This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.
»
- 13977 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
1) That's not true. The queen suspended parliament in Canada as late as 2008.
2) You don't have a problem with a family stealing millions from the citizens, and getting millions more in subsidies, just because they're born "royalty"?
If it were up to me, all these monarch would be hanged on the parliament front lawn and their supporters put in prison.
Monarchs, by definition, are against the people and only there for their own interest.
May God cut the Queen's head.
All those slaves groveling to the monarchy are just pathetic human beings.
It certainly is a good thing it is not up to you to run around murdering and imprisoning people purely for ideaological reasons.
Amerika, f*ck yeah!
Your right, I feel so much safer that we live in a democracy(which should be a republic) where the president or the majority of voters can run around and murder people on their own whims. Thanks goodness those troops and military contractors keep us so free. just thinking of someone who doesn't love our military and government as much as I do makes me sick to my stomach. They don't deserve any of things that were given to them with the money that was stolen by our glorious government. I don't know about all of you, but I chose to be born American, because we are clearly the most awesome human beings walking the face of the earth. Exceptionalism!!!!!!! F$*@ Yea!!!
Hey mate,
Hate to be a nag, but I got terribly confused with the opening "Your". Spun the context of the whole post around. I think "You're" was the word you were scratching around for.
Where you wrote "democracy(which should be a republic)". I think the correct punctuation you were looking for was "democracy (which should be a republic)"
Also, convention would suggest you use a capital 'J' in ". Just".
Hope that helps, always keen to return a favour ;)
Thanks man, I appreciate that. I took too many creative writing classes that emphasized literary and punctuational freedom. But I guess you already know all about that. Thanks again for all of your contributions to the ideas on this blog. There is nothing better than a "this guy is an idiot" or a "fuck all Austrian economists" every once and a while to get the real brain juices flowing. Challenging our thinking is what you are best at and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
lolmao500 must be an American. That's their schtick! They do that as a matter of course nowadays. Can you imagine the Queen sitting down watching a video feed of her troops killing an unarmed suspect. Or ordering drone strikes in foreign countries. Never happen. For all her faults she is not a cold blooded murderer.
Exactly how do you think the royal family became a royal family?
By murdering all the other claimants to the throne.
Jeez how stiupid are you today, what do you think happened? do you seriously think god appointed the house of windsor to rule over his green and pleasent land.
Read some fucking history dude.
EDIT: reading your comment agian..........my apologies if you were being Sarcastic, I've not had my morning run today so am not yet truly awake.
The fact remains she waas born into that family and position. She hasn't killed anyone or ordered their killing. Unlike the US president.
You are aware our armed forces still swear loyalty to the queen right?
Last week i bumped into a friends son returning from his TA* training, he asked me why we could'nt just get rid of the politicians and put the queen in charge, this is a 22 yr old male who is trained for combat.
*reservist
Ditto Presidents, Senators and Congressmen
By definition, is it? Why don't you give us that definition then? Yes, let us hang the queen as opposed to the parliamentary bourgeoisie, why don't we. In any case, monarchs are traditionally beheaded, not hanged as criminals are.
Very well stated.
I think the OP is over-dramatising. The "God Save the Queen" thing is just a bit of tradition.
The jubilee celebrations were just an excuse for a bit of a party.
Everyone I know here in the UK views the monarchy as a quaint tradition and a source of celebrity gossip.
Yes, they're really rich and powerful, but the UK people's "loyalty" to the monarchy is loose at best.
People forget that the royal fam bringz in mucho tourism dollars, and thereby creates jobs & economic activity for many
Gotta count for sumthin'..
*shrug*
Really, where is your data to support that, oh thats right there isnt any, good luck finding out how much wealth the queen has coz thats a state secret, we are taxed to pay for her and her family, they are the biggest scroungers on the welfare state.
But she is a german and her genes are superior to ours and she is gods representative in england so i guess we get what we deserve.
Sheeple needz their bread and circuses......
A down arrow for that?
Then you'll hate this, there are just over half a million people living in my county in england, 10 of those people own 17% of all land in that county, these ten people all have the word 'lord' in front of their name.
That is the trouble with the peasantry. They breed like rabbits and pretty soon there are too many of them.
So what? Their ancestors won it fair and square for them by outsmarting or outfighting yours.
So it would be fair game to wipe them out for the sake of my future generations, right?
First we start of with the Paretto principal, which shows that if we evenly distributed all the land, within X amount of time, about 20 percent of the people would own 80 percent of the land, regardless of the social, economic or political system in place.
Next, take into account that poor people tend to have lots of children, while rich people tend to reproduce at a rate close to replacement.
