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?


Reductio Ad Hitlerum

Royalists in person may be hard to come by, but whenever you cross one, royalist idiocy isn’t. Among the most stupid of arguments they use is the idea that a demagogue would be elected, he would become a dictator, and lead the country down into a dangerous path. While it may be true, it’s because there isn’t strong check enough checks and balances to ensure such a path isn’t reach. One of them being, of course, the legislature. They speak as if people are elected for life with no checks and balances on their power! The damage royalist lies have done to Canadians and their culture is insurmountable, but a worthy task to reverse and undo, and there’s always the next generation.

A true republic has to be democratic, for a republic cannot be a republic without democracy. There are nations that are not democratic, yet call themselves republics. Those are republics in name only. I for one do not simply accept any kind of republican government, but the right kind of republic. Not a parliamentary republic where a symbolic executive is the rubber-stamping puppet of an unstable and abusive legislature, nor a presidential republic where the president is both the head of government and of state and has powers that can even override that of the legislature. Not one where the president has both broad powers and unlimited terms of office like those of Zimbabwe, Egypt under Mubarak, and Syria under Assad, or one where the president is completely powerless and ineffective and serves one term. These are not true republics but a mockery of them. Same with so-called elected monarchies. And yet royalists, forever familiar only with the concept of the ignorant masses voting against their own interests and unable to tell the similarity between a monarchy and a dictatorship, use these as examples of real republican government.

Among the many arguments royalists use to justify hereditary government, they resort to one of the most stale fallacies imaginable.

Contrary to what royalists, Pharaoh’s Teutonic successor was never elected. True, he tried to use democracy, but only to destroy not just the republican form of government that rose in the aftermath of the First World War and the 1919 German Revolution, but democracy itself. Hitler, like all monarchists, hated democracy. He and his fascist party, the National Socialists, were supported by monarchists, who also hated democracy and wanted to extinguish it. Yet over and over again, royalists use this as an example of what would happen if a republican form of government in any of the commonwealth nations, while deliberately hiding historical fact from their readers. That a demagogue would take power through elections and would serve for life with absolute power … like a monarch. Truth is: Hitler assumed power not through elections or a coup or (according to some Canadian leftists) hate speech, but through political backroom dealings, violence and intimidation by his SS and SA thugs, the exploitation of the public’s resentment towards the punishing conditions of the First World War that crippled and humiliated Germany and of contempt towards the Weimar Republic that was standing on a very flawed constitution, and rumours of a military coup. It wasn’t intended to destroy democracy, but an attempt to keep Hitler under control. This is known historical fact. Not votes. Not a coup. Not hate speech. Royalists, however, tend to exploit the ignorance of the public by using only popular myths about the Austrian Pharaoh and reinforce already existing errors in public knowledge about historical events, to tell them what they want to hear rather than what actually is.

While it is true that demagogues to mislead the people before (Obama being the best case scenario, Napoleon III being the worst, since he was … a monarchist posing as a republican), history has shown that the most common remedy for such people would, when the person in question is revealed to have lied his way into office, simply vote them out in the next election, or wait til they completed their term of office (Bush II), or they would resign under even the threat of impeachment (Nixon) or out of shame. This is such a simple solution to a great fear royalists would use, to presume we have no other alternative. Royalists in general have a distorted, if not limited understanding, of how the democratic process even works, and would often lie to fill up the gaps in their knowledge. They presume republics are unstable simply because they’re republics, while ignoring certain factors that would undermine the very concept of a democratic republic, such as elections being arbitrarily called by the Executive or the Legislature whenever either feels like it, or that there is a weak executive that cannot counter the abuses of the legislature, or a weak legislature that cannot counter the abuses of the executive, complicated voting systems, illiteracy, etc., that can be changed, even if it would require serious effort. Undemocratic institutions would, at best, be abolished, or worst, be simply accepted. And the fear of violence, civil war, and international intervention? Well, these acts are in fact justifiable. Sometimes these are necessary as a last resort, when all other legal and non-violent courses of action either fail or is are available (elections, impeachment, enumerated powers, etc.), and that surrender and acceptance of the state of things is not an option. A person who abuses his office and its weaknesses is not a republican who respects the rule of law, the rights of the people, but a tyrant that aspires to be a monarch, for monarchy is always synonymous to absolute power.

Spanish Republicans Demand End To Their Monarchy

Well, this is a surprise!

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

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

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

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

Monarchy + the North American Union (NAU)

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

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

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

For more skepticism on the North American Union, visit this rather interesting article:

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.

Canadians Say Monarchy Don’t Matter — Thank God

Despite the ramblings of them cons that plague the halls of power and the press, some decent news has emerged from a recent poll that showed Canadians care more about their healthcare than the monarchy. From the article by Bruce Cheadle:

“At the other end of the spectrum, just 39 per cent of respondents felt the monarchy was a source of personal or collective pride, while 59 per cent were royally unimpressed. In fact, 32 per cent of respondents found the monarchy “not at all important” — the most popular singular response.”

Though I must ask: why the fuck would royalists even rely on public opinion to back their claims of the supremacy of monarchy when they don’t believe in democracy to begin with, when they support something inherently undemocratic? Because they’re both idiots and retards.

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.

Fuck Chavez

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.

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.

