slug.com slug.com

5 3

Okay, think it's time for some deeper thoughts here regarding the recent passing of Queen Elizabeth II. All in all I feel relatively indifferent towards that subject, which is why I haven't posted about it much on here. The Queen lived to be 96 years old and lived quite an extravagent life at that, the likes of which most of us will never get to experience (in particular the long lifespan). That in mind, it's a small wonder I feel indifferent on that, as we'd all be so lucky as to live out a nice long life with relatively minimal worry.

The following is a good read geared towards those who identify as conservative and whom for peculiar reasons are motivated to go out of their way to put the late Queen Elizabeth II on a pedestal, while claiming to be in support of a constitutional republic that actually respects individual rights and that of which also is opposed to any sort of monarchy.

The concepts of monarchy and a constitutional republic/democracy do not go hand-in-hand as they have two vastly different visions for society. The colonialism part aside (putting that point aside for a moment as it's debateable who all the blame should fall on) for a moment which I think overall serves as a distraction from the main point, I personally am not opposed to the late Queen for such reasons, but rather simply for the fact that I truly hold in high regards individual rights and a free society, and are opposed to any sort of authoritarianism whether that be a monarchy/empire/socialism/fascism/or communist regime etc. That said, I see no point of value in attempting to defend someone like the Queen just because a number of individuals associated with the far left have come out wishing ill (ill such as gratuitous misery and suffering) on her. Such displays appear to be another case of the one political side automatically taking the stance directly opposite of the perceived opposition, pretty much an emotional knee-jerk reaction to the topic. I did not wish any ill on the Queen ever and think such an attitude is one of spite and hatred. Likewise, I will not attempt to prop-up the Queen's legacy either as what she ultimately stood for (monarchy) ran in direct opposition to my own beliefs (a constititional republic that acknowledges individualism, and dismisses false notions of there really being anything such as royal blood lines). Big difference there, being against someone due to personal vendetta and then disagreeing with them based on political views, so don't confuse the two. Not everyone who is not mourning the death of the Queen is some far-left radical, and conservatives shouldn't be so quick to defend someone who had pushed a political system that ran in direct opposition to the values most conservatives claim to uphold.

As the author of the following article had mentioned, that the concept of monarchy is an idea that has had its day and should now be forgotten, is spot on. "Think about it: the notion that who your father is gives you the right to rule is antagonistic to republican principles and based on the ancient, debunked idea that bloodlines matter — that contained in your blood alone is superior intelligence, wisdom, and good judgment."

I am by no means suggesting for anyone to stoop as low as some have who had wished unspeakable misery upon the now late Queen, being nasty like that is a choice. What I am saying is however, that if you are someone who truly values individualism and our constitutional republic, the next time you are tempted to defend what the Queen had stood for simply in order to take the opposing stance of your perceived political foes, I implore you to reconsider your stance. The following read made a valid point. You can certainly be opposed to someone or something minus the needless hatred and resentment...

The Queen has died, and so should the British Monarchy-
[pjmedia.com]

SpikeTalon 10 Sep 10
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

"to live out a nice long life with relatively minimal worry." LOL. With the weight of the problems of an entire nation resting squarely on you shoulders for three-quarters of a century. Apparently, you are one of those many short sighted who are blissfully unaware of what goes into a function, that see only the wealth and glamor, like that's all here is.

1

I agree that the monarchy should end with Elizabeth II, but for different reasons. Charles is a man of dubious loyalties, and as monarch he would be not only the head of state in the UK and most of the commonwealth, he would also be the titular head of the Church of England and bear the title, "Defender of the Faith." Yet his life gives us an example of the faith he actually holds in his heart. He is linked to the death of his rightful queen whom he had divorced to marry another woman with whom he was having an affair while she too was married to another. He is a member of the World Economic Forum which advocates that all nations surrender their sovereignty to it. He pushes the "Climate Change" hoax while owning many low-lying properties along the coasts that would purportedly be covered in seawater in the next five years if anyone uses any kind of fossil fuel or raises a cow to eat. He has assented to William Gates's population reduction push. Etc. Etc. Ad infinatum. Ad nauseum. He is not fit to be king. William, the heir, is also unfit for similar reasons. Harry is out thanks to the influence of his wife. With no one sufficiently patriotic toward Great Britain in line for the throne, rather than go hunting for another as they had done when the Hanovers took over, the United Kingdom should simply do away with the monarchy en toto.

0

To me this is pure bullshit.

Those who defend each other do not pay extortion fees to known criminals. The method by which known criminals are no longer hiding behind fraud, and especially fraud in the form of fraudulent badges, is the Revolutionary time period in America between 1774 and 1789.

There are many other examples, but for the purposed of the modern Patriot versus Globalist situation, the 1774 through 1789 example is the most instructive example if the idea is to organize defensive forces instead of each defender on their own against the Globalist Organized Criminal Cartel.

A very good example of this type of clearing out of as much pure bullshit as possible, alone in the wilderness, without a working organized system of defense is here:

[facebook.com]

No one can succeed at defending against an unseen enemy, but worse than that is demonstrated when the victims are defrauded into paying the enemy for fraudulent protection against the hidden enemy, because now there are, at best, two disorganized enemies, and at worst you are paying an extortion fee to the Mob, and it is known to everyone, even the goons sent to break your knees if you do not pay them their "protection money."

