Guest Post: God Don't Save The Queen

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute Of Canada,

 

“Crowds Cheer Queen On Last Day of Jubilee”

So ran the headline from Time.  Yesterday marked the end of the “Diamond Jubilee” of Queen Elizabeth II of the British monarchy.  The four day celebration was is honor of her ascendancy to the throne sixty years ago.  On the closing day, crowds of well-wishers gathered to cheer on her majesty by chanting “God Save the Queen!” as she addressed the nation. While the Queen holds little political power today, she and the royal family remain incredibly popular.  Throughout the festivities, an estimated 1.5 million people paid their respects to the royal dynasty.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

Monarchies are supposed to be antithetical to freedom.  Under feudalistic monarchism, the notion of personal liberty took a backseat to loyalty to the king.  Those who weren’t part of or close to the nobility were referred to as subjects.  These peasants were to serve without question.  Their happiness was supposed to be derived directly from the happiness of their rulers.  The class system was rigid as the ruling coalition, that is the king, royal family, nobles, and feudal lords, eagerly held onto power to secure their systematic exploitation.

So why is the Queen of England still so highly regarded today?  Does her position not represent a time in the past where men and women were explicitly in the forced servitude of others?

Under close observation, it turns out that monarchs and their close associates were no more despotic than current government structures which are frequently referred to as democratic.  The state, being that “its primary intention is to enable the economic exploitation of one class by another” as Albert Jay Nock defined it, is no different than monarchical rule.  The goal of the ruling elite within both monarchy and the democratic nation-state has always been to instill a widespread sense of collective reverence to those in charge.

Starting from the very first years of compulsory public education, also known as child imprisonment, the state is romanticized as a positive force in everyday life.  History is taught by emphasizing specific periods of governance.  Those heads of government who centralized power and enlarged the state apparatus are regarded as brilliant and courageous leaders.  The few who did little in terms of taxing more, waging bloody war, or extending Leviathan’s thieving grasp over the public are neglected and subtly referenced as inadequate.  Brutal atrocities carried out by those glorified heads of state are overlooked for the sake of extolling their wondrous achievements of broadening the scope of domination on private life by the ruling class.  Under their leadership, murder is labeled necessary, theft becomes “giving to the greater good,” and conscription is called doing one’s “duty.”

The end goal of such a twisted version of history is to indoctrinate the masses into subservience to the mother state.  As long as Joe Public remains infatuated with his respective nation-state, he is much more of a ripe target for legalized pick pocketing.

Yet these brainwashing tactics hardly differed from those employed during the time of kings.  As famed American founding father Thomas Paine commented on the nature of kingship:

We should find the first of them [kings] nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless gang; whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtilty obtained him the title of chief among plunderers; and who by increasing in power and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenseless

During the service at St. Paul’s Cathedral on the last day of the Jubilee celebration, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, praised Queen Elizabeth for serving as “living proof that public service is possible and that it is a place where happiness can be found.”  He continued his collectivist preaching by stressing the Queen’s six decade ruling streak should serve as a monument to “the rebirth of an generous spirit of dedication to the common good and the public service, the rebirth of a recognition that we live less than human lives if we think just of our own individual good.”

Just as flag waving and the national anthem are purposefully used as rituals to state power, the rhetoric of collectivism is a tool to condition unquestioned subordination.

They are all just rallying calls for citizens to bow down and pay tribute.

But of course the idea of a “common good” is a complete fabrication.  Only individuals determine what their subjective preferences are.  This is the reality kings, dictators, presidents, prime ministers, and politicians never want spreading.  It would undermine their ability to keep the flow of societal resources draining into their iron fist.  They can’t let the truth get out; that the state and monarchy have been governing structures of predation since time immemorial.

Given the authoritarianism monarchy used to represent, celebrating the continued rule of the Queen of England should be regarded as absurd.  But millions are still fooled into believing they are spiritually connected to those who reside within the same arbitrarily constructed nation-state boundaries as themselves.  They remain prepared to make the sacrifice of life and property to those who would never do the same.

