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?

Oh Fuck, Not This Shit Again!!!

For the third time, now, the most powerful non-existent political office in this pretend country has decided, on a mere whim, to again suspend Parliament and hold a throne speech in October of this year. The excuses from Herpes has been anything but existent, like his office.

What’s very interesting in the article, however, is a small note (I’m certain no-one will ever take notice) is made when mentioning that this wasn’t the first time Herpes suspended parliament to spare himself political embarassment:

“… prorogation, a standard parliamentary tool that has the effect of cancelling any legislation that’s still before the House.”

Is this true? Really? In order to stop a bill from becoming law in Canada, parliament should be suspended by the executive? As opposed to getting the bill vetoed by the chief executive? All that trouble for terminating a bill? Hell, the President of the United States and France respectively don’t terminate bills, but merely return them to Congress or the National Assembly for reconsideration! Reconsideration, where the legislature looks at the bill again, then by vote decides whether to terminate it or pass it again! Why do Canadians prefer to use rocket science for even the simplest of matters is far beyond me!

That said, this is blatantly abuse of power. Not just suspending parliament for any reason, but also dissolving it, especially for non-confidence motions, budget failures, and whenever elections are called whenever the executive feels like it! We may have health care, but that doesn’t justify conserving a shitty form of government, nor any more ties to the British crown!

And once again, the Queen will allow this to happen. And even if she did meddle against it, it’s still interference by someone that isn’t Canadian and wasn’t elected by Canadians. And Canadians won’t riot over this, either. But they should. Against this, and against the Crown as well.

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.

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.

Monarchists Are Idiots

Monarchists, like fascists and every other branch of conservatism and centrism, are complete and utter idiots and crazy people. They literally believe in the idea that monarchs are free from corruption simply on the propagandistic garbage they’re fed by the very institution willing to manipulate public opinion to support it. Anyone who adores, admires or loves monarchy is either blind, stupid, crazy, or evil. They hate the idea of the people governing themselves, because they themselves have this slave-master mentality. They not only want to be blindingly obedient to the most frivilous, pettiest, or irrational whims of their rulers, but also want to chain others.

Monarchists are naturally secluded from the rest of the world save for the internet, where they can spread their poison. They’re members of a personality cult, far worse than a celebrity fan club, who deify their ruler, one imposed on them by a deity, without consent of the governed. They want to kill democracy, yet ironically, they are trying to gain public support so that they can kill it with thunderous applause.

Monarchists have blind and total distrust in the election process to such a degree, that anyone elected is an enemy, regardless of their talents, gifts, ideas, merit or contribution. They cling to this myth about such things can be hereditary, that the people should not only have a say in who should govern them, but be forced to accept their rulers blindingly, even in the face of glaring mistakes that politicians make. When a politician makes a mistake, it’s a crime, and they’re thrown out of office or lose the next election. They don’t like that. They don’t like it when the people have a say in who their representatives are, and they don’t like it when authority figures can be thrown out, or shown “disrespect.” Monarchists literally want to murder, torture, intimidate, harass and abuse anyone who has any differences of opinion, or who shows disrespect towards their favorite celebrity, or to anyone authority, or to “traditional values,” which rob the people blind of their right to govern themselves, even at the executive level. “Traditional values” are not reasonable, rational, or logical values.

Monarchists are, to borrow Gore Vidal’s description of Ayn Rand’s followers, simple folk who are easily puzzled by organized society, who hate taxes, who hate the idea of a welfare state. They don’t want their money to be given to an elected government that is obligated to use it for public purposes, but to an unelected government to use as it pleases regardless of the welfare of the people.

Monarchists are a vicious cancer, and should be rooted out, gutted out, cut out and cast out from the national body, so that they don’t molest a free people, nor seek to enslave them. However moderate, they should never be trusted by even the most moderate of republicans.

As for Canadian monarchists, they think that there’s no French people when they talk about “history” or “heritage.” They think that we should sacrifice true independence, and the right of the people to choose their head of state, in the name of “tradition” or “heritage” or “history”, that democracy is merely an American invention. They’re angry at the Americans not because of 1812, which was over the occupation by American forces that wanted to redress grievances with the British, but because the Americans fought and won their independence from the British Crown; monarchists in Canada are angry at them because a people, once private property of the Crown, rebelled and won their independence. Their excuses are, while numerous, baseless, absurd and ridiculous. They don’t realize that under the British monarchy, this pretend state called Canada has in fact been heavily Americanized, yet they revere an object like the British Crown as some idol of worship, and falsely claims it keeps us Canadian. They see French and Native people as mere trophies of conquest, and are only angry at them because, apart from their differences in ethnicity and language, stand up for themselves and are fiercely independent, while the Canadian monarchist disguises his servitude with fake patriotism and empty lip service to democracy and freedom, yet not equality. Finally, the Canadian monarchist literally believes that the British Empire was founded through peace and love.

Ze BABIES!!!

*beeeeep*

I’ve been a little late on this, I know, but I’ve been preoccupied. Now that time’s on my hands . . .