The Monarchy + “Liberal” Royalists

Of all things, before all else, I must issue a sincere and heartfelt condemnation to royalists that identify themselves as leftists or liberals. There is nothing liberal or democratic about monarchy, whatever it has done or hasn’t done. Any person who calls themselves a leftist and a monarchist is like a black member of the Ku Klux Klan—an idiot undergoing an identity crisis. One can’t be the upholder of democratic ideals and of an inherently evil and unnecessary institution that is at the core of all the inconsistent whinings about imperialism and colonialism we Canadians have always attributed against the Americans. Republics can correct themselves while monarchies cannot and won’t. Royalists, whatever political stripe, either hate democracy or are too stupid or insane (in some cases both) to realize monarchy is an evil affront to democracy and will fight tooth and nail to prevent it. I also want to issue a goddamned slap in the face to all the cowards and cop-outs that conjure up all sorts of excuses to not end the damned institution and end it now. “Let’s wait til it passes; let’s wait til Prince Charles takes the throne.” Then what? Suppose nothing happens? Do we wait until he dies and his offspring or another relative of his assumes power after him? Such a stupid cop-out based on the assumption that we should just sit still and wait til the universe or our elected “representatives” entertain the idea of tackling the head of state, despite the constitutional risk. Speaking of the Constitution, no Canadian has read it, understood it or cared about it, and the wide majority of those who even heard about it are so stupid they don’t know what damned country they’re living in; some people (ordinary folk, the ones Canada’s left miserably fails to reach out to) even believe that the age of consent is eighteen when in fact it’s sixteen (for girls). Things of this importance must be tackled, even if it means having to go through the constitution, which is a bad document anyway, drafted up by London barristers and solicitors who have never been to Canada to begin with. If our constitution is such a headache that it can’t be touched or amended, even when absolutely necessary, then it is a bad constitution that Canada and her people don’t deserve or need, and along with the monarchy, must be abolished and replaced with a republican constitution that emphasizes on the universal values and foundations of freedom, equality, and unity. The current “constitution” (which is really the re-named British North America Act, thus it isn’t Canadian) that we, the dwellers of the British colonial outpost, live under is a total failure, as much of a failure as its fellow rag, the Charter, which doesn’t guarantee serious civil liberties since it’s more of a gesture by the powerful to the people to keep the petty rabble quiet as Canadian nobility, elected and unelected, sit on their hands and do nothing as usual, than a serious curb to government abuses. We think Canada is great because we imagine it is great, deluded by fantasies painted by our governments provincial and federal, and self-deluded, enticed by idiotic ramblings of a few obscure names that no one cares about, such as Wayne Gretzki or Farley Mowat. The Americans rightfully wrenched themselves free from the throngs of the British Empire—a once powerful land-hungry monster (as all empires were and are) that ruined and exploited the natives of their conquered land, including Canada—over more than just taxes (among the other ideas being the stupidity of a continent being governed by a mere island in Europe), and forged themselves an identity based on ideals that were universal, drawing from the ideas of the enlightenment. Canada stayed in the dark, damp safety of its mother’s basement, masturbating to Star Wars porn (which is an American film) while relishing in the problems its brother has to deal with on its own. This author is a proud Canadian but also a patriot, a Canadian separatist. It appreciates American ideas, American innovation, American spirit, but prefers to stay Canadian. How stupid are Canadian royalists and neutrals to assume that Canada would break-up and become part of the US the moment Canada becomes independent? Very stupid. We’re already in a similar position by being part of the Commonwealth of Nations, the skeletal remains of a dead empire. There’s all this horse-shit about sovereignty and independence while sharing the same head of state as other nations . . . the definition of an empire. The bottom line difference between a republican form of government and a monarchy is that the head of state is elected in a republic, and the head of state of a monarchy is not; executive power for the former is transferred by popular choice, regardless of blood or line of birth, and executive power for the latter is transferred by blood and line of birth, regardless of public input. The rest is commentary. Yet these “liberal” royalists and passive “republicans” (the former insanely clever, insane or both; the latter insanely stupid, insane or both) are part of the disease that has ruined, divided, weakened, impoverished and deluded Canada and Canadians (except people in Quebec, who see themselves as real Canadians) for almost 150, dragged into European wars and affairs to preserve and expand the British Empire. English Canadians view and treat all Francophones and Aboriginals as diseased trophies of conquest, and Francophones and Aboriginals regard Anglophones as oppressors. Now, the common stupid leftist will croak: “Regarding foreign wars, we didn’t enter Iraq!” True, but why then should we have a head of state of another country as Britain, which has troops in Iraq?! Why be associated with that? Is it not supreme commander of the armies of Britain and of Canada? Also, we’re in Afghanistan, and despite the horrors unleashed by the godless Taliban when they seized power in 1996, we went in after almost a decade but for a different reason, which hasn’t been found yet thanks to shifting priorities. Another ire that boggles the mind is that these same people, the “liberal” royalists and passive republicans and fence sitters, who claim they were horrified by the sights and action of the G20, where peaceful protesters, journalists and even ordinary people were violently assaulted, harassed, humiliated by Toronto police, the very same police that pussied-out when anarchists and political extremists trashed and rioted in the downtown core for almost two hours, attacking journalists, photographers, videographers, and ordinary people and trashed the windows of not just corporations but also of small businesses—small businesses, propped up by immigrants who came here to find a new place to live and stay—and torched police cars which, according to legend which stayed as a legend, would’ve caused the police to enact some sort of murderous vengeance against them, and other stupid shit, while a group of world leaders sat around for no reason only to make an unimportant statement . . . excused and dismissed the utter callousness and obliviousness to these horrors by the Old Hen and holder of that useless, undemocratic and un-Canadian sinecure who paid a visit minutes after yet another international event Canadians always embarrass themselves in, with a pageantry of mockery that consisted of visiting only a few provinces, opening a human rights museum, and then proclaiming that “Canada is an example of the world,” as “above politics” or “above the world,” without specifying jack-shit other than perhaps meaning she’s so superior that she’s above morality and human responsibility, which is horse-shit. These people, these disgusting utilitarians, like other moanarchists, think that certain human beings should be so above morality, so above irresponsibility solely based on power alone that they somehow have a “right” to do whatever they like, even tyrannical whenever madness, idiocy or cunning demands . . . such is the motto of tyrants and their supporters who suffer from Stockholm syndrome. “Liberal” royalists are just as stupid as other royalists and thus have no place in calling themselves “liberal” or “leftist.” These people who think that monarchy, an undemocratic and antidemocratic institution imposed on Canadians, is somehow in some bizarre compatible with democracy should set sail to England (and yes, let the smart-asses surge forth and attempt to correct me, I dare them damned bastards!) and stay there. Why be so far away from something they love so much?

And what of the rest of the left? Here we are, fighting for causes we can’t and don’t understand, that we assume the business of other nations should be our business while ignoring what happens here. Can we not start change at home first?

Answering the Royalists

The cyber universe is vast like the human psyche, diverse as the elements and the combinations they can make. They range from ordinary citizens and politicians to nerds and outcasts, furries and perverts to fanatical loons and blowhards, creationists and birthers to truthers and conspiracy theorists. All share this universe, and within it, to each their own realm.

One people have their own corner on the internet. An obscure lot, hidden from view, beneath the cloth of regular garb and silent elitist glares. They are the self-appointed upholders of that evil form of government known as monarchy in Canada. The Monarchist League, formed in the 1970s to allegedly combat a growing sense of independence in Canadians, is an elaborate joke of an organization with incredible power and lunatics working among the ranks, willing to kill to prevent the abolition of the monarchy. Royalists are either members of a celebrity fan-club or the followers of a personality cult.
Anyway, in their elaborate closet of “proof” is a list of excuses for Canada to keep the monarchy. Let us examine each part carefully.


More like forced to be a cowardly, weak and divided artificial state that pretends to have a “national” identity considering we don’t have one. Canadians should decide the kind of country theirs should be, not rely on someone else imposed on them or traditions. Because of an ancient institution with a long history of imperialism, inequality, tyranny, ignorance, insanity and a fanatical lust for power that rivals that of Robert Mugabe, we are a “kinder” and “gentler” nation. Doesn’t anyone remember why then are we lackeys to the Americans (Afghanistan), or the Somalia Affair back in 1993 if we’re so kind and gentle? What did our fair monarch had to say?

“A central reality of Canadian life is the inevitably overwhelming influence of our friendly neighbour, the United States of America. Free Trade. Continental defence and secure borders in a post- 9/11 environment. A porous frontier ranging from television and the Internet to pop music and culture. These and other factors often tend to overwhelm Canada’s national identity.”

This is a classic of blind fear-mongering, using the America card. It’s absurd to breed fear of another nation’s influence on our “identity” (whatever the hell that is) yet assume that our national identity lies in another nation’s head of state, and arrogantly implies that Canadians are incapable of creating their own identity and nation from nothing and governing it for themselves. Who are the monarchy to tell us what our country should be?

They’re also blaming petty small things as some sort of cause of national decay, just as American conservatives blame homosexuality, rock and roll and girls for their country’s moral decay … as if no other nation has any vices.

“Every nation needs to understand and foster the existence of distinct images and institutions; thus for Canada, the Constitutional Monarchy is of particular import.”

Canadians never voted to have a monarch, nor are Canadians aware of it, nor did we import it, nor did we develop a monarchy over time, because classically monarchies were established by sword and intrigue. For the royalists, “import” is a euphemism for colonizing other lands and taking the land of another people.

“It makes Canada unique in the Hemisphere. Its focus of loyalty and allegiance to a respected monarch rather than to a politician, an ideology or a symbol underlies the notably tolerant, mature society of which Canadians feel proud.”

The citizens of a republic would owe their allegiance to their country, not a human being. To have one’s allegiance and loyalty to any human being, politician or not, is absurd and idolatrous, and the idea that in a republic people would pledge their allegiance to an elected official is totally stupid, and shows the complete idiocy of royalists, whose claims of patriotism are false and shoddy because they have no allegiance or loyalty to the “country” they live in and supposedly defend.
Any piece of land that is owned by a foreign human being and has other human beings loyal to them is called a colony. And the monarchy a symbol of nothing.