Given a long enough timeline, property and power will inevitably become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
The only solution I can see is that every 50 years, we forgive all debts, reset the money supply, strip away all amendments and precedents going back to a bare constituion only, and redistribute all property evenly. That, or just accept the concentration of wealth.
so do teenage Thai hookers...but I don't see their faces plastered on the nations currency.
I think you just solved the currency problem.
Let's see here...
Old Europe finally dies off.
Queen passes on in time.
King William? Sure.
This article totally overlooks English history such as the War of Roses etc.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. How is the War of the Roses relevant?
Do you think that all of the United Kingdom will go into a succession war in this day and age?
Not to mention Mad Max.
Mr. Miller, your attempt at historical interpretation is nothing but dogmatic and doctrinaire political economy. Like most modern thinkers, you have no respect for fact or nuance and insist on cramming all of history into your narrow and dogmatic view of the world. You do not understand the nature of monarchy, the relationship of monarchy to the rise of the modern nation-state, and the emergence of various classes in European monarchy.
Let me be clear about 2 points: 1) The "compulsary public education" that you decry was the product of Napoleonic France-- a decidely populist institution: informed by "liberal" (i.e. libertarian) thinking. 2) The nation-state was not a product of the monarchy at all and is, in fact, anti-thetical to monarchy. Nation-states are the product of democratic "self-determination:" a policy that 19th-century liberals (i.e. libertarians) insisted upon.
It seems that compulsory education on a national level actually goes back to 15th century Scotland, which was a kingdom at the time.
See point 2.
ok compulsory education at the Country level goes back to 15th century Scotland. The problem is that your term for nation refers specifically to things like republics, while countries in general are also called nations. like the united nations, which is actually the united nations, kingdoms, empires, hegemonies, etc etc etc but most people just call it the United Nations and refer to countries as nations.
not so much a kingdom, unfortunately, by that time, as an outpost of transplanted templars...diaspora of the new temple moneychangers what came back corrupted from the crusades by the simonists and infected the isles with the satanist heritage which still plague them today in the form of pedophilic freemason cults...aka, the whole phreakin power structure!
Thank you for a voice of reason.
Your comment is brilliant.
The Canadian paper - the National Post (called by the New York Times, Canada's cheeky conservative news paper) has an excellent article in it today by Kelly McParland which talks about removing the monarchy, akin to erasing the national memory of a nation (link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/kelly-mcparland-no-the-qu... ).
I'm starting to change my views of the von Mises Institute and am starting to see it for what it really is - a shoebox startup with a sexy, but deceiving name.
" They remain prepared to make the sacrifice of life and property to those who would never do the same."
Both the Princes served, Prince Harry even in Afghanistan until some reporter published a story about it, and he was removed not only for his safety, but the safety of those serving with him, as his (publicly known) precense would greatly endanger all of them.
Using the example of one position-abusing, power mad judge as a sweeping generalization against every person in a position of authority, eh?
Seems to me this James E. Miller likes to post things that are something a bit more than just pure libertarian/austrian thinking.
You gotta train the royal gingers to kill somehow. Wasn't this boy's uncle in the falklands, until his regiment was "endangered" as well?
History doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
Watching those weak minded fools adore her just makes me want to puke. All that pomp and circumstance for what? Is it supposed to be some magical enchanted fairy tale kingdom ? What a bunch of idiots. They remind me of the people who worshipped Obummer the demi god when he was elected. You knew we were fucked when that many people put that kind of faith in a man.
There's no practical difference between dictatorship and democracy.
- both are based on power
- both rely on force to control the population
- both will seek colonial expansion by force when things get bad at home
- in the end, if the economy is mismanaged and ordinary people have to look into the eyes of their hungry children, both will be toppled.
Given there is no difference, I would rather have a dictatorship. Why? Its more efficient and therefore cheaper.
You are free to move to North Korea at anytime.
Give it time.
Thankyou Fox News watcher for your incredible input. What would the world of ideas and debate do without you?
So you think that if someone prefers to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, they should just subvert other countries, instead of just moving to a place where they can experience their ideals first hand without the violant overthrow?
Matt, I believe you have missed his point all together. Simply because a man equates monarchy (Tyranny of One) to Democracy (Tyranny of the Majority) does not in any way imply that he is in favor of dictatorship. In fact, he frowns upon Monarchy, which is dictatorship. So, you are encouraging him to go to North Korea, which has a monarchy/dictatorship when the man himself says he hates that very thing. Your comment was nonsensical at best.
Well unfortunately, he has to choose between living in a democratic republic, a parlimentary democracy, or a totalitarian state. That pretty much sums up his choices, whether he likes it or not. Unless he moves to an uninhabited place and makes his own country, like Sealand or something, then he can have a nation under whatever ideals he chooses.
