Answering the Royalists ~ Part Duh!

Before the Tea Party, before Ford Nation, there was the Monarchist League, a collection of sad authoritarian fetishists who wanted to exterminate any further efforts to render Canada free from the British Crown. They were as rabid, vicious, pernicious and determined as the Ayn Rand followers of today that have crystallized into the Tea Party of the United States, and the Ford Nation of Toronto. Their degenerate influence still lingers, and have since the 1970’s gained prominence and control in our nation’s schools, governments and civil services, spreading their anti-democratic slobber far and wide across Upper North America.

What is disappointing is the incredible lack of strong Canadian republican voices in the political and information arena who are loud and proud about their ideas and willing to fight for them. The only republicans who have managed to say anything about the monarchy or monarchists are insufferable modest home rule advocates who are only interested in debate and not real change, and treat monarchy the same way some folks treat evolution: as a controversy. First of all, there’s no controversy. Monarchy doesn’t represent the people. A republic with an elected head of state and legislature does. A country with a “constitutional monarchy” is only half-democratic. Representatives are supposed to get the consent of someone they supposedly represent in order to represent them. When it comes to representing a body of people, they choose or “elect” that representative. How in the holy fuck royalists consider any form of royalty to represent the people should be beyond the reasonable thinking of any decent human being on the face of the earth. Sometimes it takes a revolution to initiate real change and a republican revolution of independence must be initiated. Monarchy is not democratic, and must be totally destroyed.

So I’ve read a rather disgusting article about the monarchy, called The Monarchy Debate Is Missing A Piece Of The Puzzle, in the Huffington Post by a South African emigre named Johanu Botha. And by disgusting I mean it’s centrist moderate monarchist garbage. It claims that the debate is missing something, and that something turns out to be one of the stupidest questions imaginable.

During a Montreal citizenship ceremony in the autumn of 2011, an American friend of mine surreptitiously snuck up the aisle to snap pictures as — hand over heart — I became a citizen of the country I had lived in since 2002. A bright history major, he had no problem paying tribute to a ritual not his own. Until, that is, it was time to pledge allegiance to the Queen, Canada’s constitutional monarch and head of state.

It begins with an autobiographical story, the kind Obama would use in his speeches to galvanize the gullible before screwing them with a big thick knife in the ass because he’s just so nice to the GOP, in order to have the audience gain some emotional attachment to what he’s about to say.

My American friend loved the themes of multiculturalism, immigrant success stories, and general tolerance not always found so generously in his own country. Yet swearing loyalty to an unelected elderly lady was too much for even his open mind. And until a year before my ceremony, it might’ve been too much for me as well.

So he’s one of those folks who thinks that an “open mind” means to accept whatever one’s told without that important filter of rational thought, reason, or logic. To have an open mind, to this guy, is to accept “knowledge” in any form, however irrational, ignorant, misleading or false, without questioning.

I grew up a very Afrikaans kid in a South African town that was very Afrikaans. This meant being raised on the horrors of British dominance over Afrikaners, with Boer War concentration camps described in vivid detail (the horrors of Afrikaner dominance over Africans were conveniently glossed over). Despite the more moderate and politically tentative English friends at school, my young perspective on the British Crown was remarkably similar to that still etched into the American political consciousness — the Crown was something to be constantly rejected and thrown off in order to maintain a sense of freedom.

Because the idea that you can’t either choose your leaders or become chosen as leader is something to embrace and only Americans are in favour of choosing your government. And apparently Boethe seems to ignore the fact that Aparteid had existed. His town was very Afrikaans because blacks and “coloureds” wouldn’t be allowed to live in their town. The black people had their place, coloureds had their place, and all whites had their place, which were put on top, while the rest were left the crumbs.

What happened to my perspective in Canada after my family moved here was something that has happened in this country since the Fathers of Confederation themselves came to it as a mere colony: I moved from a republic to a monarchy and found more real freedom in the latter. In the early 19th century Irish nationalist Thomas D’arcy McGee fled his homeland to trumpet expansive republicanism in the young United States. Indeed, this founder to be of Canadian confederation declared that “either by purchase, conquest, or stipulation, Canada must be yielded by Great Britain to this Republic [the United States].”

Apparently, there’s no real explanation as to how exactly there was real freedom in the latter. He just suddenly cuts to a rambling piece about McGee. Did he immigrate to Canada during or after Apartied? Is putting Afrikaaners in concentration camps the only thing that made him hate the British? Where are the black people, Botha? They’re not mythical creatures.