Our French and native brethren detest her with good reason, and monarchy is among the many major roots of ethnic tension and regional nationalism in this colony. In France and Finland, the head of state is the president, and the head of government is the Prime Minister. A parliamentary republic has a symbolic president and a powerful legislature. A presidential republic has the president as both head of state and head of government. It is also unifying depending on who you elect. Further still, a president is chosen by the majority of everyone.

“In a democracy, day–to-day decisions are made by those whom we have elected. Not surprisingly, this partisan political process reflects the things that divide Canadians. It encourages striving for partisan goals and personal success. This is inevitable.”

A democracy (in the modern sense), especially a democratic republic, is a government ruled by the people represented through a body of people from the people chosen by the people for the purpose of serving, protecting, representing and exerting the will of the people and sovereignty of the nation for a limited term bound to the law they establish with consent of the people; not by one person, constitutional or not, cushioned on a high throne, unwilling to concede to public opinion, however reasonable, unelected by anyone other than the alleged God and succeeded through bloodline by murder, civil war or death. Furthermore, it allows and shows the diversity of people’s opinions, and that the purpose of free speech is to exchange and argue ideas, to analyse through different viewpoints, and to compromise and agree. Furthermore it protects the people from the rule of one or a few and it protects one from the rule of a few or majority. Diversity is necessary for the people to rule, since we all have different opinions and it must be shared, known, debated and decided in order to govern. There’s the diversity of plants and animals, and animals live together as a community. A “queen” ant or bee cannot live without her workers or drones.
The royalist thinks that diversity in opinion is bad government. Bad policy, bad infrastructure, bad ideas and bad politicians make bad government. Difference of opinion, conflict and exchange of ideas, debate and argument are natural and divine because it is the expression of free will and speech, yet the royalists want to cling to this utopian fantasy that without free will and free opinion there would be peace. To achieve that they would have to rain upon the populace a terror campaign of psychological conquest. Further, debate and argument are necessary for restraint and reflection when a government is making a decision. It also gives the opportunity for unique ideas to be shared and debated.

“However, Canada’s Constitution separates politics from service, and transient popularity from institutional stability. So the Prime Minister is our head of government and leader of a political party. As such, his actions are often controversial.”

To call the people “transient” is callously aristocratic, elitist and to the core, inherently antidemocratic, and shows a disdain for the people as a whole by the elite, suggesting that people, no matter what their talents, can’t govern themselves. Yet since human beings are born and created free and equal, and possess certain talents and deficits, who are they alone to decide that they have a skill or talent that would make them fit to rule over others for life? Furthermore, the second and third sentences mislead the reader to assume that the prime minister has absolute power when in reality his office does not even exist in the Constitution. We elect other people in parliament to voice their concerns if they are allowed to break the mould. And what about other constitutions? How does ours “separate politics from service?” Haven’t they read the damned thing?

Short-term popularity does not equal instability. In fact, temporary rule (if scheduled regularly) provides stability, in which those elected have don’t gain too much power, and that the will of the people themselves decides who should represent the nation itself. The longer someone stays in office, regardless of power, the more corrupt they become as either a pawn or a catalyst.

A lifetime of one governing all does not equate stability, and even if so it depends on your monarch. There could be a great philosopher king who would enrich their nation and people, yet is succeeded through death by a tyrant who destroys everything that had been built up and created for decades by his predecessor, taking the people and nation down in flames with him. Indeed there have been good and even great kings, yet how many ordinary folk were there who would have been great rulers had they been chosen to be, say, ruler for a year? After the death of Alexander the Great, for example, his empire collapsed amidst sparring factions within fighting for power. Same thing in China, when civil war erupted after the death of its first emperor, and several times in England. Is it not better and far more bloodless if heads of state were chosen by their people rather than fight for power, even if the entire nation is torn apart through a torturous and bloody civil war of attrition over a stuffed chair and a metal hat? Would it not be an insult and a disgrace to have the governance of a nation be reduced to an inheritance dispute between people who would deserve neither? Better to have a philosopher king serve briefly than let a madman rule for life. While a republic remains since it is in the hands of the people through representatives they choose, monarchs can treat their nation however they wish, regardless of the will or consent of the people.

“The Sovereign, however, is a force of unity who embodies all Canada and all Canadians as Head of State. The Monarchy protects and exemplifies the things Canadians agree about, and do not wish to see changed regardless of an election: community, tolerance, nationhood, the rule of law. And by presiding at events such as the Montreal Olympics and Canada 125, The Queen emphasizes the non-partisan, unifying nature of great national events.”

This is the essence of dictatorship, to not wish to see change or make changes regardless of the will of the people, let alone heed the will of the people. This is also nothing else but false unity. Simply because she pays visits and wears nice hats, she unifies the country. She does not embody all of Canada and all of Canadians because again, she’s based in Britain, she’s British, she’s not Canadian and not chosen by Canadians. The monarch is a farce of unity, has no force and only embodies a part of Canada, which are the English, keeping Canadians at odds with other Canadians. She represents only the English Canadians, excluding the French and Aboriginals. An elected head of state would be chosen by the majority of all Canadians. In a republic, on the other hand, nothing is more unifying than the people coming together to regularly elect one person out of all others to serve as head of state for a period of time. Also, who gives a shit about the Montreal Olympics or Canada 125? The Monarchy is only unifying to royalists. As for the rule of law, what has she done about Harper breaking his own law about fixed election dates?

The idea of monarchy being unwilling to allow change or change “regardless of an election” is dangerous and tyrannical because it’s unyielding to the needs and will of the people, and contradicts its alleged idea of being a “guarantor of freedom.” In reality, it’s either God or nature that is a guarantor of freedom, not people. To have the monarchy rather than the people pick and choose what to change and what not to change is not democracy.


No, it isn’t. This is an oxymoron, a title that perhaps only tyrants like George Bush or Robert Mugabe would call themselves, and one of the most frightening claims that can be made for an unelected institution. Nowhere in this does it say anything about civil and human rights and liberties, and that the idea of one sole person granting freedom or denying it to whoever it wants is the virtue of a tyrant.

“Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures are composed of The Queen and the members elected to serve – along with the Senate in the case of the federal government. However, none of the bills they pass, no formal government regulations (‘orders-in-council’) and no spending s authorized without the agreement of The Queen or one of her representatives.”

This is misleading. Parliament and provincial legislatures are supposed to be composed members chosen by the people. And to serve whom? Aren’t members supposed to serve the people that chose them? The monarchy is what Canada’s politicians serve, not the people. The senate is appointed by the Prime Minister, not elected, yet this statement implies that she has a hand in such affairs. Never in the history of Canada has one piece of legislation been denied “royal assent”, even if it is unconstitutional, and has grown insignificant to the rise of the PMO.

“In a similar way, Parliament is summoned and dissolved in The Queen’s name. In her name also public officials and our representatives abroad are appointed, treaties concluded, and cabinets named and dismissed. Normally, this is a formality. Canadians entrust the nuts and bolts of governing to those whom we have elected, as is appropriate in a democracy.”

Why should Parliaments be dissolved to begin with? As for doing things in the name of a person in a monarchy instead of a country in a republic, replace the monarch with God and you have a theocracy.

“However, the Crown’s role (‘the Royal Prerogative’) remains part of our Constitution to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard – ‘a constitutional fire extinguisher’ as columnist Michael Valpy has put it – should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down. For example, even a popular government cannot simply dispense with holding an election. Nor can a government spend public money without parliamentary approval.”