Simply because a government calls itself a democratic republic of a parliamentary democracy does in any way mean that they operate in such manners. So our choices are not necessarily the choices that our rulers would like to present because there ends up not being much of a difference. Revolution is the potential remedy to tyranny operating under the guise of any of these titles. REVOLUTION is obviously very dependent upon the ideas that it is based upon. Most revolutions are simply a transfer of central power from one group to another. Real revolutions introduce a new ideas/old ideas again. A revolution of ideas is the lasting kind. I choose freedom for myself and everyone else. The founders had north america, but because we do not have a land to run off to and create this fee society in we must create it where we are. So fucking stop telling people to leave because this is as good as any a spot to revolt through the spreading of the ideals of freedom. "The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
All you had to say was "yes, I support the goal of a violent overthrow of government."
If you can point me to a democracy I'll show you the difference. Now if you want to talk about a representative republic, that's another story.
Could you imagine an entire country trying to run via basically a very large and extended version of this forum (the comments section of zerohedge)? I suspect that it would be a madhouse. Direct Democracy works great at the town hall level, but I believe that it doesn't scale well.
ZH commentators ruling a country would be a worthwhile experiment, I think it would work out very well...comparitively.
It drives me batty when people refer to us as a democracy. I had to straighten a political science professor out a couple days ago. He grudginly gave in as we walked through the differences between a democracy , a democratic republic, and a representative republic. It irratated me knowing he's" educating "the kids.
A man of conviction. Your typical US citizen. Attrition works.
A political science professor unable to debunk the conundrumf representative republic.
If indeed this professor fails at such a low level...
It would be a valuable and worthwhile experiment. If you haven't noticed, we have complete and total free speech. We are not forced to agree with the majority of opinion. There is no State to coerce us and force us to believe. We are free and encouraged to seek out alternative explanations and new ideas.
If you read long enough, the thoroughness of the discussion exposes the weaknesses in many arguments and allows us to see the benefit of one idea over another. This is similar to a small community that discusses the problems that beset it and whether it is beneficial to intervene.
It allows for the outlier to never submit to inclusion.
This is a form of liberty. Feeling threatened? Or are you just disappointed that you are not capable of policing other's viewpoints and forcing them to adopt yours?
How would laws get passed, if not by vote of the majority?
How can you have an Anarchist legal system?
still you got to give her props for swatting Michelles hand off her shoulder
Living in the uk as a british citizen subject to laws protecting the office of monarch and knowing that every internet server box stores its remote addresses before sending that data to UK security agencies......
I couldn't possibly comment:-)
At least she's not in the bankers' back pocket.
uh...no. i think she's got to curtsie or fully prostrate herself in front of the lord mayor of the "city".
That bitch, the queen, should be swinging from a lamp post.
I've always thought that an absolute monarchy was the only possible form of a good and just government. Because at least you have a very small chance that you will be ruled by a kind, enlightened, intelligent person, who's singular authority could potentially improve life for all mankind.
Democracy as we know it is mutually assured destruction.
Maybe if you're living in Disney World you'll get a kind hearted ruler. And we aren't a democracy.
I hope you're joking.
I fear you're not.
Give me one example of a large scale Democracy (ie, over 100,000,000 people) that has made life better for its people.
you do realize there are only 11 countries on earth with populations greater than 100 million people right? And the UK ain't one of them.
kind of limiting the options with that...don't ya think?
Not really. Outside of Japan, every major country has an increasing population. We might hit 10 billion people by 2050.
How do you propose to govern such a mass of humanity?
We'll all just wait for some watery tart in a lake to dole out a sword to the chosen leader.
There. You happy now?
Give me one example of a democracy. You can't because there aren't any.
I believe Austria has direct voting on many things. Don't know much else besides that. What is your definition of democracy?
Switzerland with its direct democracy, but ever more influenced by the lobbyists.
Please provide an example of ANY government that has improved the lot of its' people.
The United States was formed as a Republic, and it is high time the people restored it.
I don't get it. Every article that comes from James Miller is basically geared at civil liberty and sound money which corresponds directly with the ZH "mandate" and the teachings of LVM. Why such a negative response on the boards? Admittedly, a bit of vitriol against the Queen who really has no power, but she does represent an 'authoritarian state'.
A bit of vitriol?
All of James Miller's posts contain those two elements, sure, but they also go off in strange directions attacking all sorts of things. They really seem more like rants sometimes than well written articles designed to either educate people who share the same beliefs, or to convince anyone else to convert.
My favortime is when Monarchy ends. Maybe the existing ones will end less violently. I hope so. But one thing for sure they will end.