The best kind of political fervour, however, requires tangible improvement in peoples’ lives, and he therefore quickly grew disheartened by Boston and New York. Richard Gwyn writes that:

“McGee grew restive in [the United States]. Its practice of slavery disgusted him, as did, more personally, the anti-Irish bigotry of the anti-immigrant Know Nothing movement. McGee came north to Montreal in 1857 and to his astonishment found there, after all his years fighting the English, ‘far more liberty and tolerance enjoyed by those in Canada than in the U.S.’”

Then, four years later, the American Civil War broke out, which rightfully proved that sometimes a little bloodshed is necessary for radical change. In the end, slavery was abolished and the United States stood triumphant in the end reunified and remained as a republic. Jim Crow laws indeed had replaced the slave laws, but it took dedicated people, men and women, of all colours who even lost their lives, to abolish those, and ensure that the Bill of Rights applied equally to everyone at every single corner of the United States. Meanwhile, we didn’t officially have a Bill of Rights until the 1950’s, and even still there are elements of the Charter of Rights that are questionable, such as the Not Withstanding Clause. So there is a difference between cultural attitudes and government policy.

Similarly, I found in 21st century Canada a political arrangement with an incredible capacity to accommodate differences. It paradoxically accepted separatist elected representatives in the national House of Commons, its immigration policy actively supported the identity with which immigrants arrived, its social policies were decidedly more progressive than its freedom-trumpeting southern neighbour, and its relationship with First Nations — while fraught with elements of dysfunction — had a history of treaty negotiations that provided glimmers of hope for the future.

Yet the Crown itself had no influence at all considering any these developments. It’s a blind rubber-stamping puppet of Parliament, regardless of whatever party was in power. Botha is blind to the fact that a recent bill restricting voting was passed and, without any input by our unelected absentee head of state, will become law next month. Treaty negotiations have also been fraught with corruption, and their ratification have been fraught with voting irregularities.

What role, if any, does the monarchy play in all of this? First, a head of state not directly elected by ‘the people’ tends to avoid the sort of populist impulses that can so heavily flirt with xenophobic nationalism. Second, a non-partisan head of state embodies the hopes, dreams, and security of person for every citizen, and is not just representative of the group that votes for him or her (a Presidential Office may in the abstract represent all, but it is always occupied by a partisan politician).

The first “role” that Botha spews out may not spell it out, but he does tease Godwin’s law, this myth that Adolf Hitler, who hated democracy and was supported by the German monarchists, was elected. Let’s be clear: Hitler was never elected (and no royalist ever specifies exactly what was he supposedly elected to) but was appointed Chancellor of Germany thanks to an aging yet firm monarchist named Hindenburg and another monarchist named von Papen in an attempt to control someone who would inevitably become the Teutonic reincarnation of Pharaoh. In other words, the monarchists in Germany helped summon the Third Reich, just as the monarchists in Italy backed Mussolini. Also, Botha is echoing an age-old anti-democratic mantra, that the people are too stupid to govern themselves, that they’re incredibly impulsive. This would be true … under a direct democracy, where people themselves govern directly rather than representatives that they elect to govern for them, to make decisions for them provided that the rights of the individual is protected by law. Also, a democracy, especially a representative one, cannot function without a sound education system that would be mandatory for all citizens to enrol. Freedom isn’t free, especially of obligations are to be properly and soundly educated. People are unwilling to educate themselves, and those who try without proper guidance often become conspiracy theorists or conservatives or worse, which is why the state should be obligated to educate the people. Further, populist impulses don’t flirt with xenophobic nationalism (unless your culture is xenophobic and racially “aware”), and Botha never explains how it does. In fact, populist impulses leans against xenophobic nationalism and toward economic and social needs. People want good jobs, good wages, time with their family, and to have their lives, liberty and property protected by good laws. While the qualifications for President can be changed for the better, the qualifications for monarchy can’t. Nevermind this having to do with the sex of the first-born. Changing that doesn’t make monarchy any better. It’s a way to ensure only whites are heads of state, regardless of who their puppet is in Canada, such as Michelle Jean.

Third, the steady distancing between the monarch and policy-making (versus revolution) has produced a political culture quite comfortable using the tools of government should it yield better policy outcomes. The United States, in contrast, has a curiously adversarial relationship with its democratic government, as if it constantly needs to be fought rather than instrumentalized. This has led to some of the most ineffective policies — see health care and gun control — among developed countries, and — ironically — it hasn’t led to a lean, efficient bureaucracy.