Meanwhile, actual dissenters to the idea of total obedience to those of the political class often find themselves demonized in public, locked in cages, physically assaulted, or, at worst, killed.  One such outspoken critic of state imposed slavery was Michael Gaines who had the audacity of challenging his thirteen year prison sentence for allegedly spitting on prison guards back in 2008.  Gaines, who is HIV positive, was accused of instilling the fear of death in the guards despite the fact that HIV can’t be spread through saliva.  As District Judge Rebecca Pilshaw readied a long prison sentence for “battery of a law enforcement officer” based on the victim’s accusations alone, Gaines challenged the idea that one person is owed the respect and loyalty of another because they are enforcers of government.  When Pilshaw asserted “you’re not respecting my authority,” Gaines shot back with “You’re not respecting me…respect goes both ways. You’re just a woman with a robe on – just a woman, a human being just like I am.”  Pilshaw, who was given a total of three reprimands for ethical violations during her tenure as judge and later lost her place at the bench, was shocked at the blatant disrespect someone had for her state-sanctioned authority.  Gaines received a long prison sentence for not acknowledging the sanctity of the police state.

Instead of blindly chanting “God Saved the Queen,” those who regard liberty as precious should chant “God Save Michael Gaines.”

To the end, Judge Pilshaw was convinced that her supremacy as a government official should be observed by all.  It is the same vein of thinking of all who hold public office, including kings of the past.

Today, the only difference between the systematic malfeasance and plunder that existed under the rule of monarchs and that which defines the state is the ballot box.  Voters in a sense get to choose a small portion of their rulers.  This gives them the mirage of freedom when the nation-state they inhabit is no less than a contemporary field of serfdom lorded over by kings.  Too much of the public still behaves with the mindset of servants.  They are pathetically docile to those who hold the keys of their shackles.   What the celebration of Queen Elizabeth’s sixty year rule showed is that the people of Great Britain never really escaped from monarchy.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

Ludwig von Mises Institute Of Canada

Please disclose your top 20 donors, corporate shills.  You advocate for lack of regulation and individual freedom.  You seek corporate power.  Name your top 20 donors, whores.

CURWAR2012's picture

you sleep with a lot of guilt. Get a job.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I have a job.  Mises Institute's job is fucking me, a small business.

markovchainey's picture

Explain how the Mises institute is infringing on your property rights, or STFU and have a nice steaming mouthful of these peanuts out of my shit.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Sheep.  Who are their donors?

flacon's picture

No wonder PUBLIC schools don't teach the Bible:

1 Samuel 8

 

 

Warning concerning a King

10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “ This will be the [d]procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and placethem for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12  He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to [e]do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14  He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and [f]use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 Thenyou will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lordwill not answer you in that day.”

19 Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, 20  that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people,he repeated them in the Lord’s hearing. 22 The Lord said to Samuel, “ Listen to their voice and[g]appoint them a king.” So Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

 

LetThemEatRand's picture

Who are their fucking donors.  

Harlequin001's picture

I got this far' Monarchies are supposed to be antithetical to freedom. '

and realised all after was bollocks...

LetThemEatRand's picture

Hey Jim Miller ... care to tell us who the top sponsors are?

I'll give you a hint of what His name is NOT:  His Name is NOT Robert Paulsen. '

That is not your sponsor's name.

What is it?

Harlequin001's picture

Who gives a fuck who his sponsors are? 

This whole article is total fucking horseshit, and you don't need the brains of a rocket scientist to go work it out...

LetThemEatRand's picture

The author is a complete fraud.

He is a corporatist.

That matters.

He could simply list his top 20 donors.

He will not.

He is a fucking coporate shill.

W T Effington's picture

A hypothetical - What do you say to a man who proposes these same ideas, and this man runs an organization, named after Ludwig Von Mises, but he provides his top 20 donors and non of them are corporations or lobyist or politicians or anyone who seeks influence to provide themselves with a benefit? What do you have to say then?

Harlequin001's picture

'The author is a complete fraud.' - Of course he is. It's written by a true and bitter colonial who just doesn't understand it.

'What the celebration of Queen Elizabeth’s sixty year rule showed is that the people of Great Britain never really escaped from monarchy.'

What it showed is that they never really wanted to.