What country that currently exists do you see as being the closest to ideal in its politcal structure?
Ethiopia under Haile Selassie. Jah bless
Iron Sky
England under Lord Protector Cromwell
Lybia before the west stole their wealth.
Their dictator gave most of the revenues back to the people, as opposed to saudi arabia. but but sorry they dont have a dictator, they have a monarchy.
So much for the Magna Carta then.
I just find it difficult to respect any nation backward enough to still have a King or Queen.
It's the perfect representation of the power of myth and the idiotic subservience of the ignorant masses.
You're better off worshiping an Aardvark.
The Presidential Celebrity Model is by far the superior approach....
Anything other than the idiotic assumption of divine right is better.
I'd even prefer drawing straws or flipping a fucking coin than bestowing a "birth right" to rule (or pretend to rule ) a nation.
It's the permanence of monarchy that's problematic.
Here's an idea...have a lotto drawing and appoint a new ruling family every 10 years or so. Why the fuck not? It's about as reasonable as believing in divine right. We'll call it...divine luck.
Well.. the lotto idea could work.. except that you'd have civil war every 10 years as the rulling family refuses to just let it go.
Social stability is what this game is all about... don't get the sheeple rialled so that those of us that can, run businesses and make money.
Instability = opportunities for power grab and theft of wealth.
If I was power hungry, I'd want instability.. but I'd rather build wealth.
Ok...how about this:
we do the lotto thing...BUT...after 10 years...you are executed as the ceremony for the next "winner" is performed.
that way, you avoid the whole "wanting to stay in power" thing...and it would make one HELL of a great pay-per-view event....the income of which would then offset the cost of subsidizing the "winner" for 10 years.
I'm tellin ya...I think we're on to something here. It could work BIG TIME.
Haha.. maybe.
You'd have to use some kind of DNA bomb.. have them melt at the end or you still have the probelm of not being able to ouster them.
Of course.. they'd loose authority towards the end of their term (people would ignore em, and 'wait them out').. but I'd like an invite to their end of reign party. It would be a doozy :P
Business always invests in Stable nations. It is a risk no brainer. This is because the police power of the State and iron riule of law allows them to protect their investments. Monopolists in America, in the late 1800's clamored for regulation- to lock in markets and eliminate competition.
Lack of government does not equal instability, not does it insure you can build wealth. You are forced to compete and continue to create new and better ideas.
The reason we have government is because the power hungry have determined that it is the best method to insure their position and future earnings.
If i may just make a small point.. A large number of the Scots, Welsh and Irish do not give a flying fuck about the Royal family and what it is stands for..They are a bunch of parasites on the ever dwindling resourses of the UK.. The usuual counter argument is that they are good for tourism.. What a load of complete and utter BOLLOCKS..
Get a life. The British Queen is no more of a threat to my personal freedom than cucumber sandwiches and corgi dogs. She is respected because she brings a sense of longevity, history and a little class to our political process. In practise, elected Prime Ministers of all parties have appreciated a weekly audience with a woman who first stepped into the job when Winston Churchill was in power. To my mind that longevity can bring a welcome balance to a political process that is all too short term and focused on the whims of public opinion. That said, elected PM's can ignore her advice and often do.
Finally, the idea that the nation state can only act against the interests of freedom is suspect. The Queen is just a symbol of that state, nothing more. A state that has a long history of standing up against despots, dictators, racists and bigots of all political persuasions and none.
A state that sends conscripted young working class men over the trenches to the deaths of hundreds of thousands while ruling class generals sit in chateaus 8 miles behind the front lines sipping sherry...death by firing squad in front of the unit for any man who dared not go over the wall of the trench. Fire bombing of entire German cities or sending millions of DP (displaced persons) from Eastern Europe who were behind Western lines back to the USSR and Stalin where they faced execution or a trip to the GULAG.
And the monarch did what exactly to stand up to these atrocities? What is the monarch doing now about our roll in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria?
She figureheading it...
"What is the monarch doing now about our roll in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria?"
And it is quite the roll we are having there.
Too bad we don't have a very important role to play in those countries.
tres drole
BTW - I gave you that first uptick. Quite agree with your comment there. I'm working on the humour part. ;-)
I had hoped The Queen would order US Troops to withdraw and dismiss that Obama figure who is simply another Rebel Leader in a failed state
The conscription army is also an innovation of Napoleonic France. Monarchies traditionally had relied on paid, professional militaries (indeed this is where the entire notion of profession and "professional conduct" originates). In fact, in most professional armies (though many were mercenary as well) the sons of the aristocracy served, fought, and died in greater numbers than the peasantry.
