This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: God Don't Save The Queen
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.
»
- 13978 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
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.
you sleep with a lot of guilt. Get a job.
I have a job. Mises Institute's job is fucking me, a small business.
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.
Sheep. Who are their donors?
No wonder PUBLIC schools don't teach the Bible:
1 Samuel 8
Warning concerning a King10 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.”
Who are their fucking donors.
I got this far' Monarchies are supposed to be antithetical to freedom. '
and realised all after was bollocks...
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?
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...
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.
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?
'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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
'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.
'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.
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...
Stick up for the monarchy and wave that union jack! Unbelievable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWD5Y-TOOyU
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...
""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.
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.
'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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
So you would only be jealous if we lived in a sewer eh?
I think we can end this conversation right about here.
.
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.
Spot on Harlequin!
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...
@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…….…….
WTF are you taking about?
@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....
Nope, still not getting it.
English dude, English...
@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
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.
Try readomg Deuteronomy and Leviticus. If you're feeling real brave, read the Talmud, Kabbalah, and Zohar.
DIE GOY PIGS!
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.
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/
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.
Me. I donated just now to help them educate ignorant fools like you.
I am...have been for years.
Still having explained how they're fucking you.
Go on.. we're waiting.
i appreciate your very erudite rebuttal to each of the author's points.
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.
well, each to his own, but personally i try to consider an argument on its merits.
Would someone fucking tell me who contributes to the Von Mises Institute of Canada? What is it .. a fucking oligarch state secret?!!
you claim "he gets multiple post here each week"
links for the past 4 weeks please?
June 2: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-canada-oil-sands-and-precautionary-principle
June 5: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-americas-do-i-say-not-i-do-warfare
May 12: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-alan-greenspan-asked-advice-do-people-ever-learn
April 24: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-charles-krauthammer-mourns-over-nasa-cuts-i-celebrate
April 19: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-meet-man-bankrupting-eurozone-and-maybe-rest-world
May 16: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-president-obama-view-and-false-notion-too-big-fail
April 22: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-ss-agents-and-prostitutes-another-case-worst-rising-top
May 8: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-yemen-underwear-bomb-and-other-hobgoblins
May 25: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-taxpayer-funded-pr-campaign-obamacare-begins
May 23: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-unemployment-insurance-schemes-and-dependency-welfare
April 12: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-%E2%80%9Cdigital-future%E2%80%9D-just-another-phrase-keeping-track-serfs
so 11 in 2 months that I found using the Mises Institute and Ludwig von Mises tags. Would be nice if the articles were sorted chronologically and you could see author without opening each article.
Could you provide a single contributor to ZH that has posted a list of donors?
If you are interested, then call them and find out. Please post your results. Otherwise, could you respond to the argument and quit filling the thread with this crap?
I used to think tjat the argument mattered more than the person advancing it, until I learned that I am nowehere near as clever as my enemies and I am perfectly capable of being hoodwinked by a silver tongue and a carefully chosen dataset. Obama taught me that. Nowadays I like to know who stands in the shadows behind the curtain before I take anything I read at face value.
I don't even trust the Tylers any longer. I just can't reconcile some of what they say with other things they say.
"I don't even trust the Tylers any longer. I just can't reconcile some of what they say with other things they say. "
That's because they are a group of individuals and not the borg-collective.
Incidently, this article is ignorant crap !
Zaydac,
I'm with you completely... same position. But I've since learned that scepticism at every turn is also reasonable and worthwhile, so I don't feel lost, on the contrary, I feel liberated from false faith in misleading disinformation. Any uncritical thinking is not thinking at all, so why bother? Good luck finding the truth, sincerely. :-)
Who cares? I certainly don't. I care about the content of the article not the donors to the organization.
CUNT! Share some of your wealth with the starving babies in Africa why don't you?
Most people, normal people. Will do just about anything to avoid a fight.
Would you fucking tell me who are the top 20 donors to the fucking Von Mises Fucking Asswipe Institute?!
