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.

Rob Ford & The Case for Impeachment

Rob Ford, along with London mayor Joe Fontana, is the reason why we need impeachment across the land. To do nothing but simply wait and let the public decide in the next election, despite his criminal activity, his compulsive lying, and his flimsy attempts to cover-up the existence of the notorious crack video that lead to the arrest of his driver, is a surrender to mob rule. Of course, it’s less mob rule and more of a hijacking of our democracy by our own version of the Tea Party. So in essence, City Council has surrendered to the rule of a few, an oligarchy, composed of the worst and most ignorant of human beings this city has living within. This City Council has failed to go far enough.

Now some naysayers will say that it’s against the law to remove the mayor. First of all, what law? Where? Federal law? Provincial law? No such law has ever been cited even once by any government official or the press. And no law exists that prevents City Council from doing so exists anyways. Just as there was no law preventing City Council from removing the mayor’s powers, there is no law preventing City Council from removing the incumbent, and Rob Ford, forever the corrupt and pathologically lying frat boy people seem to enjoy at the expense of others, is a great reason why we there should be no such law preventing City Council from removing them. People like Ford, Fontana and Chris Christie are examples of why we need impeachment, especially when we have a republic in the hopefully near future. I’ve talked with few people (online), demanding what law is there that prevents City Council from doing so, and I’d get no answer, or I’d get some random law that they never explain how it’s related to the removal of the incumbent, or why or where in that law does it say or why the media or City Council has referred to this law as being the law that prevents them, or they don’t know. Typically Canadian to not know the laws you live under.

Another stupid excuse floating around is that it’s no big deal that Rob Ford smoked crack. Why? Why is it not a big deal that the mayor drinks and does drugs while on duty, but a huge deal for some people who are poor or non-white to have their lives destroyed and thrown away when they’re caught? When you’re caught smoking crack or doing any drugs while on the job, you get fired. While I do favour marijuana legalization, this has to do with power, and how we need intelligent, ethically sound, reasonable and sober people to run the city, or the province, or even the “country”. Some people are advocating for a figurehead, and I don’t want that. Malarkists, perpetually repugnant as Ford himself, are gloating at this, saying “See? Would you want Rob Ford to be president? City council can’t even remove him from office.” No. I wouldn’t, nor any decent human being in this country who are often outnumbered by the ignorant, the lazy and the insane that imagine that the media, forever left-wing in the minds of theirs despite being as conservative as they can legally get, has somehow fabricated this, that the “lamestream media” is making stuff up, and that Ford only tells the truth simply because he’s the mayor. Idiots. No. Fuck no. That’s why there’s two things necessary for an elected executive: election and impeachment.

Remember earlier how the Royalists, in their list of excuses for defending the monarchy, whined and complained about how we’d have to remove politicians from office through impeachment. Why is it a bad idea? Look at Ford! You think we shouldn’t remove the corrupt and criminal from power, elected or not? That we should allow them to commit crimes while in office with impunity and behave as they see fit, and we only need to wait til the next election? Or just as bad, just leave him as a figurehead, and do absolutely nothing except take our money to do nothing. Want a symbol? Look at our flag, our CN Tower. Why a person, you fucking idiot? If you’re not going to do anything except mooch off our tax dollars, then get the fuck out and never serve again. Our monarch, for example, is not only an unelected absentee head of state who rules for life, is at best utterly useless and at worst a tyrant, and is succeeded by blood regardless of popular opinion, but also does absolutely nothing, and benefits no one but herself who rakes in millions of our money every year despite allegedly having no power. You know what you call someone who has a government job who does nothing but reaps in a salary with benefits? Government waste. Get Ford out, City Council. Stop dithering, and stop wasting our money by keeping Ford as a figurehead. It’s also time we need to stop this idea of honour, where the incumbent has only the option to leave office.

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.

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.

The Republican Party ≠ Republican

Like any decent human being, I completely despise conservatives and royalists. I also despise the GOP. So much so, that I refuse to call them by their formal name. Why so? Because they are in no way, shape or form, republican in the true sense. The concept of a republic, in fact, is actually a very liberal, very leftist concept of government, being that the executive and legislative branches are vested in the control and consent of the citizens. Because people in the English-speaking realms of the North American continent, who are easily confused thanks to their lack of attention span, memory and education, literally believe that the very word “republican” implies or means that you’re a member of the GOP or its mindset. Nevermind if you’re an American. I’m talking about Canadians who have been saturated with American TV, and who are either fellow haters of the GOP and conservatives, or who are conservatives that can’t seem to grasp that the GOP is republican in name only. Some Canadians are so stupid they confuse it with the far right, and have caused many Canadian leftists to take pride in what is essentially an non-egalitarian and non-democratic institution, the monarchy, as somehow the sole protector of our liberties . . . rather than something better, like the law. But alas, the republican left has been silenced by patriotic Canadians who are either too sad or too stupid to know the damn difference between republican and royalist. The GOP is in fact royalist, elitist, classist, and anything that hinders the liberty equality of all; it just uses liberal, leftist rhetoric to confuse people. That’s why I never use the word “Republican” when I speak of the GOP, and republicans of all political stripes in Canada (yes, even a small minority of conservatives despise monarchy as much as I do, though unlike myself, they see monarchy as an utter failure to stop the tides of democracy) should make it clear with their readers, listeners, and viewers.

I’m so sick of repeating myself over and over. After all, you have this blog to sift through to figure out where I stand when it comes to that most evil of institutions, with corporations, mob rule, and theocracies or the influence of religion in politics almost immediately before it. In a way I am damnwell elitist: I want the best and brightest, but who come from all walks of life, to govern, not just anyone. I mean, look at what happened with George Bush II when he continued the Bush dynasty. The more a person is intelligent yet hesitant or resistant to hold office, the more worthy they are to hold office, for they would be the most cautious to use any power given to them.