The German, Austrian, and tsarist monarchies implemented consciption as essential to their survival in the wake of the Napoleonic wars.
The English monarchy stood against Nazi Germany and fascism and stood against Russian-style totalitarian Communism.
It is completely and abjectly wrong to associate conservatism and the monarchy with the totalitarianism of modern nations.
I'm not associating the british royals to anything... Just over a decade after 6mm Ukrainians were starved to death by Stalin, we sent hundreds of thousands (millions of other refugees from the newly formed Eastern Block) of Ukrainian refugees back to the Soviets as per the Yalta agreement. Most were executed as deserters or sent to GULAGS. Churchill writes about it in his memoires...
Well "we" didn't send them back, I certainly did not but the ruling class of the time did, the establishment ruling class of which the monarch is a part. History is full of episodes like this why would I feel compelled to compare them to anything when it stands out clearly for what it is and what is within you that made you make that leap?
GH, I'm not sure exactly what amount of control the Royals have in policy decisions in Britain.
I think it could be safely argued they possess a lot of influence, but I'm not certain the same case could be made for their control over those kinds of decisions.
Z E R O - even Royal Assent to bIlls is handled inside Cabinet Office and never sees The Queen.
England had a Republic long before Americans and a better one
Right, was that guy who the colonists revolted out from under, was he elected in some form or another? I guess not. Apparently you can be ruled over in a republic by a person who found his way to power simply because he exited a certain woman in a certain genetic line. That is a weird definition for a republic.
Cherry picking history... wanting democracy, but then disowning the actions of elected officials. Perhaps you should get a job at the mises institute, you'd fit in quite well.
I hear that at Mises, you can have your cake AND eat it too. Remarkable.
Helloooooo!!! There are more options than just Monarchy and Democracy. Simply because a man does not favor Monarchy does not imply that he favors Democracy. How about a Constitutional Republic, or even better, Anarchy, which is simply the absence of organized criminals who call themselves the government.
Constitutional Republic
______________________________________
A constitutional republic is a form of government.
Nothing prevents from having a republic of nobles, an elective monarchy etc...
Keeping comparing political ideology to forms of governments is sport to US citizens.
hahaha!
Shhhhh, you'll upset them :P
You cannot be an elected monarch. A monarch is a hereditary title. A "Republic of Nobles" would be an Aristocracy, not a Republic. A Republic is a system where the leader is appointed, not through inheritence. You cannot mix inheritence with non-inheritence.
To some extent, the UK has all three elements: The Monarch, the Aristocracy (House of Lords) and Representative Democracy (House of Commons).
You know, it is always the same with US citizens.
Generalities are always true as soon as you remove all the counter examples.
A monarch is a hereditary title? Well, not so much in an elective monarchy.
But quite easy to make it a general statement thanks to US citizenism pattern.
Remove Cambodia for example from being a monarchy.
Remove Malaysia. Remove all monarchies in the past where kings were elected by a counsel of peers etc
A republic of nobles would be an aristocracy. Really? Etc
Malaysia: "The head of state is the King, known as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. He is an elected monarch chosen from the hereditary rulers of the nine Malay states every five years. "
So yes he is elected, from a group of princes. He is still born as an heir to the throne, he is not elected from the general population.
Cambodia: They elected a King when the choice was between different sons of the previous King. As long as each of these people are blood descendants of the previous King, they are still hereditary monarchs, regardless of how they choose between which of the kings heirs to appoint.
Elected by a counsel of peers: you mean when a bunch of cousins get together and determine which one is the new head of the family? Sounds like Democracy to me.
What about a communist dictatorship in charge of a capitalist country.What is their legitimacy?
If a communist dictator is in charge the country is no longer capitalist.
Uh... Its not communist if theres a dictator... same as idiocy as 'capitalist dictator'.
I know.. the propaganda you get taught says communist = dictator but it just isn't so.
Google "dictatorship".....
Communism is a model of Economic Organization.
Dictatorship is a model of Political Structure.
They are niether mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive.
Pure Communism is an ideal which has never, and may never, exist in the real world.
And just how do you propose to maintain this 'anarchy' of yours against groups of 'organised criminals' without forming such a group yourself?
If more than two people get together in one place, kill them all.
Yalta in The Crimea, didn;t FDR stay in Stalin's Villa there so they could re-organise the World without the British Empire ?
The Monarch is NOT The State. What did THe Commander In cHief in the USA do about Abu Ghraib ? He is The State
Actually you are wrong. The monarchy is exactly that - personification of he state.