I'll help:
Shell Oil
Haliburton
Rand Corporation
Dow Chemical
Lockheed Martin
etc.
Well that same cast of characters sponsor Democrats, PBS, Republicans, Neo-Cons...now the Libertarians too? What the hell else is left for me to adopt as my political ideology LTER? Anarchism? Perhaps I'll give that a whirl...
If you are going to throw your punch in favor of something, know it.
Von Mises is Corporatist.
Given that they are completely opposed to any kind of government support or involvement in the business sector, that appears to be a complete lie on your part.
And don't say that their hatred of government regulation is a ploy to let corporations take over the world; we have shit tons of regulations today and what has happened to corporations? They've taken over the world.
People like you have gotten everything you've ever wanted: a government big enough to fuck over the richest of the rich. But you forgot that a government big enough to fuck over the richest of the rich is also big enough to fuck you over in favor of the richest of the rich. Instead of learning from this mistake, you whine and demand that the government have more power.
"This time will be different! I just know it!"
Maybe someday when you realize that the government is the weapon that the corporations use to keep us in line, you'll stop trying to make the weapon bigger? Because right now you've managed to build it up into a nuclear missile, and it's about to blow up the world. Just a thought.
Just give me the list of their top 20 donors.
No idea. If you find out, let us know.
For the record, though, LVMI despises the Koch brothers (and the Koch brothers despise them) ever since Cato chased out Murray Rothbard in order to cozy up to the statist Republican demographic.
Who the fuck are the donors?
I looked but I wasn't able to find anything. Does it really matter?
STFU you demanding shithead!
figure it out for yourself if it's so damned imprtant to ya!
you are tolling up string after string tonite
so, chill! you are gonna make yerself sick just posting the same question 20 times
the article sux, ok? too bad you aren't capable of understanding why or engaging the zH dialogue in a more adult way
but you're not... no one here tonight would doubt slewie on that one, so congrats, toy-boy, you wore the lampshade and showed yer ass, too? nowSTFU!
Who the fuck are the donors?
Who the fuck are YOUR donors, LetThemEatRand?
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.
Yes, we all have and it continues to be just as flawed as before. Weird how all those 'grass roots' libertarian movements always get somehow 'hijacked' by corporate interests isn't it?
Libertarian philosophy somehow always relapses into sucking Koch.
If a libertarian 'movement' gets hijacked by corporatists, then by definition it's no longer libertarian, is it?
Libertarianism is wishful thinking. It's like a college student born to a wealthy industrialist going around telling people he is an 'anarchist' while reaping all the rewards of a privileged existence. You're joint at the hip with corporatists whether you choose to admit this or not.
Move on from juvenile fantasies man.
Socialism is wishful thinking. It's like a college student born to a wealthy industrialist going around telling people he is an 'anarchist' while reaping all the rewards of a privileged existence. You're joint [sic] at the hip with corporatists whether you choose to admit this or not.
Move on from juvenile fantasies man.
The entire lefty debate against Libertarianism is based upon an unproven theory. that less Government means run away corporate wealth. The simple fact is no one knows exactly what will happen with way less Government except this one thing....THE LIES WILL BE MUCH MUCH SMALLER WITH LESS GOVERNMENT (and transparency) it's a simple calculation, hard to have huge lies when the body of pwoer isn't that huge! I will do anything to get to that point, anything!
If the only values you have are priced in dollars how much for your daughter? why let morality get in the way of a free market.
Are you insinuating that government IS moral? If so, tell that to 500.000 Iraqi children.
A free market has no morals is my insinuation, Govt morals are simply an expression of its peoples morals unless the peoples will is not represented by the govt..............
Any govt will do whatever its citizens let it, if its as bad as you say do something, if you cant bring yourself to try and work within the system then go outside it, learn to live without its support, is the material wealth and security the system provides you with worth your support ?
I was trying to make light of how corrupted and conscripted most things are, we need a renaissance.