A monarchy is the only form of government where the rulers' fate is inevitably entwined in the long term betterment of the country, and for which a strong defence is a pre requisite, whereas there is a reason why the US President is limited to two terms in office, for example. It's because the people that designed that worthless piece of paper called a Constitution understood that politicians in this 'new' republic would sink to the lowest level of vote hunting sooner or later, and that is would be safer to cripple any good leader than endure the ongoing damage of a bad one. That's because politicians of whatever ilk have no interest whatsoever in the long term betterment of the country, only who and what pays the most fees and gives them their votes in the short term. Now tell me, how many politicans do you have that aren't multi millionaires? Just the new ones, eh...

What earthly fucking use is someone who doesn't work to a king? Nothing, but to a politician his vote is worth the same as any entrepreneur, corporatist, lord or lady. He is worth the same as those that employ capital to create jobs and those that work hard to provide for themselves as well. In a Republic/ Democracy call it what you will, laziness and idleness become a valuable fucking commodity.

Every man for himself is the only way to describe EVERY other form of government except a monarchy. The monarchy stands to benefit from the long term betterment of the country, which is why I say that most English men and women will be keen to see the back of the monarch when they finally see him/her touting for votes on TV offering $3,000 of someone else's money to all and sundry for  'thingamajigs' at whatever cost to the country if they'll only vote for him. Oh, wait, that's what Obama was doing only last week isn't it? Care to list which other politicians in this so-called better world are any different?

This particular mental spastic needs to think about what he's writing, and for what it's worth, you can keep your presidents and your Constitution, and we'll keep our Queen, thanks. We think she does a better job.

'What do you say to a man who proposes these same ideas, and this man runs an organization, named after Ludwig Von Mises, but he provides his top 20 donors and non of them are corporations or lobyist or politicians or anyone who seeks influence to provide themselves with a benefit? What do you have to say then?' - I'd say he was a total fucking fool.

 

W T Effington's picture

"A monarchy is the only form of government where the rulers' fate is inevitably entwined in the long term betterment of the country" This statement is utterly false. Please point to a monarchy which led to the inevitable betterment of its people. The people are not bettered under monarchy because force and threats are the only tool of monarchs. Those tools do not lead to wealth creation. Nor the development of markets that meet men and women needs and desires. 

"In a Republic/ Democracy call it what you will, laziness and idleness become a valuable fucking commodity." Why would someone waste their time creating wealth under a monarchy when it can be stolen in a second by the monarch? If you do not have rights to your property and your labor, you do not have much to work for. Idleness is a commodity under fascism and socialism and monarchy. In a free society, you cannot sit on your ass because if you do, you will earn nothing and therefore have very little except for charity. Central power which is used as an excuse to steal and loot from those who create is the cover used by thise who are idle and lazy. 

"Every man for himself is the only way to describe EVERY other form of government except a monarchy." This is nonsense. Monarchy is simply a smaller circle of central power than an Oligarchy (Socialism and Fascism) or Democracy (Tyranny of the majority). "Every man for himself" represents every form of government except for a libertarian government. 

"We think she does a better job." What was the last decision that your queen made that made your life better?

Harlequin001's picture

Ok first, 'Please point to a monarchy which led to the inevitable betterment of its people.' Life's been pretty good in the old British Empire these last fifty years or so, and for that we have a monarch who's popularity is now at its peak. I'd say that the rulers fate has been pretty much entwined with that of the people and for sixty years now. That doesn't mean to say that life will always be good, and that she'll always be popular, but for now her fate is entwined in the future of the country, like it or not, and life's not too bad as yet. It matters not that life has been good as a consequence of the redistribution (or waste) of wealth built up over centuries of empire under a monarch, and which has now been systematically wasted by democratic government in welfare for the people but that's another matter entirely isn't it? For now life is good and the monarch is popular; when the wealth runs out things might be different and we might end up with a new monarch, but then that's always been the case hasn't it?

'The people are not bettered under monarchy because force and threats are the only tool of monarchs.' - Indian chiefs are monarchs, like it or not. They may act differently, they may not be European, they may not live in palaces and may be treated differently, but for all intents and purposes they are or were still supreme ruler of their people were they not? Or at least they were until they were defeated, but then that just confirms what I say about the monarchs fate being entwined in the betterment of the people doesn't it? The monarchs job is to define the rules, and defend them against all comers for life. A politicians isn't. They do it well and they are popular, they do it badly and they lose their heads. Historically, English monarchs have done a superb and enviable job, hence their unrivalled popularity.