People are going to disagree with each other all the time. There will always be partisanship about one idea or another. Economics, religion, politics, philosophy—like an asshole, everyone has an opinion about them. People are always going to fight each other one way or another. The reason that we have what remains of our healthcare system and effective gun control, while the Americans don’t, is not because of monarchy, but because of ordinary citizens from all walks of life were fighting tooth and nail to get those things established in Canada. The monarch had no part in it whatsoever. In fact, by doing nothing and saying nothing, she’s condoning it, and considering the elitist and reactionary and imperialistic nature of monarchs, she probably would’ve preferred the total opposite, to ensure her peasant subjects paid for their own healthcare and bought their own guns lest they were used to oppose her royal police or soldiers. She probably would’ve preferred if there were no politicians to represent any of the ignorant, unwashed peasantry, or wouldn’t have minded limiting the vote to the highborn few. This demonstrated by her doing nothing.

And fourth, the relationship between First Nations and the Crown has often been healthier than that between First Nations and the Canadian state. Indeed, when I contacted a PhD student studying Canadian-Indigenous relations to get his thoughts on this blog he noted that one of the concerns of a Canadian republic is that it will handle treaties in the historical manner of the federal government and not the Crown, the latter being perceived as more just.

Yet Botha never provides examples or explains how the latter is perceived as “more just.” He ignores the fact that the actions of the Canadian Government are done not in the name of the Canadian state but in the name of the Canadian Crown. Furthermore, let’s explain something here: the British monarch represents imperialism, of colonialism. The natives in this pretend country have been colonized, and have been subjected to the brunt of imperialism. The treaties not only have done little to their benefit, but have also prevented us from moving forward as a country.

The question Canadians should ask as they continue to debate the monarchy in this country is: how to square the institutional benefits of a non-partisan Head of State with the monarchy’s obvious democratic deficit? The discourse often focuses on the value of taxpayer’s money versus the historical importance of the Queen or old school affection for the individual royal personalities versus grassroots democrats. While these are important debates to have, the institutional contribution of non-partisan governmental machinery should be carefully assessed when contemplating the monarchy’s abolishment.

You can’t fit a square peg in a round hole because monarchy isn’t democratic. To try to make the monarchy democratic would be to try and teach both creationism and evolution in a fucking science class! “Intelligent design” or whatever its name is the wolf of creationism disguised as science. If we want real democracy, sever the ties to the British Crown, and absolve ourselves of all and any allegiances to it, and stamp out all other versions of it at the lower levels of government. The discourse that places the value of taxpayer’s money over democracy has the echoes of Ayn Rand, who hated democracy simply because of a childhood trauma she suffered in Russia when she saw mobs running rampant through the streets when it transitioned from one form of dictatorship to another. These sort of people place more value on money, on their on wallets, than in any form of human dignity or public service. And on this whole idea that the head of state should be non-partisan couldn’t be any more stupid. Non-partisanship should only be reserved for the courts. The monarchy isn’t non-partisan because that it allows only family members to inherit the crown, and denies Canadian citizens to either access it or have a say in who should be head of state. As the office of President is owned by the people where anyone can access it, the “office” of monarch isn’t an office at all but private property that is owned by one person and their family, no matter how many times royalists attempt to rehash or rebrand it or “reinvent it.” The head of state isn’t a supreme court justice and doesn’t preside over any court proceedings. Nor should it. Monarchy also doesn’t embody the hopes and dreams of every citizen because it doesn’t allow citizens to become head of state, nor should even an elected head of state embody the hopes and dreams of everyone considering that no one would elect any fascist, racist, intellectually infirm or psychologically unstable person to office considering the hopes and dreams of such deviants are the stuff of nightmares.

Rob Ford

is the reason why we need more democracy in this country. And NO … that’s not putting it sarcastically.
LO ford01.JPG
Thanks to the diseased system of government called constitutional monarchy, the way governments at every level of this God-forsaken portion of the earth is crafted in such a way, that we cannot hold any level of government accountable. In Ford’s case, we can’t oust him from power … just like we can’t oust the monarchy, under our current system. Corrupt politicians, especially in a republic, aspire to be a monarch. Rob Ford and his equally scummy, equally corrupt brother Doug, are mad with power. Their arrogance and ignorance are astronomical. Now some royalists babble on about “Well, politicians last for only a short time, but monarchs last forever.” That is not just the mantra of fascism, the mantra of a crazed nut calling for a dictatorship, to chain others to their favourite celebrity. This demonstrates the failure of royalists to grasp the reason why a republican head of state is elected, why he should be impeached, why he should serve only a few years, and why he should only serve an extremely small number of terms. You have a corrupt politician like Rob Ford in power? In a decent country he’d be already impeached and arrested thereafter for the great number of abuses he’s used his office for, and for the criminal acts he’s committed, including drug possession and assaulting a democratically elected representative. This is the behaviour of a tyrant, a monster, an aspiring monarch who cares not about the people that he rules by their consent, but by power at all costs, even at the expense of the people of this city, while galvanising the “Ford Nation” who are composed of idiots who blame the media because they don’t like “negative news.”