Give us a break, you hate everyone. I am not sure why your life sucks so badly but I hope it gets better. You talk a lot but rarely say anything. I don't know much about the Von Mises organization in Cananda, but if it is anything like Ludwig the man, or the Mises intstitute in Alabama then they are most definitely not corporatist. But, again, thanks for not addressing anything the author says and lazily/dishonestly creating a straw man to beat up on.
Given you conviction, you must know the donors. List. Please.....
Maybe you should type "corporation" "corporatism" and other such words into the search feature on their site and read what they really think of corporatism.
Start here. Read for a few weeks instead of a few minutes, and you might be surprised:
http://www.mises.ca/posts/articles/corporatism-then-and-now/
Attend an LVMI event sometime, and try to defend corporations and see how long you last. I dare you.
Perhaps there are no donors? Perhaps this man is self made or a volunteer? It seems as though you have come across some information about the Von Mises insititute of Cananda that would make you wary. You should warn us and communicate to us these valuable insights you have come across if 'truth' and the communication of 'truth' is your goal.
LOL, nicely played!
LTER has no valuable insights. She's a government shill.
You're not just an asshole, LTER, you're an idiot, as large corporations about as likely to donate to the LVMI as public unions are.
You see, LVMI is pro-market not pro-business, rightly decrying the Big Business / Big Government nexus otherwise known as the crony capitalism of the corporate state.
Show me an article on LVMI that disproves this claim, and I will admit to having been duped all these years. Until then, please do us all a favor and STFU.
I don't know about the Canadian version...
STFU! I heard you the first time you posted. And we don't care.
What is a concern is the content of the article.
We have a winner.
Welcome home pilgrim.
Can you get to your point already?
Source?
Please provide a source.
Total lie. There is no way in the world that Lockheed Martin, which is completely reliant on MIC money and all kinds of other government contracting, is a top donor to Von Mises. That is a total lie. Is this your last desperate attempt to not wake up? Are you going to just go ahead and vote for Obama again?
Worthless SWPL said: CUNT! Share some of your wealth with the starving babies in Africa why don't you?
Why on Earth would you want to do something like that? Can't find someone having problems right here in N. America? I'm sure you could even find a Negro having trouble, and get your picture taken giving them a 20. Fucking cunt.
If your medical findings were based on Mengele's research, would that automatically invalidiate them?
Medicine is a science, and is subject to the scientific method.
politics, economics, and ideaology is not science.
Besides, if you listed Mengele as a co-author on your medical research, I think you might have problems getting published.
Matt, suppose you live in a small town in Paraguay and you're off playing football or whatever and you break your arm. The doctor you usually go to is out of town and Dr. Mengele lives just down the block and is walking past and offers to help are you going to ask if any medical researchers out there are still quoting his research?
I would go to the airport and fly home with the broken arm, rather than have unscientific experiments performed on me by a madman.
How can an experiment possibly be 'unscientific'?
Lebensphilosoph: " How can an experiment possibly be 'unscientific'?"
By not following the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Do you even know who Dr Mengele is, and what he did? If you just go around cutting people up and giving them random substances without writing down notes or measuring how much you are dosing people, it is an unscientific experiment.
Medicine purports to be a science, but it is till run by a priesthood.
Any good doctor will tell you that medicine is an art that uses scientific method as ONE of its tools-- an important lesson for aspiring economists.
If medicine is science, then science is hokum. Medical science is a history filled with experiments based on bad assumptions and only changed when the people died or lost use of parts of their bodies. Medicine is worse than economics.
By the way, the scientific method is just as reliable and practiced by serious economists as for other science disciplines. If you took the time to educate yourself, you would know this. Just as medicine has its' snake oil salesman and Monsantos and Tabacco companiy shills, the economists have Keynsians and monetarists and Marxists.
Scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others. The scientific community's pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility diminishes the effects of cognitive biases.
How, exactly, can we perfectly reproduce, in a controlled environment, Quantitative Easing to determine, scientifically, exactly what effect it will have under any given circumstances?