Fact is that some behave well and some don't, and I make no apologies for either. Whilst I understand that I couldn't topple my monarch on my own, nor anyone else either for that matter, I'm not feeling any more threatened by my monarch at the moment than I am by my democratic government, and dare I say yours too. You say in ' force and threats are the only tool of monarchs' - No they are not; at times maybe, but no monarch ever held on to power with just force and threats, and there are plenty of dead monarchs who could testify to that, just as there are governments of all types that have failed as well. But name me one government that doesn't rely on just that? It's easy to criticise, but what solution do you have? A Republic? No thanks...

Monarchs historically existed as the most able and successful defenders of a tribe or society, and the court was made up of their most successful generals and advisers. Throughout history the King has always defended the land against all comers or died. That is their role, hence their entitlement to do whatever is necessary to defend it. If you don't think they should have that power then what as a matter of interest is your suggestion? That they should vote or ask nicely for the resources to defend it? Not all monarchs are tyrants, and not all monarchs are bad. I am the first to accept that not all monarchs are good either, but they have a role to play, and I do not accept that our Queen would not play it if it was needed or that she should be anymore handicapped than any other form of government in that task.

Your statement, 'Why would someone waste their time creating wealth under a monarchy when it can be stolen in a second by the monarch?' sounds really good if you aren't the monarch so to speak, and you want to start a riot, but could you explain at what point all of everyone's assets were ever stolen in an instant by any monarch that lived to benefit from it, and more importantly, how the same does not apply to a Democracy, or a Republic. If this is true, then explain to me why Americans are complaining about senior debt holders in companies being shafted by Obama at GM, (so much for your Republic), yet the world relies on Greek bonds written under English law to defend their sovereign claims? A monarchy relies on entitlement to assets as its basis, and that the monarch has recourse to all assets in defence of the realm as needed. Not many decent folk would argue with that unless of course, you were getting something for nothing under a Democracy.

'Monarchy is simply a smaller circle of central power than an Oligarchy (Socialism and Fascism) or Democracy (Tyranny of the majority).' - Monarchy is absolutely nothing like a Democracy; Monarchy is supreme power in the hands of one individual whose life is tied to his her ability to defend and maintain it. Government, they'll screw you for what any monied interest can get away with and disappear when their term is up claiming the thieving and pillaging was all someone else's fault... You should know that by now.

BigJim's picture

History is replete with examples of monarchs killing huge numbers of their 'own' subjects in attempts to steal property from other rulers, or, indeed, the property of their own subjects. A monarch's fate is no more ultimately tied to his countrymen's fortunes than a mafioso's is tied to the prosperity of his pool of threatenees. ie... yes, it is, but it makes little difference. In fact, that's all the vast majority of monarchs ever were - gangland thugs, exacting protection money in the form of taxes and tribute. People just get confused by all the heraldry and ermine.

As for the benevolence of the UK's 'constitutional' monarchy, what the fuck good have they ever done? Did they, for instance, stop the UK getting involved in WWI? Suez? Iraq? Afganistan? Did they stop the bankers taking over the British polity?

They're fucking useless at best, and parasitic enablers of evil at worst.

The pro-monarchical sentiment expressed here on ZH is just astonishing. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome!

And no, the Queen isn't a better alternative to the US presidency, because the Brits already have the equivalent of the US president in the form of their Prime Minister. So the monarchy isn't an alternative - it's an additional layer of parasitism.

You want a monarch? Fine, you and your ermine-enthralled fellow-non-thinkers can put together a charity that supports her. I fail to see why everyone else should have to pay for her ridiculous lifestyle.

BigJim's picture

 Who the fuck are the donors? - LetThemEatRand

Who the fuck are YOUR donors, LTER?

You posted your initial 'rebuttal' 4 minutes after Tyler hit the publish button. I can just see you there, in your local Democrat party headquarters, hitting the F5 button repeatedly so you can have some hope of being first to reply and thereby derail the following discussion.