None of this is news, not if the time period between 1774 and 1789 in America is actually studied and from that time period the patriotic defenders against Globalism (it was called Empire, Monarchy, Dictatorship, Colonialism, etc., then) had plenty to tell each other in the effort to drive off the criminal cartel members as the criminals were attempting to enforce payments of "protection money."

None of that vital information is allowed into any of the modern slaves kidnapped into Nationalism on the LEFT, CENTER, or RIGHT, not in America, and not in any other place on earth.

Victims of Fraud prove that they are victims when they confess their blind belief in Legal Fictions.

This is not news to humanity, it may be news to current victims of fraud.

Current victims of fraud, as a rule, obey the order to refuse to see the whole truth about the American revolution.

The patriotic cause began in an organized effort to form republics and then federate those republics in 1774 under the ancient unwritten common law or law of the land, and it is documented forensically on official documents still available to the public to this day. Those federated republics under the common law were set aside and LEFT unused since 1789 also documented forensically on still available official records.

The proof of this is the failure since 1789 to issue another Declaration of Independence, in any form, in any republic, and that is because all the republics were Consolidated, also known as Cartelized, also known as Monopolized, in 1789 during the successful coup by the then existing Globalist Party, which was then the Nationalists Party, and those party members on on the official record perpetrating fraud as they confessed that they could not get away with their annihilation of the existing federation of republics under common law, if they told their victims their true motives as Nationalists. They instead counterfeited the Party name of Federalists.

Nationalists = Monarchist = Globalist

Actual Federalists were against Nationalism on the official record in no uncertain terms.

New Constitution Creates A National Government; Will Not Abate Foreign Influence; Dangers Of Civil War And Despotism


Like the nome de plume "Publius" used by pro Constitution writers in the Federalist Papers, several Anti-Federalists signed their writings "A FARMER. " While the occupation of the writers may not have coincided with the name given, the arguments against consolidating power in the hands of a central government were widely read. The following was published in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, March 7, 1788. The true identity of the author is unknown.


"There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.

"Whether any form of national government is preferable for the Americans, to a league or confederacy, is a previous question we must first make up our minds upon. . . .

"That a national government will add to the dignity and increase the splendor of the United States abroad, can admit of no doubt: it is essentially requisite for both. That it will render government, and officers of government, more dignified at home is equally certain. That these objects are more suited to the manners, if not [the] genius and disposition of our people is, I fear, also true. That it is requisite in order to keep us at peace among ourselves, is doubtful. That it is necessary, to prevent foreigners from dividing us, or interfering in our government, I deny positively; and, after all, I have strong doubts whether all its advantages are not more specious than solid. We are vain, like other nations. We wish to make a noise in the world; and feel hurt that Europeans are not so attentive to America in peace, as they were to America in war. We are also, no doubt, desirous of cutting a figure in history. Should we not reflect, that quiet is happiness? That content and pomp are incompatible? I have either read or heard this truth, which the Americans should never forget: That the silence of historians is the surest record of the happiness of a people. The Swiss have been four hundred years the envy of mankind, and there is yet scarcely an history of their nation. What is history, but a disgusting and painful detail of the butcheries of conquerors, and the woeful calamities of the conquered? Many of us are proud, and are frequently disappointed that office confers neither respect nor difference. No man of merit can ever be disgraced by office. A rogue in office may be feared in some governments - he will be respected in none. After all, what we call respect and difference only arise from contrast of situation, as most of our ideas come by comparison and relation. Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. In all governments virtue will command reverence. The divine Cato knew every Roman citizen by name, and never assumed any preeminence; yet Cato found, and his memory will find, respect and reverence in the bosoms of mankind, until this world returns into that nothing, from whence Omnipotence called it.

"That the people are not at present disposed for, and are actually incapable of, governments of simplicity and equal rights, I can no longer doubt. But whose fault is it? We make them bad, by bad governments, and then abuse and despise them for being so. Our people are capable of being made anything that human nature was or is capable of, if we would only have a little patience and give them good and wholesome institutions; but I see none such and very little prospect of such. Alas! I see nothing in my fellow-citizens, that will permit my still fostering the delusion, that they are now capable of sustaining the weight of SELF-GOVERNMENT: a burden to which Greek and Roman shoulders proved unequal. The honor of supporting the dignity of the human character, seems reserved to the hardy Helvetians alone.

"If the body of the people will not govern themselves, and govern themselves well too, the consequence is unavoidable - a FEW will, and must govern them. Then it is that government becomes truly a government by force only, where men relinquish part of their natural rights to secure the rest, instead of an union of will and force, to protect all their natural rights, which ought to be the foundation of every rightful social compact.