The idea of the monarchy being a safeguard for democracy is laughable. No unelected head of state, however powerful or powerless, cannot be the safeguard of any democracy. Ours has no real power at best, anyway, and even in that there is danger, and complicity in corruption and tyranny by doing or saying nothing about it. Despite his own shortcomings, the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, condemned an Arizona immigration law that was unconstitutional and undermined the civil rights of Americans. In Canada, when police viciously harassed and assaulted peaceful protesters, journalists and ordinary people while leaving the downtown to anarchists, who destroyed the property of both big, international businesses and small, local shops, and harassed and attacked journalists and photographers for two hours during the G20, the monarch of Britain, who is also supposed to be our head of state, said nothing. When the prairies were suffering from floods, she said nothing, not even visited the site. When a bomb blew up an Ottawa recruiting centre of our army, whose members had sworn an oath to “well and truly serve” Her Majesty and her heirs and successors, the Old Hen said nothing. As an ironic gesture, she had the nerve to call Canada “an example of the world,” despite evidence of the contrary, after laying the cornerstone to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights not long after the G20 madness in Toronto. So much for being the fire-extinguisher claimed by those utilitarians called monarchists, who assume monarchy is too superior to be bound to the realities of the earth, or accountable to reasonable moral or ethical standards. But even if she did or said anything, it would be the interference of someone that wasn’t and can’t be elected by the people (and, in our case, not chosen by Canadians and from another country into our business should it tamper with our politics, economy, society or military) to represent them. Monarchy itself isn’t democratic, and can’t be democratic. Why then keep such a disgusting institution founded on blood, whether shed or shared?

It’s questionable as to how a publicly elected head of state, with limited power and serving the people for a limited term, would be violent as compared to the monarchy, whose system of government has a long history of violence, with civil wars of succession, conquests of other nations for booty, land and slaves from other people that are completely alien to them, all in the name of God and crown.


Wasn’t it said earlier that the monarchy was a stabilizing force? Why then need a referee? This sounds like competition between the crowns or something. Why need a referee for provincial chief executives instead of Parliament?

“Canada is a federal state. In brief, this means that our Constitution gives law-making power in certain areas to the national government (such as the Criminal Code and banking). Other powers (such as education and municipal affairs) it assigns to each province. Each level of government exercises this authority on behalf of its citizens in the name of The Queen. So in this way it is possible to see the existence of ‘11 Crowns’ in Canada – the national Crown and the 10 provincial Crowns – each usually referred to in legal terms as ‘the Crown in right of Canada’ or ‘in right of Manitoba.’”

Why are the territories excluded? How is this national unity when only part of Canada is included? Apart from that, Canada is a weak, restrictive and poor colony internally divided on regional and ethnic lines. Our army is stretched beyond its limits, fighting in foreign wars while our borders and coasts are left naked for smugglers, and foreign commercial and military vessels. Our economy if any is in the gutter and we have rendered ourselves into an economic doormat of international trade. By the way the current system has been established, it creates a sense of entitled superiority, and with it they govern with impunity. This is especially existent in the PMO. And since there’s separate crowns, how is Canada united?

“The Premiers, including the separatist Rene Levesque, underlined the importance of the Crown in their 1978 statement, above, since the Monarchy gives each law-making authority its authority, making them of equal legal significance. It also guarantees that the rule of law will be followed in dealing with any of the many disputes that arise between Ottawa and the provinces.”

Where is Levesque’s quote? Its source? Newspaper? Magazine? Time? Day? What exactly did he say? Who did he say it to? Why? It’s found nowhere on the website.

As for the statement by the premiers, the quote used on the website does not specify what was the “ultimate authority” they were referring to, and the statement is not available to the public.
The constitution of a true republic gives its authority to the governed to govern the governed, not the governing. Because of the monarchy, separatist movements in Alberta, the West, Newfoundland and Quebec are alive and thriving, and the North remains neglected still, despite negligence and empty promises by one government after another to develop it, and left it for the international community to freely exploit.

“These facts explain the strong support by the provinces for the institution of Monarchy, which reconciles regional authority with national unity.”

Yet the provinces don’t represent the people. Nor does our parliament, considering that we have because of the current system an elected ruling elite rather than a body of chosen representatives. And it’s doubled with the provinces twice over.


An allegiance to one’s nation can also be personal. Personal allegiance to another human being is idolatrous and elitist, deifying an ordinary human being that entered their office without consent or choice of the people, inherited from their parents or relatives who all live and lived in the same house.

“Oaths taken by our new fellow Canadians, by members of Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures, by judges, by members of the Canadian Forces and by many other public officials are all oaths to The Queen.”

Just because they do so, it doesn’t mean it can or should be. Just because something is a tradition, it doesn’t mean it’s right. What is so wrong about being loyal to the country? In a republic, all oaths taken by officials, including the elected head of state, are to the country or its constitution.

“By making this promise to the Sovereign rather than a politician, those who serve and live in the land show their ultimate loyalty is not to the elected figures who lead us day-to-day, but to all Canadians and to the laws which make up the fabric of any civilized society. In this way process – following the rule of law – triumphs over partisanship – acting to promote the well-being of a narrow segment of society.”

Again, this shows that Canadians are pledging allegiance and loyalty to a person rather than their country, and displays the false patriotism of the royalists. Canadians should serve no one. Also, the very assumption that people in a republic would swear allegiance to an elected head of state is completely stupid, and that only the insane and wilfully ignorant would believe such trash. Personal allegiances to heads of state, instead of the country, also happen in dictatorships and religious cults.


Monarchism cannot be equal and never guarantees equality. You can’t choose your leaders nor can you be chosen as leader or when you can’t be the owner of your own country, nor is being the “servant” of another person in power, willingly or not. Those with no power who serve those with power are slaves, those with power who serve those with no power are public servants. The latter applies to those who are chosen by the people to serve and represent them, their voice and will. The former applies to the subjects of kings, tyrants, bosses and parents. Subjects. There is no equality in monarchy, because one has to be the firstborn of the Royal family, rather than being fairly chosen by the people to lead the nation and represent her in and out of the nation.

“The deepest loyalties of men and women are to their fellow human beings. Government carried on in the name of The Queen reflects Canada’s emphasis on the importance of the person, and of the dignity and equality of each individual who is either born here or who becomes part of our national family. In the same way, the moment new citizens take the Oath of Citizenship they become full and equal members of the Canadian family. Each of us gives Allegiance to The Queen, so reciprocating her decades of service to us.”

Wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.
They always forget God or country, and pledges to their fellow human beings are to become the servants of a person, not the owners and caretakers of a nation. Why should we be the servant of our leaders when the leaders should serve us?


Sounds like a Bush wet dream. Ours has no real power nor any influence and rightfully so. In any case, the Russian newspaper Pravda put it correctly in a February 19, 2010 article when it described Canada as being “a colonial outpost of the United Kingdom, whose Queen smiles happily from Canadian postage stamps.”

“Canadians are fortunate to have as our Monarch an instantly-recognizable world figure. The Queen and members of the Royal Family make frequent homecomings to Canada. In their absence, the Governor General (for the national government) and the Lieutenant Governors (one for each provincial government) represent The Queen and perform the constitutional functions of the Sovereign in her name. This arrangements allows our country to share in the prestige of an ancient monarchy stemming out of Canada’s history, while at the same time we enjoy the services of distinguished fellow citizens who serve Crown and country with great distinction.”

This is among the many obstacles Canada has in its path to eradicate the monarchy. Apart from unanimous provincial approval, the monarchy has appointed Lieutenant Governors as heads of state in all the provinces rather than have the people choose their head of state. We also have treaties that are between the Crown and the aboriginals. The monarchy of England isn’t even that ancient. It’s 1500-years-old, emerging from the so-called Dark Ages.

When people think of the monarch, they think of Britain, not Canada! Nor is it revered or has any importance, and if any, Canada wouldn’t want any. The British Empire was scorned and hated by those they conquered and ruled over. The Americans had it right when they rose up in arms and founded a new nation. We’re still half-submerged in the excesses, complex hell of British rule.