You've had the Libertarian philosophy explained to you a thousand times, and yet you continue to spout the same 'libertarian = corporatist' bullshit.

You're a statist shill. 'Small business' owner? Yeah, your company probably does PR for the TSA. THAT'S how the Mises Institute is fucking you up.

Harlequin001's picture

'History is replete with examples of monarchs killing huge numbers of their 'own' subjects in attempts to steal property from other rulers, or, indeed, the property of their own subjects. - So explain to me how that is the sole prerogative of monarchs? Do you not complain in the US of your foreign wars? How is that any different?

'As for the benevolence of the UK's 'constitutional' monarchy, what the fuck good have they ever done?' - How about 'built the biggest trade empire in the world for one? The Queens influence through the Commonwealth is political clout the US can only dream of, it's the reason the US won't go to war without British consent, and when you do you get your fucking arses kicked. I could go on, but there seems little point...

'Did they, for instance, stop the UK getting involved in WWI?' - this statement is astonishing. Fact is the UK was required to enter WWI due to its mutual defence treaties with its allies. What do you expect the King to do, say sorry chaps, we're not getting involved in this one? That's an American trait, not one normally found in countries which rely on each other for security. It's the reason why Royal families inter-marry, to seal treaties and foment peace. Now what was the US Government's excuse for entering the war?

'The pro-monarchical sentiment expressed here on ZH is just astonishing.' - That's because you're a colonial and never knew it; if you did you'd know it has nothing whatsoever to do with Stockholm Syndrome.

'And no, the Queen isn't a better alternative to the US presidency, because the Brits already have the equivalent of the US president in the form of their Prime Minister.' you might want to go read up on that.

BigJim's picture

 'History is replete with examples of monarchs killing huge numbers of their 'own' subjects in attempts to steal property from other rulers, or, indeed, the property of their own subjects. - So explain to me how that is the sole prerogative of monarchs? Do you not complain in the US of your foreign wars? How is that any different?

That's my point. They ARE no different.

 'As for the benevolence of the UK's 'constitutional' monarchy, what the fuck good have they ever done?' - How about 'built the biggest trade empire in the world for one?

Oh, the monarchy did that, did they? I thought it was a combination of ruthless empirical military expansion, ethnic cleansing, government granted monopolies in the colonies, savvy traders, and relatively free markets (at home, at least) that allowed the industrial revolution to increase productivity. But no, it was those clever, industrous kings and queens!

 The Queens influence through the Commonwealth is political clout the US can only dream of, it's the reason the US won't go to war without British consent, and when you do you get your fucking arses kicked. I could go on, but there seems little point...

The US seeks commonwealth approval for its aggressive wars to give PR cover. And the UK complies, like the little lapdog it is. And the US gets its 'arse kicked' without the Brits? Really? Who saved the UK in WWI and WWII?

 'Did they, for instance, stop the UK getting involved in WWI?' - this statement is astonishing. Fact is the UK was required to enter WWI due to its mutual defence treaties with its allies. What do you expect the King to do, say sorry chaps, we're not getting involved in this one?

LOL, WWI broke the British Empire. If the UK monarchy had genuinely had its "subjects'" interests at heart then 'sorry chaps, we're not getting involved in this one' is exactly what the King should have said. And what right did the UK government have to pledge the lives of millions of young men to defend a bunch of European police states?

This is all a bit of a red-herring anyway because the UK monarchy has had its power increasingly limited since Magna Carta. You either have to agree that they're now pretty much powerless - in which case they're redundant - or they do have some influence, in which case their track record is execrable, and they're not just redundant, but a menace.

Harlequin001's picture

You're joking right?

''History is replete with examples of monarchs killing huge numbers of their 'own' subjects in attempts to steal property from other rulers, or, indeed, the property of their own subjects. - So explain to me how that is the sole prerogative of monarchs? Do you not complain in the US of your foreign wars? How is that any different? That's my point. They ARE no different.' - Well just what IS your point, because it sounds like you were using it to justify no monarchs or to state that monarchs are bad and that you have or that there is something better? If there is what is it? and if there isn't what was the point of the comment? No one ever said they didn't go to war, it was their job, to defend and expand the realm against all comers.