"Canada was the first country to proclaim Elizabeth II as Queen in 1952. The Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1953 gave Elizabeth II the unique title of "Queen of Canada." As the personification of the state the Queen is far more than simply a Head of State, rather she is the Sovereign."
http://www.canadiancrown.com/chapters.html
Always remember that the serfs still in England were the ones too stupid and too obedient to escape to seek freedom overseas. England sent the trouble makers to Australia after the rest of the trouble makers had left on their own to America. The ones still on the island are the descendents of the British sheeple so cowed, so obedient to authority, that in a thousand years they never left.
Also Canadians. Just the British in the frozen tundra.
Serfdom disappeared about 250 years before Australia was discovered and Slavery was never reintroduced except when the American colonies imported WHITE children from England as slaves
You skipped The Loyalists: Americans who didn't quite feel right about slavery and genocide, so they moved to Canada. Because only sheeple believe in such statist nonsense as not exterminating and enslaving brown and black people.
Why would someone who doesn't feel right about slavery and genocide claim to be loyal to the throne of England? England had slavery at the time of the revolution. And when it comes to genocide, the British flag is not called the 'butchers apron' for nothing. The British Empire killed many people. Pledging loyalty to Britain was in no way disavowing either of those practices at the time of the revolution. (This statement in no way endorses slavery nor genocide, regardless of the committing party, America or Britain).
More specifically, the thirteen colonies wanted to expand west into territories filled with indigenous people. The Ohio River Valley area was given by the Crown to what is now Quebec, since the French were more likely to intermarry with the natives than to exterminate and enslave them. One of the many causes of the American Revolution.
There were many causes of the American Revolution but that was not one of them. The crown didn't fucking own any of the land to begin with so who the fuck cares who they gave it too. French Quebec still hates the crown. Many were thrown out by the British and ended up in Louisiana as Cajuns during the Colonial period. The crown hated them. The entire French and Indian war was fought by the British and colonialist to try to subjugate and control the french. The founders were not perfect in any way but they had some very good ideas about liberty.
The founders were not perfect in any way but they had some very good ideas about liberty.
_________________________
Like keeping and trading slaves.
why keep slaves when yu can have coolies(and Foxconn workers)who have to work even to pay for the miserable gruel which sustains them in their slavery? ....
Ahhhhhhh, Chu-mli....the wisdom of the east, grasshopper!
1763 - Proclamation of 1763
This prohibited settlement beyond the Appalachian Mountains. While Britain did not intend to harm the colonists, many colonists took offense at this order.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/a/amer_revolution.htm
Are you going to disprove that blocking the expansion of the colonies was one of the causes of the revolution? Or do you simply feel that protecting natives from genocide and slavery was not one of the concerns of the Crown?
Or maybe the ideas of 'serfdom' you have imbibed that were first disseminated by the bourgeois agitators of the Glorious Revolution have little to do with the historical reality of the lot of the European peasantry.
In other words, you presume to know so much more about what life was like for them and how they ought to have felt about it than they themselves did, that you accuse them of stupidity and blind obedience, in the typical patronising mode of the bourgeois hypocrite.
"She is respected because she brings a sense of longevity, history and a little class to our political process."
Ill do that if the state pays me 6 million quid a year and i get to own 30% of the countries land.
However there are a few places in the uk where the queen is not allowed to set foot on british soil.
Any USA airbase, Echelon listening posts, etc etc.
Funny that
Actually, I'm fairly sure that the queen has actually toured RAF Lakenheath (which is a US airbase). Late '80s - early 90s somewhere, IIRC.
The difference between monarchy & democracy would be that any incompetant fool can be monarch for a time in a 'democracy', whereas in a monarchy you have to be the product of inbreeding, thus an incompetant fool but born into the role.
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
One of my favorite scenes.
So, in one form of government you have incompetent fools voted into power, and in the other you have incompetent fools born into power.
I'm seeing a common denominator in these two forms and it isn't very encouraging.
perhaps we should stop making incompetence a prerequisite for positions of power?
that might help.
The problem actually seems to be exactly the opposite! What we have now are incompetents just bright enough to cause trouble. If they were really, really useless then we wouldn't have any trouble from them.
The worship of the British royal family by the American media and sheeple sickens me. They are the descendents of a bunch of inbred murderous thugs, nothing more.
But these stupid American women want to live the fantasy of being a princess. The Disney fairy tale that the Jews that run Walt Disney sold them as little girls. So they worship the royal family, without even the capacity to contemplate what it means to show so much reverence for these "royals."
The media just loves to report on them. What Prince Harry is doing. Oh my, he's dressed like a Nazi. Oh my, he's in Afghanistan killing brown people. Oh my he's in the Falkand Island preparing to destroy Argentina. And look at his wife's ass. Or was that the other one? Who even knows.