Much of Canada’s history is really part of bloody British colonialism, one of racial domination over the Aboriginals by the British. It is sickening to glorify colonialism and imperialism in any sense.

“Today’s Monarchy stems from our history. Many of Canada’s First Nations chose tribal chieftains whose role was much like that of the local kings and queens of ancient Europe, Africa, South America and Asia. European explorers and subsequent settlement by our French and British founding peoples brought to Canada their own experience of monarchy, symbolized by the Fleur de Lys and the Royal Union Flag. Many subsequent immigrants – be they from Russia or Japan, from Italy to Thailand – also knew the monarchical system of government.”

Exactly. “Many of Canada’s First Nations chose tribal chieftains …” They were elected heads of state, not hereditary ones. Even the Anglo-Saxon tribes had chieftains who were elected and held limited power, especially in times of war. Such is similar to a republican head of state and what English historian David Starkey calls the idea of “government by consent, in which the leader is chosen by the people,” a concept Canadians know nothing of. And yet the Monarchist League doesn’t specify who chose the leader or chief. The band council? Members of the band? And since when did Canadians choose to have a monarchy, especially Britain’s? How would Britons feel if we Canadians decided for them who their head of state would be? What right would we have? We are denied the right to choose our leaders, the essence of monarchy, thus also denying us the right to have say in who should be our head of state and what he does, and essentially any control or power by the people over all parts of the country. Elected monarchs do not count.
 There have also been tribes and federations of tribes in the form of a republic. And we were all aware of the cruel absolutism that ravaged France by its monarch, with its entire treasures drained after the Seven Years War and the extravagance of its monarchy and aristocrats at the expense of the heavily taxed masses. The excesses of the French revolution? Mobs of starved human beings.

Furthermore, there were also tribes whose members debated and decided together, one of the most basic forms of democracy. There’s not much this section says about the aboriginals, who equally have as much use for the monarchy, trying to paint a rosy relationship between the free natives and British and French crowns, suggesting that they desired to be ruled by a foreign power. It fails to mention that the colour of that delusion of harmonious coexistence is drawn from the royalists’ deification of a ruler to cloak the crown’s history with the natives, which is marred and seeped with blood and tears, where the natives to this day suffer still in a slow, crawling genocide. Getting five dollars and a handshake is among the most grievous of many humiliations next to jail, the morgue and the streets.

Residential schools were created by the crown through the federal government, in collaboration with the churches, to “civilize” and “assimilate” the “savages”. Children were kidnapped from their tribes, their homes, and imprisoned behind school doors where they were tortured, sexually abused into submission … even murdered.

And what do they mean exactly by the monarchy stemming from “our” history? They make colonialism and imperialism sound like a good thing. Plus Italy and Russia don’t have monarchies anymore. Italy abolished its monarchy in 1946 because of its contribution to the rise of Fascism, and Russia had its own monarchy abolished because of the grievous horrors it inflicted on the Russian people and retarded progress and modernization.

“In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation unanimously chose constitutional monarchy as Canada’s form of government. In 1982, Canada’s new Constitution reaffirmed and entrenched the Crown so that only unanimous federal-provincial agreement could ever alter it. In 2002, throngs hailed The Queen as she crossed Canada from Iqaluit to Fredericton, from Victoria to Toronto, in celebration of the 50th year of her service to this nation.”

The Fathers of Confederation were a cock party of loyalists chosen by Queen Victoria, who never visited Canada in her life in spite of the number of places named after her and idols erected in her “honour,” to create an artificial state not founded on freedom but preservation of British dominion in North America. This was made evident and affirmed by one of the fathers, Sir John A. MacDonald, in a famous election address of his on February 3, 1891, when he said: “As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born—a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the ‘veiled treason’ which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance.” (bold type mine) Allegiance to whom? Certainly not to Canada! Does the means include deception, encouragement of apathy, dumbing down the populace? What is this “veiled treason?” Canada was created by Britain to affirm their rule and control of the last remnants of upper north America compared to the United States, which was a completely new and independent nation. Britain had a tendency of creating artificial states out its own convenience, such as Iraq and, perhaps as a last gesture of contempt, the partitioning of the Sub-Continent in 1947. Mind you that the two Pakistans (now Pakistan and Bangladesh) and India were, in fact, dominions before they became republics later on, with India becoming a republic in 1950 and Pakistan becoming a republic in 1956. Canada’s 1982 Constitution Act, Charter and Canada Act were all part of a long series of legal documents dating back to the British North America Act, which established Canada some autonomy, yet the public had no input or say about it or the crown, nor were they aware of the crown being entrenched. Again, it shows the political elite’s disdain for public input and opinion and their right to self-determination and to define themselves, their land and their future.

In most republics around the world, depending on the nation itself, any new constitution would be subject to a national referendum to determine if the nation would adopt it. In Venezuela, president Hugo Chavez once proposed a new constitution where the president would be given the power to make laws on decree, much like an absolute monarch. The people rejected this, however, and Chavez gracefully acknowledged and accepted the vote. In other words, he asked his people permission, and when they declined, he accepted (of course, later on, Chavez tried again, this time to eliminate presidential term limits, and won; a true republican, regardless of politics, should hold contempt for such a move, for an unlimited number of terms is the first step to tyranny and monarchy). The way our system has been set up is where citizens can only vote their representatives, who aren’t really representing anything other than the status quo of their party and its leader. Essentially, we don’t have any representation because they are controlled by their leaders, who concentrate representation to a smaller government.


The French, anyone? Or the natives? They’re not English. And neither is the rest of us. We’re Canadian, not British. Catholics are not allowed to be monarchs or marry them. And a link from what? The Commonwealth is really the watered down, skeletal remnants of the British Empire. As for diversity, there is none. God forbid if there was ever a gay monarch, plus it’s a whites only institution, so to the royalists Canada is safe from Aboriginal infestation at the highest office or worse, being the head of the Church of England, the Jews or worse still, being it English and a British monarch, the French, the ancient enemy of Britain, whose animosity we adopted. Unlike a president, monarchy gives no choice of who should be Canada’s head of state. Worse, it has to come from a bloodline, worse yet it has to be the first born and even worse it has to be of legitimate birth. On the other hand, in a republic, anyone can be president. Even illegitimate children who are the youngest in their family. In the United States, for example, the only qualifications you have to have is that you’re a natural-born citizen, thirty-five years of age and has lived in the United States for fourteen years (United States Constitution Article II, §1, paragraph 5).

“Not only Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II is also Head of The Commonwealth of Nations. This is a 51-state international body is unique as it is based not on a military alliance nor a trade bloc but on a free association amongst countries of the former British Empire, who now cooperate in a variety of educational, development and social justice initiatives throughout the world. The diversity of these nations’ populations – from New Guinea to Belize, from New Zealand to India – mirrors the rich strains of population which typify Canada today.”

India is an independent republic within the Commonwealth, and had fought long and hard for its independence, with and without Gandhi. Again royalists warp facts, whitewashing the long and blood-infested history of British and European imperialism and colonial rule forced upon the native peoples they shamelessly conquered and exploited. What the Canadian government is to Canada is what the British Raj was to India, which is never mentioned, treated as though it had never existed, while the Indians knew and know very well of their former master’s iron hand. A true nationalist would never share of their head of state with any other country unless they’re colonies or part of an empire, and a true republic has not interest in empire but in freedom and equality and the welfare of its citizens.

The fact that the Monarchy is the head of state of sixteen realms, and is the head of an “international body” composed of fifty-four other countries that include these realms (so much for royalist delusions of Canada becoming the 51st state of the USA if we had rid ourselves of the monarchy for good) compromises the idea that we’re sovereign, let alone a nation to begin with, and puts us in competition with other countries who may want the crown should England decide to dump it. This would even lead to possible international tensions that would escalate warfare and relations strained or murdered over one person if the royalists of each “country” were ambitious enough. And they are.