'The US seeks commonwealth approval for its aggressive wars to give PR cover. And the UK complies, like the little lapdog it is.' You can believe that is you want to but it is still English money that owns your industry and gives you your President. You clearly don't remember your Secretary Panetta telling Congress person what-ever-his-name-is that the President makes the decisions, not Congress, and that the President doesn't need Congressional approval to go to war. Maybe not, but I do. As long as English money controls your candidates then the Brits will always have a ready supply of aircraft carriers and willing soldiers to fight for her, and to blame someone else when it doesn't work out.

''As for the benevolence of the UK's 'constitutional' monarchy, what the fuck good have they ever done?' - How about 'built the biggest trade empire in the world for one? Oh, the monarchy did that, did they? I thought it was a combination of ruthless empirical military expansion, ethnic cleansing, government granted monopolies in the colonies, savvy traders, and relatively free markets (at home, at least) that allowed the industrial revolution to increase productivity. But no, it was those clever, industrous kings and queens!' - No, some hairy arsed British naval captain decided one day to go off and just colonize India, Hong Kong and Singapore... Go figure.

'LOL, WWI broke the British Empire. If the UK monarchy had genuinely had its "subjects'" interests at heart then 'sorry chaps, we're not getting involved in this one' is exactly what the King should have said. - either you have no knowledge of European history or you are just plain beligerent. We have the same rules today, it's a mutal defence policy based on communal defence of Europe and the Western hemisphere. It is based on a policy of mutually assured destruction; should anyone else fire its nukes at us then we will fire them back. The policy only works if it believable. The first time you don't show up at the fight is the last time anyone ever believes you, so welching on a mutual defence pact is not an option. The fallout is much worse than the war.

'And what right did the UK government have to pledge the lives of millions of young men to defend a bunch of European police states?' They didn't. They agreed a mutual defence pact with its Allies because that was the geographical defensive buffer between England and the rest of Europe. It has nothing whatsoever to do with police states. At the time many other European countries were also monarchies, looking for support against other eastern European neighbours and Scandinavia.

Who in this world thinks the UK would not go to war in defence of NATO? No one. Why? Because we have a contractual obligation to do so and we have always upheld it. Who in this world would think the UK would not go to war in defence of NATO if the UK had done what you say, and not turned up at any other fight it was obligated to? All of them, and we would be at the constant risk of war because no one would believe we could stand together and fight. This is simple stuff.

Let's not screw around here eh. I have rights that date back to the Magna Carta. They basically give me the freedom to do anything. The English system works on the basis that I can largely do what I please unless a law says that I can't. Other than that I am free. Your system similarly works on a set of rules but they are different. They set out what you can do, unless another law says that you can't. Now you tell me who's free-est. I can leave my country, travel anywhere on the planet and not pay English taxes. You cannot. It matters not where you go you pay US taxes even when you are not under US jurisdiction or protection. Who's free and who's not? 

When all's said and done the monarch, and now subsequently its government sets the rules by which we live our lives, conduct our business and settle our differences. To assume another system is any different or better is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. Do you feel free-er than I do? I doubt it. So I'll keep my Queen thanks, I feel good, I feel free, and I'm happy with it.

and let's face it, we put on a fabulous Royal show don't we, and no one else can do it quite like that...

Clashfan's picture

Stick up for the monarchy and wave that union jack! Unbelievable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWD5Y-TOOyU

Harlequin001's picture

Yes, 1.5 million of 'em in Pall Mall doing exactly that. Yes, unbelievable. Unfuckingbelievable...

That's awesome to you...

The link doesn't work by the way...

Zaydac's picture

""We think she does a better job." What was the last decision that your queen made that made your life better?"

Our Queen has only made one important decision in her entire reign. When she became Queen she decided to uphold the Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She knew that her position would be that of a figurehead or symbol, that it would bring with it no power and very little real influence over the affairs of state, and that it would be a job for life with no prospect of retirement or idleness. But she thought that it was a valuable anchor for the country, a central point which remains fixed while the swirl of politics and economics batters it from all sides, and in that she has been proved right.