Late last month, on the 28th of January, one of our beloved PM’s minions unveiled a bill that would change the rules of succession of the British throne by abolishing the requirement of the eldest male child to become next-in-line to the throne, allowing any child first-born, regardless of sex, to become successor. This obviously is an attempt to cash in to the marriage and relationship of Prince William to Kate Middleton, and to make the monarchy popular, which is ironic, considering how undemocratic, anti-democratic and essentially anti-popular monarchy really is. This is something that royalist filth on all sides rejoice in, with left-wing royalists and neo-colonialists who suffer from cognitive dissonance hailing this as a step towards equality (I’m calling you out, Thwap!), while right-wing cancer cells rejoice this as a step in the right direction to appease the ignorant masses with royal pageantry, I honestly couldn’t care less. Whether or not this passes, whether it’s constitutional or not, whether or not first-born children would be allowed to succeed the throne regardless of sex or even sexual orientation (monarchy is anti-gay anyway, with its fixation on heirs and birth-lines and conditioning children to be nothing but next-in-line, even if it means exterminating their ambitions of becoming, say, an astronaut or a doctor), this does not change the fact that monarchy is inherently evil, undemocratic, anti-democratic, elitist, aristocratic, who rules for life, cannot be elected nor removed from office, is at best (or worst) a powerless symbol or at worst a tyrant, and is succeeded by their children regardless of their merit or popular opinion, and that power is inherited, like private property, by blood regardless of popular opinion, rather than earned by ballot, regardless of blood. I don’t care whether or not Kate Middleton is hot. I don’t care if William is hip, of whether he wanted to invite the poor to their wedding, and wanted bike to their wedding. I don’t care if they’re intelligent. The point is I didn’t vote for them, can’t vote for them, because I somehow, for whatever reason, don’t have a right to, as does anyone else.

If you want a female head of state, rather than simply wait until by mere and sheer coincidence and chance one just so happens to be farted out of some royal family member’s womb, just put it to a vote, and vote on the girl with the best and brightest ideas, not the best looks, or the fact that she’s just a girl. There are a lot of ugly people I wouldn’t fuck that I would definitely vote for if they had great ideas and policies, and a lot of pretty people I would definitely have kinky sex with that I would definitely NEVER vote for because of their shitty ideas and policies.

As for you Pommies across the pond, how embarrassed are you? Just how little pride do you have in yourselves, to rely on other “countries” (which are really dominions, colonies that form the skeletal remnants of your once mighty [and evil] empire [as are all empires evil]) to have any say in your monarchy? I mean, come on! Shouldn’t this be Britain’s affair? You’re apprehensive, if not hostile, about the meddlesome nature of the EU, yet somehow you don’t mind countries that are outside the EU, if not far beyond it, to have a say in your affairs? It would be only possible for you to deal with your monarchy alone, if you released your remaining colonies and allowed them to become truly independent, and dissolved your commonwealth.

Royal Idleness

As Idle No More rightfully rages on, our gracious Queen couldn’t idle more than she already does.

As usual, as Teresa Spence’s martyrdom is imminent, and Canada’s native children are fighting to preserve their rights, the Merry Old Whore of Windsor, who is not Canadian, the absentee head of state of our dominion (which is different from fully and outrightly indendent) and landlord of their estates, neither says nor does anything, since she is allegedly “above politics.” To be above politics, of course, is to be free from responsibility, from accountability, and in the case of monarchy, from democratic civil control.

I want to express a few things here: I’m of the opinion that there should be only one nation, and that should be Canada. Not all cultures are equal, but that such an attitude does not justify any needless persecution of a people who are struggling day and night to overcome the vast burdens laid upon them by Her Majesty’s Government in Ottawa. Monarchy, even if it’s isolated to a small native tribe somewhere in the world, is utterly wrong, if not totally evil, however benign the ruler may be or even is. I do think that all Aboriginals, regardless of what they call themselves, are Canadians through and through, born with the same rights as everyone else, including the right to be treated as equals. The land shouldn’t belong just to them or to just non-Aboriginals, but to all Canadians, for we are brothers and sisters of the same soil. I believe in nationalism and in national unity, but in a democratic republican form of government from top to bottom. Many nations under one nation, one flag, and two languages to unite all parts of Canada together (personally, I’d prefer French as the single national language even though I’m an Anglophone). To call for natives to partake in Canadian society is not to force them to assimilate, but government should not be mandated to either assimilate the natives or help them preserve their own cultures, specifically the benevolent, beneficial and neutral aspects of them. Modernize we must, and aggressively. Even though they collectively share the land, collective ownership cannot work at a grand scale, but it doesn’t mean they should surrender their collective ownership. You can only fit so many eggs inside a bucket.

That being said, Idle No More hasn’t gotten attention from the Queen of England, and she’ll pay no attention to them even if they ask for it. Should they give up, though? No. They have been, like any other native group on earth, subject to exploitation, discrimination, and contempt. Even during tours, native chiefs (who are only interested in power and land grabs, which would Bulkanise Canada into a region of divided, unstable, and often quarrelling tribal states), were denied the chance to present petitions to her, since, well, she’s “above politics.”

UPDATE: as I was writing this, I was shocked to discover news of a B.C. man, who wrote a letter to the Bitch of Windsor Castle regarding Chief Spence’s “hunger strike,” received a reply from the Old Whore, pulling a “go ask your dad” by telling her that she should refer her case to federal cabinet. Meanwhile, south of the border, the President of the United States, who is indirectly elected by the people through an electoral college, has put up a petition site called “We, the People” where the White House would respond to online petitions containing up to a certain number of signatures. Laughably, however, she did state that she would monitor the progress of Spence’s “strike,” meaning she won’t. And even if she did, what right does an unelected head of state, who isn’t even Canadian, and is absentee, have concerning our affairs?

I think, in a way, petitions work far better when presented before a member of the national legislature than before the President himself. Plus not all petitions are equal. For example, the first few petitions of “We, the People”, the official white house online petition website, were of ones requesting that their state secede from the Union. And the White House indeed respond, and it was, to condense the response, a “No.” And this online petition thing was Obama’s idea, not one of his members of cabinet. Unlike Canada, where everything is heavily bureaucratic and skeptical of the rights of the people, if not contemptuous of the, the United States at least tries to be a little more democratic, and at all levels. Under a monarchy, however, especially if it’s a democratic kingdom (an oxymoron in itself) power eventually becomes less and less democratic.