Why are we still in the Commonwealth anyway? Why should we be part of it when we can be the free agent of our own fate? They make it sound like we’ve never been part of any military alliance and trade bloc before when we’re part of NATO, WTO, IMF, NAFTA, FTA, SPP and the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, Britain is becoming a colony of the European Union, with fears of losing the Pound Sterling, its currency. But if we were to leave the Commonwealth, let’s get rid of the monarchy first.


Society evolved on its own by the people themselves, not through a single person sitting in a faraway land on a throne. We haven’t evolved because we’re still keeping an old institution. That’s how useless it is. And since it’s useless, how can it ever contribute to society other than do nothing in times of crisis?

“Canadians have lived for over 135 years in a tranquil, prosperous society. Unlike most countries, change has been incremental, and not achieved by violence. Much of the credit for this achievement is due to the men and women who have worked together to create a modern, progressive nation, respected around the world.”

Canada has a long history of turbulence, instability and discord even before confederation. Civil and human rights were and are still limited, ignored, neglected or held in contempt, even with a rag like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which allows provinces to pick and choose what rights their citizens can and cannot have. Again, we already had two Quebec referendums that were saved by public vote, and there have been rumblings of separatism in Alberta, British Colombia, Newfoundland and Ontario over equalization payments, though BC was over a different matter (specifically fishes).
We have a Canadian Criminal Code which predates the current constitution and the Charter, and has hardly changed if not been made more constraining, and has not been reformed to conform to either the Charter or the Constitution. The Criminal Code is outdated, poorly organized, intrusive, complicated, illogical and incomprehensible based on superstition, classism, feudalism, and above all, unconstitutional. It criminalizes drugs, “blasphemous libel,” “sedition,” any criticism of the government (“defamatory libel”), hate speech, and yes, even witchcraft (§365).

Our economy and industries are disappearing thanks to NAFTA, FTA, WTO, IMF, the World Bank, foreign interference and control of national companies and businesses, outsourcing, and the appearance of foreign company chains on our soil. We have no gold reserve, meaning that our dollar value relies solely on the American dollar, and we have no independent national car company to claim as our own.

For the record, when this pamphlet you’re reading was written, Canadians had lived under the monarchy for 143 years, so the paltry and petty arguments of royalists have not changed since 2002. I suppose royalists imagined such words would be timeless as they imagine the monarchy.

“However, no country can achieve greatness without stable governance. Constitutional monarchy – the Canadian way – continues to provide that stability. This is confirmed each year in the United Nations’ Social Development Index, which regularly ranks Canada in the top 5 countries in the world.”

The monarchy is not Canadian and has never been Canadian from the start, and does not contribute to the stability of the nation. The United Nations Social Development Index has nothing to do with a nation’s form of government, nor are we any of the top five countries. This assumption coming from a secretive group, who mysteriously won’t provide any other contact information other than an email address, yet somehow has a monopoly on the information of the expenses and income of what is supposed to be a government institution, even though they can’t count the number of member countries in the Commonwealth.
The Athenians of Ancient Greece flourished in culture, science, technology, economics and politics under democracy (in the original sense) with no kings but a body of people elected by their fellow citizens to govern Athens. In fact, Athens, though a city-state, exhibited one of the purest forms of a republic, though the size was manageable. However, in the modern age and as demonstrated by history, no republic would survive or be stable without a head of state elected by the majority of the people.


It has taken part of that unstable world and has contributed to that instability. Her country’s troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at her approval. Why should we have a head of state that does this? And doesn’t the law provide stability and not individuals, especially monarchs?

“Change is inevitable, and much if it good: cell phones, jet travel, computers. But in this dizzying march to progress, constant change leaves many uncertain or confused. In the same way, political leaders come and go – Kim Campbell and John Turner served as Prime Minister for but a few months. Canadians voted in 18 federal elections during The Queen’s reign ! It is a good thing that the Crown provides constancy amidst so much change. The Sovereign has the experience of decades, without the taint of a personal agenda. Such continuity constitutes an important anchor in our society.”

The myth of age equals wisdom is dangerous, wrong and absurd. Most of us who care have all read King Lear, which proves that disease and death are democratic—they have no care for titles, age, land, people, status or wealth. When a person declines in health and mental stability, Lord knows what could happen to them or what they would do.

Change is necessary and inevitable. If it’s useless, get rid of it. If it’s bad, change it. If it’s broke, fix it. The benefit of a constantly changing government chosen by the people is that people elected won’t become too powerful, is subject to and adaptable the times and is necessary. We cannot travel anywhere in the march of time except forward, thus progress is inevitable and necessary. The only ones who find any change dizzying are traditionalists who are afraid of new things. The only ones who get confused or uncertain by constant change are idiots and cowards. These kind of people are skeptical of evolution despite its evidence.
The way our country has been established is that the prime minister can call an election at any time, or if the government fails a confidence motion or if a budget doesn’t pass. Wretched ground a colony is founded on, without foundations.

Furthermore, what has the monarchy or our elected aristocracy done about the food crisis? Or the economy? And how could a monarch have experience in anything when she’s allegedly powerless? The idea of instability without a monarch is as absurd and stupid as the idea of someone being immoral without a deity to worship. And how in the hell could nineteen elections, called by the Prime Minister whenever he felt like it, be a sign of stability under a dictator?
This colony is descending the same path Rome, Italy and Germany walked, and when Rome fell it was already weak, unstable and divided, dying with a monarch at its head. The idea of monarchy being a stable institution is a farce and a delusion that cannot not be trusted.


Um … what? Isn’t a republic also a sense of community, since you’ve been chosen by the people to either lead the country or represent a portion of it, chosen because they like your ideas? Or that the people collectively govern the nation?

“In their constant round of travels, The Queen, members of the Royal Family and her Canadian representatives bring enormous encouragement to the communities and volunteer sectors which constitute so vital a part of our national existence. They inspire many to volunteer service. They create and award non-political honours to our outstanding fellow citizens.“

Encouragement? Didn’t they say earlier that we prospered under the monarchy? And can’t the people themselves inspire communities and volunteers? What about ideas and virtues rather than people? As for our national existence, we’re still a colony. No, monarchy doesn’t inspire volunteerism. Ideas do.

“These Royal and vice-regal activities do not often feature on national news programmes. Opening a new library, visiting a Legion Hall, speaking to a school civics class or lunching with a local service club are not on the media’s radar. But they constitute the basis of any civil society, and bring enormous pride and assistance to Canada’s communities.”

Well… this is what any head of state would do. I don’t see what’s so special about being only the monarch doing so. Mayors, provincial or state and federal leaders can do the same thing.


What a laughable and blatantly false accusation.
 Monarchy itself is elitist, as is calling the people “transient”! In fact, it’s the peak of elitism! You can’t choose your leaders or be chosen to lead! Keeping the monarchy and the constitutional dictatorship is a victory for the elite and a blow to nationhood and the rights of the common people to choose their own leaders, proving that Canada is a British colony pretending to be a country. The idea that a republic encourages elitism is laughable to begin with since anyone can become president while in a monarchy you have to be born into it… like lords and vassals of feudalistic times. And diversion from what?

“No one has yet proposed an alternative system of government for Canada which would in the same way reflect our nation’s history and be superior to the constitutional monarchy in terms of the day-to-day functioning of the Canadian state.”

A republican form of government has always been the alternative to monarchy. What kind of republic should it be is up to Canadians, proposed by a governing body on their behalf. Canadians must first have a temporary form of republic first before Canadians can decide in what way the republic can be structured later. The benefit of this is that all can have a share and a say in the way the nation and government is run and can be changed if it doesn’t work, within the framework of a republic.