Oh I see all other schools of thought except the one you subscribe to are snake oil salesmen (heretics). This is starting to sound more like religion than science. What school are you an acolyte of?
Then please explain how the medial community gets it wrong in so many ways? How Monsanto can get approval without peer review based on their data, how the scientists working for the Tabacco companies could lie for so long.
You act as if a definition is all that matters when examining the workings of the different sciences. You act as if there aren't whores and prostitutes in every profession. That Harvard wouldn't conduct a study that exonerated sugar after it received funding for a new building from the sugar industry.
You have an economy that has pre-qe environment and one that exists after. You cannot measure the results after isolating other possible effects? More important, does not science conduct studies everyday that fail to consider all the possible effects. Which then move on to test other possible theories to finally reduce the vagaries of chance?
Economists work on studies, just as every profession does. Some begin with faulty assumptions (Keynes, etc) and their work demonstrates this. However, others are more serious in their search for answers (see the Austrian school) and provide very good explanations.
The economists I singled out have all had their theories disproved. Just as a modern doctor would respond to a snake oil salesman. If you read more, you would know this. Just because a theory, that benefits the banking Elites, is used, does not mean it is the best theory.
The Austrian theory on the business cycle is classic and enduring. As well as money, credit and interest. Don't take my word for it, read a book. www.mises.org.
If it cannot be isolated and reproduced independantly by peers, it is not science.
If someone does something unscientific, like lie about the effects of smoking cigarettes, they are not acting scientifically. Yes, I understand the world is full of corrupt people who do unscientific things and claim it is science; further up the thread we have people asking how Dr Mengele's medical experiments could be unscientific, and with green arrows at that.
In order for it to be science, the exact steps taken must be written down and published, and anyone must be able to follow the exact same steps and get the exact same result. If a different outcome occurs, there must be an explanation for what variation caused the different outcome.
Saying that you have an economy before the quantitative easing and one after, and therefore you can measure the impact of the QE, is not scientific. If the QE was the only variable, sure, but you have to eliminate every single other variable, define exactly how much quantitative easing has exactly what effect, and then someone else has to be able to reproduce that independantly for it to be science.
Well. you have excluded the majority of "science'. As for medical science, since every human is different, then how can you call these experiments science? I guess you are the new science tyrant. Let me know how your utopia works out.
Every human has different organs in different places that do different functions. Right.
What you are talking about is variables that have not been isolated yet. If you isolate all the variables and you can explain how different values for variable X affects treatment, and someone else can recreate the experiment and get the same result, presto!
There is a lot of work being done on custom concoctions made for a specific person.
This isn't my creation. Read a dictionary, under the word "science" and as previously listed, Scientific Method. I didn't make these terms up.
I agree.. the crap being posted by Mises is a disgrace... just seeing it on ZH irks me. I too would like to see who their backers are.. but I can guess.. extreme right wingers.
I've got no problem with idiotic naval gazing.. but why guest post it here...? Tyyyyler!
Amazing analysis of the ideas in this article. Thanks again for all you contribute!!!
*gasp* Not individual freedom!
Thank god you warned us about these dangerous fruitcakes and their dedication to cooperative non-violence. I mean, how are giant, multinational corporations supposed to build their mega-empires without the soul-crushing weight of state power and its regulatory capture schemes backing them up every step of the way??
Thanks for sticking up for the crony capitalists when no one else will, LTER. I knew you had it in you.
Corporations are people too!
Should corporations donate to the statists who want to enslave them? What's your point?
God Damn The Queen
The Queen has ZERO power, she's just a head of state figurehead. What's the problem with that? Rather the Queen than Obama or Romney thanks.
Suppose she has ZERO power, she's been born into a position of reverence and privilege and she has a captive audience with a rather large megaphone...and yet...after SIXTY years she hasn't found it within herself to speak the truth or stand up ONCE for her so called people? Her subjects hahaha
WTF are you talking about..? Did you wonder off your meds?
