to choose their governments, that we should sacrifice a fundamental democratic right that so many fight and die for because it would squeeze our wallets. They deliberately skewer figures and numbers, to confuse the reception and spending of money by political parties and candidates with that of the money spent on the electoral process itself. And being conservatives, they will cheat and lie about the numbers and the sources from whence it came.

First of all, Canadian royalists will always attack the United States, in an attempt to discredit it and its experiment with a republican form of government, which may be less than perfect (indirect election of the President vie electoral collage, for example) but far better than the stale, overused mockup of Westminster we have in Ottawa. The monarchists are still bitter over the loss of their colonies, and will always whitewash the British Empire’s own legacy of colonial terrorism and slavery, so that in Canada’s history books, Britain’s Empire was founded on peace and love.

Why do they resort to this? Rather simply: to appeal to the people’s wallets, especially of those who don’t vote, and don’t care about the effects of politics that happen in their lives. Yet suppose we get rid of all our representatives, and just have direct rule by the monarchy. Then the monarchy decides to impose taxes that are excessive and unnecessary, to spend on only personal expenses at the expense of the public well being and security. Who can appeal to her, then? Who can influence her? Only the most insane, unworthy of influencing anyone or holding any power, would blindly trust and defend a deified person, rivaled only by the Pharaohs of Egypt who were literally, in the eyes and minds of virtually all Egyptians, a god in human form. Why should an unelected, undemocratic head of state with powers unenumerated and inherited by blood, regardless of public opinion, have any right or say in how the state should spend its money, or in reverse and better yet, why should it even care about the people she rules over, or rely on any approval of the very people royalists dismiss as unable to govern themselves?

And speaking of money, what has our monarchy done about the Senate scandals with Mike Duffy, or the SUNTV fiasco with the CRTC? What has she said or done about the fraudulent elections that the Conservatives engaged in? Of course she doesn’t care about elections or democracy! She’s a fucking monarch. She relies on the concept of divine choice, without solid evidence or consent of the people, to govern a people that she not only looks down upon for their supposed ignorance, or lack of “class”, but also wants to deny them their inherent right a sound and solid education.

If the masses are so grossly ignorant as claimed by the royalists, then why deny them sound education, to teach them as children the ability to use logic, reason, and critical thinking? They want to rob the people blind of quality education in the name of money the same way they want to rob and deny people the right to vote, to elect their representatives, to choose their governments, in the name of money. Granted, democracy should be affordable, economical, financially beneficial. Yet it is a dangerous folly to think that the cheapest government is the government you can’t choose or change.

Spanish Republicans Demand End To Their Monarchy

Well, this is a surprise!

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/04/2013414182728336313.html

http://rt.com/news/spain-anti-monarchy-rally-847/

Solidarity from Canada! Long live the Spanish Republic! Long live the future Third Spanish Republic!
Solidarité du Canada! Vive la République espagnole! Vive la future troisième République espagnole!
¡Solidaridad de Canadá! ¡Viva la República Española! ¡Viva la Tercera República Española futura!

Best quote ever, because it’s technically true: “This monarchy was imposed on us by the dictatorship, therefore we consider it to be illegal,” 45-year-old teacher Maria Ayuso said.

Best quote ever, because it’s so sickeningly typcial: Juan Carlos apologised, saying as he left the hospital: “I am very sorry. I made a mistake. It won’t happen again.”

I mean, if any politician said that . . . no one would believe him and he’d either be thrown out of office or lose the next election, and replaced by someone better. If a monarch did this . . . we’re be forced to accept his apology, forced to keep him in power til he dies, and rationalize his sins even after death. And this is the benefit of a republic, of an elected head of state. To represent the people, the head of state must be elected. If the politician is bad, the people would throw him out and replace him with someone better. Term limits significantly improves it, because life-terms are a symptom of monarchs/dictators.

Monarchy + the North American Union (NAU)

Don’t think that this post is something that propagates or supports the conspiracy delusion of a North American Union.

Canada has as much need to be part of the North American Union as it is needs a monarchy. In other words, it deserves neither, even though the North American Union is, in fact, a myth. While there are people who genuinely want a united North America (one of them being royalist), these numbers are tiny, and are going up against the vast majority of people who utterly loathe the idea of having the sovereignty of their country — or in our case, “country” — erased, and of being absorbed into some superstate. Count me in as among the numbers of people who against such an idea, even though this idea is a total myth. Yet some Canadians, all of whom are idiots, literally believe and even propagate the concept of a North American Union being the consequence of abolishing the monarchy, of severing ties to the British crown and establishing a Canadian republic. It just baffles me to think that we would have such pretend pride in ourselves, yet we would be interested in switching empires as opposed to being a truly independent country. This makes no sense. Part of my republicanism comes from the fact that we’re not a real country, that being a dominion is really pretending to be independent without actually being independent. Yet this concept has given us this idea that we’re literally so weak that we can’t survive as a sovereign nation. Even if there is a threat to us being absorbed into such a union, there’s one way we, as a republic, can solve this: don’t vote for people who support a North American Union. You’ve got to be stupid to think that we’d want to elect anyone that would compromise or destroy our independence once we become a republic. That’s as stupid as the idea that someone unelected, who holds the crown for life, who is at worst a tyrant with absolute power, at best an utterly rubber-stamping puppet, and who is succeeded by blood even in spite of public opinion is somehow a representative of the people just as much as the fascist excuse of totalitarianism is in a single unelected leader that represents the people who, in turn, are deprived of their freedom in order to devote their beings to the state. Monarchy relies on its subjects to serve the state, not the state serving the people, thus we’re called subjects, a subjugated people.

There is no plan to unite North America, and that those believe in one or who want one can go fuck themselves. Even if it was imminent, the monarchy will inevitably do nothing. When I was young, I knew that Europe adapting a single currency would be disastrous since it would put every country in the Union at an economic disadvantage. If it goes down in one country, it goes down in the rest of Europe.  Besides, we’re too large a country already, and have no need for more space. Yet royalists are exploiting the typical Canadian (read: idiot) in the street and online to feed them their disgusting, anti-democratic garbage, that we should rely on someone who has already demonstrated total unwillingness to help us since somehow acting against anything that harms the people is either political or altruistic, and that we don’t understand why we should just mandate a President to act in times of crisis while the legislature is on hiatus during a national emergency. Few royalists are die-hard fascists, while most of them are, as Gore Vidal described them of Ayn Rand’s followers, “simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who don’t like paying taxes, who dislike the welfare state.” To them, altruism is evil, that democracy and republicanism is a manifestation or result of altruism, and that selfishness at the expense of many is the true virtue.

For more skepticism on the North American Union, visit this rather interesting article: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4210

Monarchy is an abomination, an evil, and an affront to democracy. There is no such thing as divine right of kings because either there is no God, or people are forgetting that we were all created free and equal by God. Intelligence is not hereditary, nor is skill or talent.