"Whether national government will be productive of internal peace, is too uncertain to admit of decided opinion. I only hazard a conjecture when I say, that our state disputes, in a confederacy, would be disputes of levity and passion, which would subside before injury. The people being free, government having no right to them, but they to government, they would separate and divide as interest or inclination prompted - as they do at this day, and always have done, in Switzerland. In a national government, unless cautiously and fortunately administered, the disputes will be the deep-rooted differences of interest, where part of the empire must be injured by the operation of general law; and then should the sword of government be once drawn (which Heaven avert) I fear it will not be sheathed, until we have waded through that series of desolation, which France, Spain, and the other great kingdoms of the world have suffered, in order to bring so many separate States into uniformity, of government and law; in which event the legislative power can only be entrusted to one man (as it is with them) who can have no local attachments, partial interests, or private views to gratify.

"That a national government will prevent the influence or danger of foreign intrigue, or secure us from invasion, is in my judgment directly the reverse of the truth. The only foreign, or at least evil foreign influence, must be obtained through corruption. Where the government is lodged in the body of the people, as in Switzerland, they can never be corrupted; for no prince, or people, can have resources enough to corrupt the majority of a nation; and if they could, the play is not worth the candle. The facility of corruption is increased in proportion as power tends by representation or delegation, to a concentration in the hands of a few. . . .

"As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics . . . it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprizing ambitious.

"That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated, will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of all the European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory, terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission. All human authority, however organized, must have confined limits, or insolence and oppression will prove the offspring of its grandeur, and the difficulty or rather impossibility of escape prevents resistance. Gibbon relates that some Roman Knights who had offended government in Rome were taken up in Asia, in a very few days after. It was the extensive territory of the Roman republic that produced a Sylla, a Marius, a Caligula, a Nero, and an Elagabalus. In small independent States contiguous to each other, the people run away and leave despotism to reek its vengeance on itself; and thus it is that moderation becomes with them, the law of self-preservation. These and such reasons founded on the eternal and immutable nature of things have long caused and will continue to cause much difference of sentiment throughout our wide extensive territories. From our divided and dispersed situation, and from the natural moderation of the American character, it has hitherto proved a warfare of argument and reason."
A FARMER

Patriots capable of defending humanity tend to consider themselves Sheep Dogs, which is not derogatory, because innocent people, like children, are not capable of defending themselves, and neither are weak old people. That leaves either stupid and servile people who are turned into sycophants, because they are kidnapped into the Cult, and they defend the Cult as ordered by their Cult leader, or the remaining Rats are the actual Sociopaths and Psychopaths who consume humanity with malice and Liberal supplies of malevolence, like a pack of Rats.

Do you know what a Rat King is?

Patriots misled are often led into a pogrom. The work pogrom is forensically accurate compared to calling a pogrom a Civil War.

The common law placed the duty of prosecuting all enemies foreign and domestic by law, and that was not news.

The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."

Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."

I get what you're saying and don't disagree on what you mentioned above, but all that was kind of beside the main point of this post. Simply put, those who claim to support individualism and the republic and who simultaneously sing their praises to a form of authoritarianism just to spite their political rivals, I think is ridiculous. Anything more than that was beside my point, and actually a whole other topic for an other post.

@SpikeTalon

I could have been more clear about what I thought was pure bullshit.

I could have started with this:

"But eventually, those least tied to tradition will end this quaint form of government, and the royals will be forced to beg for crumbs from the British parliament."

And I could have said merely, or only, that begging for mercy from the proven to be unmerciful, begging them to stop torturing innocent people and making innocent people pay all the costs of torturing them, is a fools errand.

You would get it, of course, but I run at the mouth for my own sense of a vain righteousness.

1

and I personally agree with @SpikeTalon's personal position on political and personal choice....as a classical liberal, I stand against the Monarchists that continue to demand fealty in THE USA, though their "king/queen" no longer exists as a person...

0

I am not generally opposed to the concept of peerage, as long as it holds little control over the average person's day to day IF THEY so oppose it. Many a commoner, citizen, of the United Kingdom are quite happy with the Monarchy and if that is what they choose, so be it. I, who am not bound by such, have no ill against what another willing accepts for themselves, or even their posterity. Burke made a case for the monarchy and Paine destroyed it. So has time and understanding. But traditions are hard to break, and sometimes broken for the wrong reasons. I think destroying the British Monarchy would, now, be done for the wrong reasons.

I'm not so much concerned about how the English citizens are reacting to the death of their Queen, my focus was more on those who live in a democratic constitutional republic (not anything remotely close to a monarchy that is) and whom for somewhat peculiar reasons despite them claiming to be in full support of such are going out of their way to put the late Queen on a pedestal, and labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a "liberal hack". I find such a position to be confused logic at best, and a rather childish political outlook/agenda at worst. Appears to me some of those singing their praises to the late Queen and whom also claim to be against any kind of authoritarianism like a monarchy are saying what they're saying simply to have a talking point against the left, as a number of those on the left had complained about the colonialism part, which I personally am NOT concerned about in all that.

In the end, I wish the late Queen the best and may she rest in peace, but I'm certainly not in mourning as some non-Brits claim to be, as absurd as that sounds. As the English would so eloquently put it, I'm getting bloody well tired about hearing about her death in the news already, lol. Let's move on to more concerning matters, which there's no shortage of these days.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:367145
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.