One of the pieces broadcast by the BBC during the celebrations was a succession of people answering the question, 'What would you do if you were Queen for a day?' Their answers all demonstrated something which I think is endemic here as much as it is overseas - most people assume that the Queen has power and can "do" things. But she cannot. In a constitutional monarchy there are only two things which the monarch can actually do.

The first is to accept their accession, as our Queen did. 

The second is to disolve Parliament if the constitution is in danger of being breached by the government. If we ever fell into the hands of a wholly corrupt government that sought to abrogate the constitution then the monarch could rely on the loyalty of the armed services and kick the government out and call a general election to form a new government.

Thankfully, althought things have been pretty bad from time to time, they have never been that bad, and I hope that our Queen will never have to take that second action of a constituional monarch.

W T Effington's picture

And this queen of yours will dissolve the very government that pays for her lavish lifestyle? I am calling bullshit on that. She probably doesn't know shit about anything that is going on. Why would she care. She is set up for life. She has no incentive to ruffle any government officials feathers for anything. Your constitution isn't really the law of the land if some dumbstruck queen can wake up one morning and declare that it should be dissolved. What kind of stupid nonsense are you speaking. Trust a monarch to keep in check the very government that empowers her. She cannot do shit and she only gets talked about because apparently the British like to think about the more grandiose times of the British empire that included kings and queens and empire and wealth and little freedom for everyone else including most Britons.

Harlequin001's picture

'She probably doesn't know..' so now you're just making it up...

'What kind of stupid nonsense are you speaking. Trust a monarch to keep in check the very government that empowers her.' -

You might want to go read up on some English history before you embarrass yourself any further...

Zaydac's picture

Yes, if she had to, she would. And she does know what is going on, there is ample evidence of that. It occasionally makes her very cross (for example she speaks most scathingly about the economics profession) but she always maintains the role of constitutional monarch whose job is to provide continuity and, as another poster said, embody the state in her person. And our constitution is not the law of the land. Our constitution is unwritten. It has not been laid down by a law. Read about it. It's almost unique in the world. The Queen cannot dissolve the constitution. What she can do is dissolve parliament. Like all truly great powers it is unlikely to ever be exercised because the mere fact of its existence deters extreme misbehaviour. 

I think the recent celebrations were a very good thing for us, we face very difficult problems in the months ahead and we may be able to face them with greater strength because of what we have just been celebrating. We are not in the unfortunate position of the United States of America where the entire ruling class is rightfully hated and despised. At least we have our figurehead who we respect. 

Harlequin001's picture

And when I watched it, I thought, 'Only the English can do this you know. No one else. The whole world is now watching these images of our Queen and her bodyguard with full battle honours traveling down Pall Mall in absolute awe.'

The Beefeaters and the Yeomen of the Guard, since 1485. That's real history. That's real pride.

There's a reason why the world is insanely jealous of the British, and it's because we're British, and no one can do what we do, like it or not; like churlish children that refuse to like something because they can't have it.

And then I thought of the Fourth of July celebrations and what? Rifle twirling majorettes. No thanks, you can keep your Republics. We like our Queen...

She does a better job.

W T Effington's picture

You both need to go find a room and not make out with each other, yourselves and the union jack in front of everyone else. Its embarrassing. Clearly you two have a lot of your identity and value tied up in the arbitrarily defined geopolitical region you find yourselves. Its really pretty sad how you are grasping for straws and conjuring up false histories and realities to make yourselves feel better about being british. Obviously the british people are happy having their nanny government put cameras on every corner. Apparently most of you all just lay down and lick your masters hand when they want to take more of your freedom. Good luck with all of that.

Harlequin001's picture

You've already made an arse of yourself with this.

'What kind of stupid nonsense are you speaking. Trust a monarch to keep in check the very government that empowers her.' -'.

Shows how much you know about the monarchy. Nothing.

Like a churlish child that refuses to like something because he can't have it. You'll never be British and that's just tough.

Now shut the fuck up and try and retain at least some self respect.

It's clear you know nothing about your subject matter, and I have better things to do, frankly...

Totentänzerlied's picture

Unless you live in a sewer, no one is jealous of your wretched isles. You can keep them, and your queen too, you deserve each other.

Harlequin001's picture

So you would only be jealous if we lived in a sewer eh?