You clearly have a profound lack of understanding about the role of the monarchy within the UK, and the broarder commonwealth. But thanks for your contribution...
Hey dickhead if Peter Tosh and John Lennon can stand up and speak out against oppression the Queen can!
The fact that she hasn't makes her infinately more complicit as all she'd have to do is speak out just once...imagine the difference that could make?
the meds; I'm alert and I'm alive and speak out every chance I get about the corruption, violence and general shit that is going down, and the queen doesn't have to once in your mind? Because of your understanding about the role of the monarchy within the UK, and the broader commenweath?
Well whoop-dee fucking doo, who the fuck are you again to be telling me about the role of the monarchy when you can't even understand human decency? A decent normal person would speak up its called stepping up to the plate. The fact she and her ancestors doesn't should tell you something.
uh-huh... and then people will say "She said this is no good, why doesn't she do something." .. OH SHE HAS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY!
The monarchy 'dickhead' does not involve itself in political discourse, and hasn't done for decades. That is the role of the ELECTED AND ADMINISTRATIVE ARMS OF GOVERNMENT.
"Stepping up to the plate", is the typical useless american idea that saying something and walking away somehow gives a moral high ground, even though it is a total cop out. Celebrities and dead musicians can pontificate all they like. It is not the role of the monarchy in the UK.
Just look at the US 'Declaration of independence' if you need a reference point for the value of hollow talk....
OK she has no authority, its like reality tv then I take it. Get a bunch of inbred poofters stick them in palatial estates give them some port and make them ceremonial figureheads of my country?
Sorry if that sounds completely and utterly mad to me and that anybody who would buy into that as being brainwashed beyond all hope.
Whatever floats your boat, it is what it is. She's less dangerous than a president, and costs less to keep fed and clothed... oh.. and lets not forget the magna cata. Americans always seem to forget that they didn't invent freedom, it was handed to them by the UK....
Of course, you could get a bunch of men who have just butchered thousands of their own countrymen, torn their country apart and contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent women and children, and get them to right a treaty about freedom, liberty, and happy smirfs.
Power is dirty. The Queen has none, and that suits the Brits just fine...
I think your queen should be selected on the basis of a swimsuit competition.
if she's gonna be a powerless tart that costs a lot of money to keep...she might as well be easy on the eye.
Not a bad idea....
Something like a young Marianne Faithfull would be just perfect (like when she was shooting dope and hanging out with Mick Jagger).
Just the right balance of slutty and classy.
yeah...that's the ticket.
But this crusty old broad you guys got now...seriously...what the fuck? You all need a Queen that teenage boys wanna bone. Give them a reason to volunteer for military service.
Charlotte Church?.. Classy chav...Nice voice.. Great bangers.. Loves a drink and is bound to go over for the boys..
you are nutso, dude
i don't know what a real smart dude like you will think of slewie's simple definition of power: the ability to get somebody else to do what you want them to do
if you don't yer queenie's got that shit, you are a moronic brainwashed sychopantic asswipe where:
sychophant = a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite; an obsequious flatterer; apple-polishing ass kissing ass licking bootlicker brown nosing crawler fawning flunky ... {end paste? L0L!!!] and yer styooopid, too!
I always did think that Slewie the Pi-rat was one of those crass Yankee redneck idiots that causes so much damage around the world and now I am certain. I think he is probably one of those jerks who puts up the sort of sign I have seen while driving past American trailer parks in the South: "Praying is a good way to meet God. Trespassing is quicker" - you know the sort of thing. Ad hominem attack? You bet.
Here's the bit that isn't ad hominem. Of course our Queen has no power, I explained that in my post above. The extraordinary thing is that so many people think that she is powerful. You have to be an idiot to think that she is powerful (oops, here I go again with the ad hominem).
You just know he voted Bush... Twice ;P
"and lets not forget the magna carta"
Is that the first edition with the verbage about overruling the king or the one we all know now?