It makes me sick. The only reason I know these things is because they have the news on at work, and ALL of the news channels, especially CNN, worship and cover the British Royal Family. It's enough to make one wonder just who is in control of whom. I see some of the crazier conspiracy theorists out there saying we're still British subjects.
All I know is there is one global Anglo military empire. Who is in control behind the scenes? That I don't know.
American women want to live the fantasy of being a princess.
Of course they do and you should dress the part to get some action
God Don’t Save the Fed. In a very significant way, the Fed represents America’s royal court (the international bankers have always been close to monarchies). And the Fed today has more control over Americans’ economic and political lives than any monarchy ever had over a people.
Paul Craig Roberts writes today on Counterpunch: “Ever since the beginning of the financial crisis and Quantitative Easing, the question has been before us: How can the Federal Reserve maintain zero interest rates for banks and negative real interest rates for savers and bond holders when the US government is adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt every year via its budget deficits?”
In his explanatory piece detailing how “The Economy Comes Unglued,” Roberts concludes:
The serious consequences of the enormous mistakes made in Washington, on Wall Street, and in corporate offices are being held at bay by an untenable policy of low interest rates and a corrupt financial press, while debt rapidly builds...
Fed chairman Bernanke has spoken of an “exit strategy” and said that when inflation threatens, he can prevent the inflation by taking the money back out of the banking system. However, he can do that only by selling Treasury bonds, which means interest rates would rise. A rise in interest rates would threaten the derivative structure, cause bond losses, and raise the cost of both private and public debt service. In other words, to prevent inflation from debt monetization would bring on more immediate problems than inflation. Rather than collapse the system, wouldn’t the Fed be more likely to inflate away the massive debts?
Eventually, inflation would erode the dollar’s purchasing power and use as the reserve currency, and the US government’s credit worthiness would waste away. However, the Fed, the politicians, and the financial gangsters would prefer a crisis later rather than sooner. Passing the sinking ship on to the next watch is preferable to going down with the ship oneself. As long as interest rate swaps can be used to boost Treasury bond prices, and as long as naked shorts of bullion can be used to keep silver and gold from rising in price, the false image of the US as a safe haven for investors can be perpetuated.
However, the $230,000,000,000,000 in derivative bets by US banks might bring its own surprises. JPMorganChase has had to admit that its recently announced derivative loss of $2 billion is more than that. How much more remains to be seen. According to the Comptroller of the Currency the five largest banks hold 95.7% of all derivatives. The five banks holding $226 trillion in derivative bets are highly leveraged gamblers. For example, JPMorganChase has total assets of $1.8 trillion but holds $70 trillion in derivative bets, a ratio of $39 in derivative bets for every dollar of assets. Such a bank doesn’t have to lose very many bets before it is busted.
Assets, of course, are not risk-based capital. According to the Comptroller of the Currency report, as of December 31, 2011, JPMorganChase held $70.2 trillion in derivatives and only $136 billion in risk-based capital. In other words, the bank’s derivative bets are 516 times larger than the capital that covers the bets.
It is difficult to imagine a more reckless and unstable position for a bank to place itself in, but Goldman Sachs takes the cake. That bank’s $44 trillion in derivative bets is covered by only $19 billion in risk-based capital, resulting in bets 2,295 times larger than the capital that covers them.
Bets on interest rates comprise 81% of all derivatives. These are the derivatives that support high US Treasury bond prices despite massive increases in US debt and its monetization.
US banks’ derivative bets of $230 trillion, concentrated in five banks, are 15.3 times larger than the US GDP. A failed political system that allows unregulated banks to place uncovered bets 15 times larger than the US economy is a system that is headed for catastrophic failure. As the word spreads of the fantastic lack of judgment in the American political and financial systems, the catastrophe in waiting will become a reality.
Everyone wants a solution, so I will provide one. The US government should simply cancel the $230 trillion in derivative bets, declaring them null and void. As no real assets are involved, merely gambling on notional values, the only major effect of closing out or netting all the swaps (mostly over-the-counter contracts between counter-parties) would be to take $230 trillion of leveraged risk out of the financial system. The financial gangsters who want to continue enjoying betting gains while the public underwrites their losses would scream and yell about the sanctity of contracts. However, a government that can murder its own citizens or throw them into dungeons without due process can abolish all the contracts it wants in the name of national security. And most certainly, unlike the war on terror, purging the financial system of the gambling derivatives would vastly improve national security.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/06/the-economy-comes-unglued/
I get it. One (the Fed) says "in god we trust" on money, when people cannot trust
in paper money. The otherr (royalty) asks "God" to "save the Queen", when the
people are forced to pay money to fund their obscene wealth.
