The British Monarchy Explained

Advertisements

Appeal To Money

One of the stupidest arguments royalists use to condemn and damn democracy is that elections are so expensive. They use numbers drawn from elections in the United States, the compares them to that of maintaining the monarchy. This is an abhorrent attempt to trick the people into thinking with their wallets at the expense of their fundamental right to choose their governments, that we should sacrifice a fundamental democratic right that so many fight and die for because it would squeeze our wallets. They deliberately skewer figures and numbers, to confuse the reception and spending of money by political parties and candidates with that of the money spent on the electoral process itself. And being conservatives, they will cheat and lie about the numbers and the sources from whence it came.

First of all, Canadian royalists will always attack the United States, in an attempt to discredit it and its experiment with a republican form of government, which may be less than perfect (indirect election of the President vie electoral collage, for example) but far better than the stale, overused mockup of Westminster we have in Ottawa. The monarchists are still bitter over the loss of their colonies, and will always whitewash the British Empire’s own legacy of colonial terrorism and slavery, so that in Canada’s history books, Britain’s Empire was founded on peace and love.

Why do they resort to this? Rather simply: to appeal to the people’s wallets, especially of those who don’t vote, and don’t care about the effects of politics that happen in their lives. Yet suppose we get rid of all our representatives, and just have direct rule by the monarchy. Then the monarchy decides to impose taxes that are excessive and unnecessary, to spend on only personal expenses at the expense of the public well being and security. Who can appeal to her, then? Who can influence her? Only the most insane, unworthy of influencing anyone or holding any power, would blindly trust and defend a deified person, rivaled only by the Pharaohs of Egypt who were literally, in the eyes and minds of virtually all Egyptians, a god in human form. Why should an unelected, undemocratic head of state with powers unenumerated and inherited by blood, regardless of public opinion, have any right or say in how the state should spend its money, or in reverse and better yet, why should it even care about the people she rules over, or rely on any approval of the very people royalists dismiss as unable to govern themselves?

And speaking of money, what has our monarchy done about the Senate scandals with Mike Duffy, or the SUNTV fiasco with the CRTC? What has she said or done about the fraudulent elections that the Conservatives engaged in? Of course she doesn’t care about elections or democracy! She’s a fucking monarch. She relies on the concept of divine choice, without solid evidence or consent of the people, to govern a people that she not only looks down upon for their supposed ignorance, or lack of “class”, but also wants to deny them their inherent right a sound and solid education.

If the masses are so grossly ignorant as claimed by the royalists, then why deny them sound education, to teach them as children the ability to use logic, reason, and critical thinking? They want to rob the people blind of quality education in the name of money the same way they want to rob and deny people the right to vote, to elect their representatives, to choose their governments, in the name of money. Granted, democracy should be affordable, economical, financially beneficial. Yet it is a dangerous folly to think that the cheapest government is the government you can’t choose or change.

Spanish Republicans Demand End To Their Monarchy

Well, this is a surprise!

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/04/2013414182728336313.html

http://rt.com/news/spain-anti-monarchy-rally-847/

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.

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.

Monarchy + the North American Union (NAU)

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

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

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

For more skepticism on the North American Union, visit this rather interesting article: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4210

Monarchy is an abomination, an evil, and an affront to democracy. There is no such thing as divine right of kings because either there is no God, or people are forgetting that we were all created free and equal by God. Intelligence is not hereditary, nor is skill or talent.

The Historical Fallacy

One of the lamest excuses to conserve monarchy is the historical fallacy, that the Crown gives Canada a history. Nevermind what it actually did, but that it was somehow there during these events. The most often cited historical event is the insignificant War of 1812 when we non-violent, anti-war Canadians allegedly burned down the whitehouse. I could say that the Colonialists in the American Colonies fought the French in the Seven Years War. Hell, at that time, George Washington fought with the British. Yet did that little fact prevent the Colonists from fighting for independence from their mother country? Of course not! Nor should it be an excuse for Canadians and Canada to conserve something that is not only far away and foreign but essentially unequal and undemocratic. Its like saying that because killing the women of your family to protect the honour of your family not because of anything rational about it (because there’s absolutely nothing rational about that but rather everything wrong about that) but because it’s been happening for so long. Then there’s something wrong with you. There’s also something inherently wrong with you if you think that the British wouldn’t fight for its territory, or think that Canada existed in 1812. We exist, yes, but as a dominion, not as a sovereign state.

The reason the royalists, no doubt, keep mentioning the Americans invading our soil (which in fact was in response to the Brits invading America, a fact that all royalists and Canadian “historians” ALWAYS leave out) is because there is in their dark little hearts a bitterness from the loss of territory of their so-precious empire by their own people, who fought for a newfound country that set its own course and, unlike us, made its own history.

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.