“Canadians remember the wrenching constitutional debates which consumed enormous political energy from the mid-1960’s through the early 1990’s. Chiefly of interest to politicians, these arguments did nothing to effect solutions to the real concerns of our citizens such as crowded classrooms and emergency rooms, access to health care, personal and national security in an era of terrorism and crime, support for single-parent and low-income families.”

Blind contempt for government is just as bad as blind faith in government. The use of collective disdain for politicians is no excuse to exempt the people from running their own country and is nothing short of demagoguery. Our constitution isn’t one document but of several, passed by both our parliament and the British Parliament of the United Kingdom, the first ever being the British North America Act which had an implied bill of rights designed to be privileges for the politicians the royalists whine about, and contains the phrase “peace, order and good government” which rings of authoritarianism and is used as an excuse to infringe upon the most basic of civil rights. We don’t have a single constitution that our land, our laws and our legislative assemblies bind to. It also has a sharply anti-democratic, aristocratic and condescending tone where the people are discouraged from keeping their government in check, to govern right, and encourages people to rely on authority alone to do everything for them, reducing them to a lazy, apathetic, defeatist, servile, desensitized populace high on tradition and familiarity and fixated autistically on our own version of bread and circuses—beer and hockey. This has shown and has become the prominent Canadian attitude. Yet how will apathy change the country? How can change happen if we simply wait for it or do nothing, instead of just doing it?

What has the monarchy done about crime lately? In spite of the ever strangulating Criminal Code and a centralized PMO and the British monarch as our head of state, we have the highest number of crime syndicates on earth! What did or would the monarchy in all her glorious luxury do about single-parents and low income families? We still have rampant child poverty and yet neither our elected aristocracy—which thanks to this current form of government has become so detestable, so morbidly warped in every part of themselves that less and less Canadians are voting, and who detest an election every time it’s mentioned in the name of political posturing—nor our unelected (and foreign) absentee aristocratic elite has nor can nor will do anything to destroy it. And what does the monarchy know about crowded classrooms and emergency rooms? Where was she during the October Crisis, a historical event that most Canadians now have forgotten? Are the royalists that crazy enough to assume she can cure the sick and make the blind see? I have a feeling they’ll discover she can talk to spirits, open wormholes and raise the dead with her wave. Deifying human beings is not new, and has proven its fatality in history.

“A presidential system would make Canada more closely resemble the USA. It could combine the role of head of state with head of government. As our American friends discovered during impeachment processes in the Nixon and Clinton administrations, this proves an unhappy combination. Alternatively, election of a president or governor-general would create simply another politician, offer another level of personal ambition, necessitate another set of elections and make the holder of that office beholden to the interests of the different factions and groups to which his election was owed.”

Again, the Royalists are using anti-Americanism and xenophobia to scare Canadians out of choosing a head of state of their own, and are trying to confuse the presidency with a presidential republic. What the United States have to do with their argument against a republic is up in the air, other than to serve as a basis for xenophobic conspiracy theories, creating this wild panic of fear, and make us afraid of different opinions from different places. Ironically enough, there has been complaints of anti-Americanism in Canada, some of that even going as far as getting a member of parliament thrown out of her political party, by the same people. Furthermore, Nixon was never impeached, though there were impeachment hearings, which were a different matter, and Clinton was impeached over a private matter that was none of the public’s business and was later acquitted. But isn’t impeachment a safeguard against the abuses such an office, as is voting, time limits and so on? We have we got? Against the Queen, nothing. Against the Prime Minister… what? Time? Do we have to wait til an election is called whenever he feels like it, or loses a confidence motion or even a bad budget? Confidence motions don’t count and only make government unstable, issuing writs of election whenever they please. What unhappy combination? Unhappy combination of what? Isn’t there an unhappy combination between Anglos, Francophones and Aboriginals in Canada forced to live together under an unelected person representing only one group? And ambitions for what? To become like a king? Or dictator, which is essentially the same thing in all but name? What logic does this run on? And yes it creates another set of elections because presidents get elected! Because it’s democratic! And who are they to complain about factions when the monarchy of Canada is a British queen that would protect this British protectorate from her French or Aboriginals or Catholic trophies? It gives Anglophones an excuse to repress and ridicule and belittle anyone who doesn’t speak English or is non-white, and yet call themselves Canadian by being loyal to a foreign head of state? We call ourselves multicultural yet don’t see that repressing, murdering, impoverishing, belittling our Aboriginal brethren is wrong or contradicts our claim of “multiculturalism” because Canadians don’t see them as human.
    Monarchy, as was parliament, was imposed on Canadians by a foreign imperial power and we have never participated in any national debate or referendum on the head of state. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were proposed changes to the constitution, yet none of them were related to the head of state.

There are basically three major forms of republican government: a presidential republic, a parliamentary republic and a semi-presidential republic. The presidential system has executive power where the president is both head of state and head of government. The parliamentary system has legislative and executive power vested in parliament, usually in the hands of the prime minister, and has the president as merely a symbolic, ceremonial  office or figurehead with no real power. The semi-presidential system has the president as the head of state and the prime minister the head of government, separating powers with the president usually dealing with foreign and trade affairs and the prime minister usually dealing with domestic affairs.

The presidential system is imperialistic, dangerous and potentially autocratic, and is no more than an elected monarchy. Yet in the United States, at least the head of state can be removed if he or she abuses their power while they are in power. There’s no such system in Canada, however, nor is there one for the Monarchy and we Canadians can’t do anything without petitioning British Parliament, which controls the monarchy to a degree because it’s British. It’s also pretty weak for monarchists to use the American model as the only form of republican government as an example to condemn, despite the fact the presidential system has worked so well for our southern cousins.

We don’t need a powerful head of state if there are such fears, and we can have a head of state that is Canadian and chosen by the people themselves to represent Canada. If we despise him or her, there’s always the next election, or the instrument of impeachment if things get worse.

Indeed there are choices, but choices are better than having no choice at all. The current system of government is a failure, because Steven Harper has concentrated more and more power into the PMO, the most powerful non-existent “public” office in the colony. Senators and governor generals are appointed by the PMO, with no input from parliamentarians or the people. How has the monarchy tried to stop this, if not parliament, if not the people? The only way Canada would become American would be if we adopted the American President as our head of state, where we wouldn’t elect him nor can using the same setup as we do with our monarchy, like Andorra with the President of France as its vice-regent… or if we become the 51st state, which would not be possible anyways, considering our size and the fact that we are divided into provinces, and the last thing Canada needs would be allowing any of its provinces to join the United States.

Yet just because we’d have our own president, it doesn’t mean we’re American. Plus if what they say was true, we would only more closely resemble America, not be part of it. Yet resemble it how? Politically? Culturally? Economically? The last two already happened … under the monarchy!

Canada doesn’t need a British monarch as our head of state, or an American president as head of state, or any monarch … but a Canadian presidency, one that is home-based, elected by the people for a limited term with some power bound by law.

By the way the nation has been set up and where it’s going, with a foreign dictator as our head of state, elected aristocrats that care not for their electors, unemployment, a disappearing economy, free trade, unfair taxation, overstretched armed forces, et al have all shown how much of a failure the constitutional monarchy really was, is and will be. And even though there are many models to choose from, we Canadians must either pick one or create one of our own.

A republic is based on one simple principal: the ownership and governance of a nation by its people through representatives chosen by them and who govern according to the laws of the land. There are many different systems to choose from but it’s a great idea for a people to choose their system. The more people have power, the better. It’s best to have a directly elected head of state than having more powerful people choose for us. It’s essential that a nation, which is its people, choose their leaders to represent them. A republic, by the way it must be set up, should be one for the people, of the people, by the people. With a democracy and with a home-based elected head of state serving for a limited time with limited powers it shows that members of a republican parliament can’t indulge the privileges of an elite but are to represent the interests of those who chose him or her, bound by responsibility and duty to serve the people.