By the way, in the 60 -year reign, the value of the pound has fallen by a multiple
of 24. So, that's 96% devaluation, in my estimation in only 60 YEARS.
I don't trust in that sh*t.
Jesus, this guy has it bad...so he wants the brits to favour a spitting HIV-Aids victim convict over their old queen? Which makes me wonder, aren’t ideals’ a mind-boggling phenomenon? We all take them on board at one point, usually at a young and spirited age, and with good intentions too - but the thing is that most of us see their invalidity and impracticalities as we mature and hence we drop them like a bag of spuds. Those that cant let them go usually turn into strange creatures constantly spouting all kinds of hard-line indignation at anyone who will listen. We need to be careful with ideals, one day they seem like the right thing to do, then it turns out that you have got a tiger by the tail.
For the record, the brits are batshit crazy, they drool over an old lady while she pretends to smile while pointing at things that aren’t even there, when she is really just bemused as fuck. It really is a sad spectacle, grown men, dewy-eyed and waving little plastic flags, moaning hysterically “God save our queen”… I suppose it instils a sense of order in the cretins. The best part of those celebrations is watching how they try to re-jig the past, projecting old black and white videos onto the walls of Buckingham palace of the queen smiling lovingly at little black “commonwealth” children, what a god-awful piss take.
"Monarchies are supposed to be antithetical to freedom." I'd take a benevolent monarchy over the shit we are stuck with now.
If 'benevolent monarchy' isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.
When SHTF TPTB will be happy to know that you support dictatorships based on genetic traits, good luck with that.........
What's killer is that they get a monthly stipend... really? You get paid to be a figurehead... With all their current assets, they could live comfortably and run their own existing businesses without needing to get paid by the people.
I wonder if they pay taxes.
Hmm more details here:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxation.aspx
The queen volunteers to pay taxes and is under VAT. Does not mention rest of the family.
Think of the Queen as like a goodwill ambassador. We have her and America has Angelina Jolie. Did they make one of the Kardashians a goodwill ambassador yet?
All the flying around the world, especially with all the security costs, is quite expensive.
Given the authoritarianism monarchy used to represent,
USED TO REPRESENT ? You mean like The US Supreme Court upholding Slavery ? Or the US Presidency imprisoning Japanese-Americans ? Time to abolish both now before November.
Go read Act of Setlement 1701 before spouting drivel
I guess Sandman loves bowing to his superiors!
Well knucklehead - it was a matter of prudence at the time. It was either SLAVERY OR WAR. You pick which one you like the most.
And so...Jimmy(mad King Ludwig the 2nd)Miller's Reign of Error continues to assail common sense and historiocity with a ferocity that only the trog·lo·dyte trio of ZH's top banner can bring to a subject!
Tru to his camouflage of libertarian pushing for personal 'liberty' this underling of the moneypower merchants of Mt Pelerin goes deeper down the rabbit hole, allowing us to further forensically analyse just what is behind the kabbalist kampaign to demoralize the west by sundering it from it's true tradition and history.
We still have kings n queens because they represent a slender holdover of the tradition of what our free peoples of the west enjoyed before the Romanesque Rabble imposed themselves across Europa as standard bearers for the chased out moneychanger from the fallen synagogues of satan.
A slender holdover of the tradition of the High Kings, who ruled over Free Men...elected by the peers and elders, of the Celto-Pictish tradition, wherein Primogeniture played no part!...indeed, in Albann it was matrilineal succession system, which married the High Princesses to the best of foreign leaders, who always followed the guidance of their wives to become leaders loyal to the peoples they ruled over....a bond unbroken in the Highlands at least till the diaspora of the satanist brought their Esthers into bed with the corrupted lairds to foist them into the hands of the new moneychangin class what crept back into the Isles with Cromwell & the House of Orange.
And it was the same emissaries of the moneychangers what brought the poison of the corrupted Church of Rome\Satan against the High Church of Iona & the Isles, that shattered the compact between Celtic Church and Celtic Peoples, and yoked Ireland and Scotland to the Devil's Own for centuries hence..
Kings and Queens of the Houses of Guelph and other offshoots of the hebraic merovigians? Of course we don't need those parasitic puppet of the $ power....or the "State" of Mind what brought them! Time to take back our history as well as our countries!
With unerring insight and accuracy, as always, JRR pointed the way forward, and back, to our tru past and future, as we await the reappearance of the High King, who will throw down the Stewards, and with a coalition of we 'little peoples' of the West and it's Marchs, ride east against the dark lord and his minions. Down with the Monarchy! Hail to the High Kings of Ireland, Asturias.. Wales....and Arnor!
You might find this short article interesting:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=49944
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzb5QABCmak