Really?! What the fuck, people!
These are times when I really cry hard for my “country.”
Oh, and in other news, one of the monarchy’s family members has just farted out a baby. Whoop-tee-shit.
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.
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.
There’s a reason why my stomach turned when Hugo Chavez was re-elected president of Venezuela for the third time, and the reasons are very simple: apart from cajoling with dictators such as the late Saddam Hussein, the late Ghaddafi, and Assad, having the nerve to accuse pro-democracy freedom-fighters in Syria and Libya as “terrorists”, supplying their oppressors with oil, and ignoring the rampant crime problem until recently just to win votes, what really started to make me hate the bastard is the idea of anyone holding executive power over their country for a very long time. To allow unlimited terms of office, especially that of the head of state of a nation, is close to that of a dictatorship or a monarchy. Worse still is the animalistic impulse that is created by the corrupting nature of power that makes people with good intentions want to cling to power at whatever cost under a false democratic guise, even if it means rigging elections, like Zimbabwe, which is a perfect example of what happens when there are no term limits to a powerful presidency. Perpetual consecutive terms in office leads to perpetual term in office. There’s a good reason why there should be term limits. Imagine the earth forced to live under the shadow of a third-term Bush presidency. We, the ones living in the New World, would be already living in nuclear winter by now, thanks to Iran’s nukes (if they were real, that is). Despite sympathizing with Chavez’s socialism and socialist policies, I am a democratic socialist. I believe in democracy, to ensure government is strong enough to protect the rights, liberties and equality of the people and to provide for their security and welfare, but restrained enough to ensure that it is not a threat to those very rights.
This raises some very severe concerns about the nature of power vested in someone who holds onto power for too long. However good they are, they eventually personalize it, make it their own, and don’t want to let go at any cost. A public office becomes a private possession. Mubarak, who was rightfully overthrown during the Arab Spring, was, despite elections, grooming his sons to become President, which is sounds like a plan to restore the monarchy in Egypt. First establish long terms of office, usually no more than six years; then establish unlimited terms of office; then groom your sons to inherit the presidency; then give your office more powers; then finally declare yourself president for life; then king. Now you tell me how on earth would anyone that supports democracy would want to do something like that when something like that is, well, horribly undemocratic at every level? There’s also the need to get rid of bad fruit in power and replace them with people who are better, who are willing and able to clean up the mess of their predecessor. Why keep bad apples forever in a barrel of good apples when you can just chuck it out? Also, there’s some people that come in to serve a purpose, then once their purpose has been fulfilled, they should leave. Their time has gone, it’s over, let’s move on. Winston Churchill, for example, was elected to replace Chamberlain and did everything allowed by the powers of his office to ensure victory against fascism and to instill British pride during their finest hour, while Britain’s precious king, who wasn’t unelected, was a mild sympathizer of the Nazis, and did nothing. Yet almost immediately after the war, Churchill lost the election of 1945 since the British people then wanted post-war reforms by a man of peace during peacetime (not to mention that Churchill also had plans to start a third world war, this time pulling a Hitler move by turning against the Soviet ally, and unlike Cincinnatus, refused to resign from his office despite serving his purpose). Makes sense. Choose leaders of war in times of war, choose leaders of peace in times of peace. At least they would do something, unlike our present monarch, who does nothing at all, so why keep it anyway? And if we would want a head of state with power, replace the monarchy with a presidency and be done with it. A question for conservatives: what was the Queen doing during the October Crisis? How was she preventing Trudeau from going too far?
Law should be a double-edged sword to ensure its rule and to ensure equality under it. And when the laws are unjust, they should be changed by governments that can be changed, even at the very top.