I think we can end this conversation right about here.

theprofromdover's picture

Zaydac-

You are one of the very few who understand what the UK monarch's role is.

and I think the day when she has to take the second action is a lot closer than it used to be.

Harlequin001's picture

Yes, the British are still truly awesome.

It's the best flag in the world by far, and then some...

and we wave it so well...

hangemhigh's picture

 

@HQ001

Yes, the British are still truly awesome............It's the best flag in the world by far, and then some...and we wave it so well...

whoa????…..how many avatars does MDB have…….yesterday he was the transgender papal cross dresser  cosimo de medici telling us that private citizens should be able to have their own nuclear arsenals  and today he’s got his clown suit on doing the tory lickspittle thing and pimping fairy tales about a dissolute mercantilist monarchy that invented the global drug trade…….…….

hangemhigh's picture

@HQ001

 

WTF are you taking about?.........................

shape shifting fight club, dude......east india company....wogs..india....china..opium wars....real, factual, mercantilist history..not some not some sanitized/revised/redacted fairy tale.... 

Harlequin001's picture

Nope, still not getting it.

English dude, English...

hangemhigh's picture

@HQ001

Nope, still not getting it......English dude, English...

We are all taught to belive in fictionalized histories that have little truth as content.  we merkins have been taught to believe that god is always on our side and no matter what we do the bottom line is about freedom,  truth and justice.  

that meme may have had traction in some other time frame but, given what  has happened recently, it sure rings hollow now.

same with british history.......specifically the reference was to the east india company (EIC) which, in the colonies, used slave labor to produce goods for trade.  on the asian sub continent, the EIC began smuggling opium from india into china as a  profit center intended to balance the crown's trade deficit with the chinese which arose from purchases of tea for export to Britain

china resisted.....the opium had a devastating effect on the population........the english sent warships to attack chinese coatal cities......the chinese, with no modern weapos, were forced to submit.  the opium trade, and the cash flows associated with that illicit traffic continued ............that was the first historical instance of a globalized drug trade..... 

Read more: Opium Wars — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0836734.html#ixzz1x8Q3QjVo   

Harlequin001's picture

I never said it was perfect, but then it doesn't need to be.

Fact is you speak my language because of a monarch, not a Republic or any other form of government, and that alone enables you to trade now with the rest of the world.

Never forget that.

Hugh G Rection's picture

Try readomg Deuteronomy and Leviticus.  If you're feeling real brave, read the Talmud, Kabbalah, and Zohar.

 

DIE GOY PIGS!

piceridu's picture

I'm one, for the last 12 years...along with thousands of other individuals and companies that cherish liberty...your song is getting so fucking old. Please change the channel.

Nukular Freedum's picture

Representative democracy doesnt seem to work anywhere, so I dont know why anyone would pick on Britain in this regard. Generally speaking representatives simply follow their own self serving elitist agendas.
Even genuine plebiscite democracy doesnt seem to work too well in practice. Read Thucydides book six (the Syracusan expedition) if you doubt me. But hey, no problem, it may not work but at least its the least bad alternative on offer right? Uhm, no:

http://pearlsforswine.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/how-to-get-rid-of-democracy/

Sean7k's picture

Great point and I'm surprised by their reactions here as well. It's a pissing contest over the benevolence of tyrants. ALL governments are a small minority of parasites that consume the wealth of the majority. The Bristish do a nice job with the pomp and circumstance, they can even rehabilitate a Charles and Camilla. 

The choice is government and slavery or liberty and responsibility. As clear as the choice seems, most people still believe they need a government of slavers. 

Most humans want to leave the important decisions to the wisdom of another and unfortunately, they pay for it in spades. 

dognamedabu's picture

Me. I donated just now to help them educate ignorant fools like you. 

Talleyrand's picture

I am...have been for years.

ZDRuX's picture

Still having explained how they're fucking you.

Go on.. we're waiting.

Spacemoose's picture

i appreciate your very erudite rebuttal to each of the author's points.

LetThemEatRand's picture

He gets multiple posts here each week.   I don't give a fuck what his points are.  I want to know who his sponors are.  If he is honest about that, I will consider his points.