The only reason the Magna Carta even obtains is that the barons stood up against that stupid fuck, John.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKpP8_uKXDY
What then, pray tell, is the role of the monarchy in the UK (other than, perhaps, to spend large sums of money on parties)?
Your government is just as useless as any other AND you have lame figureheads who think they are possessed of sovereignty granted by God. In other words, you are an apologist for and worshipper of a very long line of insane, inbred morons.
to be the satanic figureheads for the Rothschilds
You are dismayed by other's ignorance of the monarchy, yet you are just as ignorant of the Declaration of Independence. This document was written by British Citizens (And Merchantilits at that) which were being deprived of their constitutional rights under the Monarchy.
You have swallowed the same disinformation that has been taught in all American schools from the beginning. It is not a document for universal freedom and natural rights for all men. It is written to defend the rights of landowners and business owners- the ones allowed to vote- whom as good tories, were being abused of their representation in parliment.
I think the word is 'wander' not 'wonder'. But good try.
Don't think too hard.
Any other witty spelling mistakes you've come across? I surely appreciate the input.
I guess spelling makes some of us think harder than others. Sorry if you are not gifted with thinking very hard. I like how your name rymes, thats really neat!!
You make some good points, but the spelling nazi is not one of them. Try rhymes.
I want to be paid for sitting on me arse all day and raising a dysfunctional family in a state provided house on a 6 million quid welfare check from state.
We have two young heirs to the throne, one is thick as pigshit and the smart one (the redhead) is the offspring of a rugby player and diana.
Inbreeeding is bad for the gene pool our royal family is proof.
Its kinda hard to condemn the USA's system of governance while living under a monarchy but i do try.........................
43 out of 44 Presidents of the United States are descended from King John of England. This is either:
1) quite an amazing coincidence, like winning the lottery ten times in a row
or
2) a sign that the candidates are selected based on their heritage
Every person on Earth is descended from either of two women in Africa. What's your point?
Do you understand probability at all? If what you said is true, there is a 50/50 chance that the president is descended from one or the other woman along the female line, and a very high probability he would be descended from both.
What percentage of all the citizens in the United States are descended from King John? What is the probability that every single person selected through a democratic nomination system would be all from this one specific bloodline?
My point is that it is highly probable that Presidential candidates are vetted based on bloodlines.
Do you understand citations for ridiculous claims?
Why would they vet presidential candidates based on a bloodline to King John?
I think you're a better science tyrant.
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmKO8b0sF8
43 out of 44 Presidents of the United States are descended from King John of England.
Yes, and most of them inherited his 'leadership' qualities too.
seems like a rather expensive extravagance for a figurehead with no power.
why not make George Michael your Queen? At least he can sing and earn a living.
He's got lots of experience, too. My understanding is that he's been a queen all his life.
The Queen actually has a VERY large amount of political power, she just chooses not to use it very often. For instance, in Canada (and I assume is similar in every Commonwealth country), any law passed must have ROYAL approval. Laws are rubber stamped by the Governor Generals and Luetenant Governors (her representatives), and she also has the power to accept/not accept a government (see Stephen Harper getting her minions to reject a coalition government). New Canadians also swear an Oath to her at the citizenship ceremony, not Canada.
She also owns all of the mineral wealth in Australia. But what you wrote pretty much says it all about Canada.
Why the fuss about the Queen? Who. Cares. In another 30 years the muslim majority will be sawing the head off her replacement. Now that, I'd turn out for.
Yes, her representative here (aka the Governor General) must sign all legislation before it becomes law. Mainly a formality but it is there to keep a check on the power of the Government. Good thing too!
Queen you say?
Thus additionally, and finally, one, two she keeps her Moet Chandon, in a pretty cabinet....
The Queen is the head of the one of the ruling families of the Illuminati Oligarchy that runs the planet right now and has a seat at the table for making the decisions that effect all of us. (Yes unfortunatly most of our democracies are just for show.) She certainly does have political power, it's just that fact is hidden from the public.
As for how I feel about that, Sic Semper Tyrannis!