Monarchists Are Idiots

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go Ask Your Mother

or The Queen Refuses to Hold an Inquiry into Electoral Fraud; Elizabeth May and Royalists Proven Wrong AGAIN

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/05/queen-elizabeth-elizabeth-may_n_3020303.html?utm_hp_ref=canada

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality” ~Dante

Once more, for the 1175th time, the constitutional monarchy has proven itself why it is so wrong on so many levels. Months after Elizabeth May, the US-born leader of the Green Party, wrote a letter calling upon Old Liz to launch a royal inquiry into accusations of election fraud (or as the lamestream media would call it, the “robocall scandal”) against the Conservative Party, the Old Hag of Windsor wrote back, saying that she didn’t want to, because we have a Governor General as the Queen’s representative and that we should go to her representative instead. The idea of having an unelected monarchy as head of state is absurd. The idea of a non-partisan office (or, in the monarchy’s case, “office”) is not only absurd, but also very dangerous, because it is a form of tyranny, where the power to protect and correct is deliberately denied to the people, and on behalf of those in power. She allowed parliament to be suspended twice. She allowed non-violent protesters to be subject to police brutality and wrongful arrest. She rejected calls to intervene on behalf of the so-called hunger strike of the Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, and refused to summon a Royal Inquiry into the so-called “Robocalls Scandal” (or, to put it more accurately, electoral fraud). In each of her condescending nonsensical responses to the last two letters, one sent by a man in BC who was concerned for the Chief, and the other Elizabeth May, she merely refused to intervene, and referred them to her representatives. It’s being lazy, folks. It’s also tyrannical, yet done so softly, so quietly, so gently, that the most gullible would rally behind her to justify her actions, since they care more about class and style than policy and substance. Better to have an elected partisan politician that can take the side of the weak and the oppressed, than the callous, cruel, indifferent eye and deaf ear of a non-partisan monarchy that doesn’t change and doesn’t heed to the cries of the people when they are in agony. And even if she did anything, that doesn’t merit her, someone who isn’t elected, as a credible, reliable and even necessary protector of democracy. How the fuck is even this monarch a protector of democracy, when she refuses to intervene on the behalf of democracy? And furthermore, since some claim her as a representative of the people (she isn’t because she isn’t elected), then why the fuck would this representative . . . have a representative?

And yet the royalists claim that “The Crown’s role … [is] to ensure that ‘the rules of the game’ are always followed, and to provide a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard . . . should normal democratic processes ever be threatened or break down.” Well, fuck you and your bullshit. That’s not true in the slightest! How is electoral fraud NOT a threat to democracy? How is electoral fraud NOT a threat to the normal democratic process of election? You fucks have been proven so wrong more than once, and yet you ratfuckers still lie! And fuck you, Michael Valpy, for calling the Rancid Old Whore a “constitutional fire extinguisher.” She isn’t, so you’ve proven to us that you became a professor by sucking a lot of cocks.

Canada’s political system is not based on any logic, but on the bizarre mental fecal matter of asylum inmates mad with power. Monarchy only appeals to three groups of people, all tightly related and working together in a matter reflective to the inbreeding of the monarchy itself: the simple-minded who are easily puzzled by organized society, the inmates of an asylum, and the power-ravenous. If the monarchy is democratic, then war is peace. If the monarchy guarantees and protects democracy, then freedom is slavery.  And if monarchy costs less and is non-partisan, then ignorance is strength.

As for the Americans who yearn for a constitutional monarchy, or a parliamentary system, well, you’re already living in one. Obama’s going to cut Social Security because, well, he’s a puppet of the GOP. Take a hint!

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” ~Desmond Tutu

Is constitutional monarchy willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then it is impotent. Is it able, but not willing? Then it is malevolent. Is it both able and willing? Whence then is its unwillingness to act? How would it not use its to worsen, aid, or make evil? And what right does it have to hold any power when it’s not been earned.

Royal Idleness

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New Low: Globe And Fail

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

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

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

Games Lefties Play

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

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

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