Over the past 143 years we have lost many opportunities, chances and so forth to create a truly sovereign and great nation because we cannot elect our head of state. We never reached the moon or made broad strides in culture, politics or science. Tradition is not always good. Sometimes it’s wrong or useless or dangerous. Here, this tradition that rules over Canada is undemocratic and anti-democratic, elitist and classist, imperialistic and colonialist. With such traditions, we must dispose of them, and render this British colonial outpost into an independent republic. The politicians have become a privileged elite because of the Crown is based in another land, our governor general rarely exercises power and our representatives are under the thumb of their leaders.

The people must be engaged in a national radical change. It doesn’t have to be bloody but if they fight us with sword we will fight with sword as well. Isn’t freedom worth fighting for? Because of monarchy, he live with a diseased form of government, with our leaders govern however they wish with no real solid constitution and bill of rights to put them and keep them in line with the law and in check. Canadians can only “speak” through a vote, and when they vote, they’re voting only for their representatives to elect their leaders. The royalists use this as an excuse for the ever destructive, bloody and irrational preservation of a foreign head of state who is never elected by the people, rules for life and succeeded by blood. The royalists are discouraging the people from engage in the business of the nation, creating more and more despotism, apathy and decay in our political establishment and in our nation abroad. We need a solid and firm foundation established to set up a republic, where all leaders and representatives, politician or not, are held accountable for their acts and represent the governed at their consent. A republican democracy does not stop at the ballot. If we’re a diverse nation, why are the royalists whining about “division” among representatives? Are these representatives not expressing different points of view from across the nation? Isn’t that what people do? Diverse in opinion and ideas that aught to be shared freely, even if they offend and provoke?

The purpose of an elected head of state, be it a president or grand chief or whatever, is among other things, to lead and represent the nation and the people as a whole, the nation in one person chosen by them, and to manage the nation day-to-day, among many other powers dictated in a constitution and held accountable by law and ballot. Yet this person doesn’t have to have real power. The royalists don’t discuss much about that, nor have any real credible arguments against it. Our governor general is really representing the monarchy. To put it simply, we have an absentee head of state that we don’t need nor care for, represented by someone else we didn’t elect, cannot remove and is allegedly from all politics, however questionable or unethical.

Going back to the website, there are, among the spelling and grammatical errors, the lack of sources cited. For example, they mention René Levesque, yet a quote from him is found nowhere on the site, nor any footnotes, nor any links to it. This is outright and deliberate deception by the royalists to the viewer. They also deliberately attempt to appeal to authority by using quotations from national celebrities no one cares about, as if to trick Canadians into believing what the celebrity said is true because the celebrity said is true… like Brittany Spears in a Coke commercial, or Michael Jordan selling shoes, or Justin Bieber selling condoms. Canadians are sadly stupid enough to buy anything celebrities sell them, even if it’s junk that kills people, like Mario Lamieux (who?) selling heroin. In this case, they “quoted” a damned separatist?! How can royalists be trusted or taken seriously? Who gives a shit about Wayne Gretzky anymore? Or reads Farley Mowat, who thinks Canada existed in 1812, like almost all Canadians, who also fail at history?

They simply can’t. After all, they once said that no system is perfect, but anyone who supports the monarchy while talking about democracy should make the rational person reach for his shotgun because it is the complete opposite of perfect. Royalists are clearly stupid or crazed or both and yet only few notice it. They’re not bright enough, but they sure as hell know how to manipulate an ignorant, obnoxious, self-absorbed, undereducated, smug, prejudiced, divided, weak, poor and apathetic people like Canadians. Thus is said because this is what they are, but not what they should be. Royalists, on the other hand, so liberally exploit such evils and weaknesses that slavery is confused with sovereignty. They are even able to convince Canadians that if American TV talks about Republicans (meaning members of the GOP) they’re talking about supporters of a republic, compared to democrats who are, to royalists, supporters of enlightened despotism. Canadians would buy that, because they’re that stupid and arrogant. For years, we bought the concept of peacekeeping and nationbuilding in that war of opportunity called Afghanistan. Yet Canadians are so stupid, and so accepting, so open, so used to this kind of deception and abuse of power that there is no serious outcry or threat to the power of the government. Thus the benefits of monarchy: an unelected elite to protect the elite.

The Royalist League’s arguments for monarchy are malarkey and, like their arguments against a republican form of government, non-existent, and instead have posted nothing more than groundless, atrociously simplistic, contradictory, fear-mongering, ignorant, irrational and amateurish propaganda, lies, misconceptions, delusional trash and smug bullshit that is inherently undemocratic, anti-democratic, pro-fascist, aristocratic, feudalistic, classist, and elitist. They know nothing about how the current system works or of history, and use creationist logic to assume that monarchy is the perfect form of government when in reality, according to history, evidence and reason, it’s nothing more than the ugliest, most heinous, worst and evil form of government ever to be conceived, the kind all dictators, despots, tyrants and the corrupt aspire to become, and just as bad as a government of the mob, a government of the few or a government of big money. It is power concentrated in one person rather than shared between and among the people and those the people elect to represent them.

Politics will always exist. Divisions and factions will always exist. Everyone has bad ideas. Government will always cost money. It costs us money for royalty to travel here and spend a few minutes merely visiting, showing off their hats, receiving flowers, and ignoring critical events around them. Yet to have a nation truly owned by its people, it must discard all kings, and reject monarchy. A nation is not free if its head of state is also the head of state of a foreign power from across the sea, one completely different from ours culturally and historically. A nation is not ruled by its people if its leader wears a crown. Imagine Harper or Bush as king instead of president. Because America is a republic, at least Bush is no longer in office.

A last note, as a question to the Canadians, and especially monarchists: if monarchy such a great thing, why was Gandhi, as well as countless others generations before him and during his time, struggling for the independence of India… from Britain? Why, after India became a dominion in 1947, did it become a republic three years later? Why was Ireland struggling for independence, and after attaining it, take tremendous pride in “Beating the Brits” despite being partially-free? How come there are more commonwealth republics, the most recent one established in 1992? Wasn’t our confederation in 1867? And yet sadly, we still cling to mother, live in her basement, and eat her food!

Ever since the first version of Answering the Royalists was first published, it seemed that after a while and some modifications the royalists took note and, in a pathetic attempt to modernize, made some spiffy changes to the appearance of their website and made some modifications to their excuses, along with adding more lists, including a section called “Myths About the Monarchy,” where they attempt to answer some plausible and reasonable reasons of why monarchy is stupid with stupider answers, in their attempts to preserve a disgusting, idiosyncratic institution occupied by someone we didn’t and can’t elect. Republicans shouldn’t care who’s the throne or when they die. The point is they weren’t elected, and malarkists, since they support the monarchy, obviously don’t want their head of state elected, thus they are antidemocratic. Naturally monarchies would oppose their abolition. Inevitably, all their arguments fall flat, and even some of their arguments raise serious questions. They’re still off by three years when referencing the number of years Canada lived allegedly in “peace and tranquility.” They even list a number of Monarchs of Canada dating back all the way to the fifteenth century, which is as monstrously stupid and historically inaccurate as the idea of Canada existing during the War of 1812, which was a war between the Americans and the British, not between Americans and Canadians. But because Canadians are stupid, enough to believe their country existed in 1812, they’re likely to believe in the idea that Canada had monarchs before 1867 or whatever they’re told that appeals to tradition, moderation, symbolism, imperialism, colonialism and greed. Monarchy and monarchists should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, because not only are they wrong, but the institution they support is evil, an extreme that only the corrupt desire to become, and that the monarchists, being just as evil, extreme, insane and stupid as monarchy, advocate evil.