A New Low: Globe And Fail

The Globe And Mail, a royalist rag no doubt, has dipped into a new low when it published a government rag in a form of an editorial that exposed both the paper’s absence of journalistic standards and the crank author’s wealth of ignorance and of hatred for anything both American and democratic when it unfairly criticized a video game called Assassin’s Creed III, accusing it of “unfairly distorting history.” Ironically, the fluff piece itself distorts history by falsely stating that the events take place in 1765 when in fact it was set during the American Revolutionary War, and in fact there actually were native American tribes that did side with the Patriots, along with the French, Spanish, Dutch and even Indians from, well, India. Indeed there were native tribes who fought alongside the British (as well as ze Germans), but they (along with ze Germans) fought on the wrong side.

Reading it carefully, it is obviously like something either a conservative government official or a member of the Monarchist League would have dictated to his secretary and released, considering the language used, it’s pro-royalist stance, it’s pathetic pandering to the First Nations of Canada who have been in fact victims of the Crown from start to finish, it’s overall ignorance of history and gaming, the absence of an author’s name, and it’s very nerve to mention the war 1812. The piece is as accurate as the idea that Canada existed in 1812.

It’s just a game, people! Not a history lesson!

Games Lefties Play

Despite the title of this post, let’s get one thing straight: I’m of the left. I am a leftist. I am of the far-left. I am left wing. I am also democratic, which just so happens to be a left-wing idea. I am not a communist or anarchist, nor do I support the systems of anarchy or communism. I believe that government is necessary and fundamental to keep people from hurting each other, and to provide for the common good of all. People want to live freely and happily.

I live in Canada, which is predominantly a culturally left-leaning “country”. But I somewhat identify myself with the left here because there’s some ideas that the majority of leftists support while I object. The most glaring of these is, of course, the monarchy. Almost all leftists in Canada either don’t care about it, are royalist by default, royalist by ignorance, or, like Pierre Trudeau, would want to merely hide it. Only a handful of leftists want Canada to become a republic, yet even here there’s troublesome members of this group. Unlike myself, I am not a communist, nor do I believe in conspiracy theories like Canadian Action Party members do. And finally, I am of the extreme minority, probably of six people who think that the reason a republic is better than a monarchy goes far beyond just fiscal benefits and chronological relevance.

While I agree with a vast majority of leftist ideas, I also equally despise the vast majority of Canadian leftists, majority of whom support monarchy in one way or another. We all know that monarchists aren’t that bright. The majority of leftists use the typical royalist excuses as justification to retaining what is inherently and manifestly undemocratic, unequal and unfree. Power in a monarchy, however powerless it may seem to be, is inherited by blood, regardless of public opinion, unlike a republic where power is earned by ballot, regardless of blood. However democratic or free a society may seem to be under a monarchy, it is not free enough because no one can be free to elect or be elected head of state of their own country. Monarchy is the very antithesis to the principals of the left in general, which are liberty and equality for all. The excuses to have a monarchy are vast and various, yet every single one of them is wrong, and all of them are so morally repugnant and outrageously ridiculous that the very stench of their absurdness outreeks even the most foul of stenches. Of course, then again, the vast majority of Canadians have merely experienced a constitutional monarchy and cannot envision anything else beyond it. Their ignorance of government systems is rather staggering, and gives the conservatives an edge against us because they exploit it and reinforce it. Plus they have money, a fundamental and necessary tool the left, alas, shuns and rejects.

Roach Croaked

Today, a rather extreme moderate republican and prominent member of Citizens for a Canadian Republic Charles Roach has passed away. He was a prominent lawyer and activist from Toronto who, inexplicably, despite his republicanism, decided to fight the monarchy through the courts, dumping all the money and time into changing an oath of allegiance.

I found out about it here. I also found, in the comments page, the goddamned stupid royalists from all walks of life come out full swing. The first thirty minutes have been nothing but racist rants about immigration, and variations of that old anti-democratic hymn: “if you don’t like it, then leave.” This one’s a classic, coming from a cunty joe-canuck user named Paying My Way: “The NDP also should understand that Canada is still a democracy, subject to the will of the majority. Being a free country, anyone who doesn’t like how it’s run or whether or not it’s part of a monarchy is entirely free to leave.” First off, you should understand we’re not a democracy because monarchy is not democratic because it is an unelected, hereditary title of nobility. Secondly, if there are some things we disagree with then why not change them or remove them rather than remove ourselves? What the fuck is the point of democracy, let alone dissent or any form of criticism? And thirdly, I prefer a nation subject to laws that can be made, changed or abolished by a government that is and can be elected by the people, rather than a nation subject to the whims of the majority, or the impulses of the minority, or the influence of money or religion.

At the same time, Roach picked the wrong battle to fight. You can’t abolish monarchy through the courts. Plus he focussed on changing an oath, not on getting rid of the institution behind the oath. You abolish the institution, you can change the oath. Simple. But no, not for Roach. Time, effort and money has been wasted thanks to the ubercautious, cowardly, stale white-breaded stock photographer Tom Freda, who has, like Layton did with a lot of the left, compromised his principals and neutered the cause, making it even more soft to attacks from the royalists, causing the CCR to stop holding protests out of fear of “drawing extremists,” and even cannibalizing their fellow republicans who they deem “too passionate.”

Good riddance to Roach, who fought the wrong battle in a just war against a Satanic invention.