User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Its either the Queen or Tyranny

  1. #1
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    10,230
    Thanks
    1,142
    Thanked: 12,728
    Rep Power
    18891648

    Its either the Queen or Tyranny

    At my step-grandfather’s funeral, after decades of marriage, my grandma looked tiny and fragile. But she didn’t shed a single tear. Afterwards, she spent three days in bed with a migraine; but for the public event, she kept it together.

    I was reminded of her iron self-control and bird-like fragility watching our Queen enter St George’s Chapel for the funeral of Prince Philip on Saturday. She stumbled momentarily as she approached the chapel door; inside, she sat alone. Born 12 years after my grandmother, she has been our Queen since 1952 and remains so today, her 95th birthday.

    And yet despite the dignified pathos of last Saturday, we can be sure that some will celebrate the Queen’s birthday by calling for her deposition. For many progressives view the Queen as an unacceptable relic of the past. Never mind personal travails; monarchy, they say, is undemocratic, even if the Queen never wields her power. We should have an elected head of state.

    But far from being a relic of despotism, constitutional monarchy is our best protection against its reappearance. The story we like to recall traces a thousand years of royal continuity — the same deep history which progressives say demonstrates the obsolescence of our monarchy. But in truth this story skates over a profound rupture: the end of absolute kingship.

    Medieval England was broadly Catholic, ruled spiritually from the Vatican by a Pope whose word was officially infallible. It was Henry VIII’s break from Rome in 1534 that signalled England’s secession from this absolute spiritual rule. But Henry retained absolute rule in the temporal world: he was not just a symbolic but an executive head of state, who believed his right to be obeyed came direct from God.

    School history today doesn’t often dwell on England’s transition from the absolutism of Henry VIII’s day to the modern settlement. France had its Revolution, America had its Founding, but the significance of Britain’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 is under-discussed, despite its importance.

    Perhaps it’s still too much of a sore point. After all, it was also the moment that completed the rupture with Rome begun by Henry VIII. Over a few tumultuous months, the Catholic James II was challenged and then deposed by a cabal of senior English statesmen, in favour of the Protestant William of Orange. Certainly, relations between Catholics and Protestants in the British Isles have been uneasy since, a fact that still drives political unrest in Ireland today.

    Just as the Reformation represented England’s secession from spiritual absolutism, the Glorious Revolution represented something similar in the political sphere. Having got rid of one absolute monarch, the statesmen who defenestrated James II set about making sure their new monarch, William, knew his place. A 1689 Bill of Rights set out constitutional principles we have to this day, including regular Parliaments, open elections and freedom of speech. The Bill also limited and specified the monarch’s powers.

    The Reformation and Glorious Revolution produced an England in which both spiritual and temporal rule had the same figurehead: a head of both Church and Parliament. The change was subtle but profound, as the authority of England’s priest-kings now theoretically extended across moral and political domains. But in practice, they wielded no direct power.

    This homeopathic dilution of theocratic tyranny proved exceptionally liberating. The new settlement drove the emergence of our parliamentary system, our two main political parties, and — as the monarchy sought a new role — many of the High Victorian institutions such as the Royal Societies, whose grand buildings form the majestic backbone of London today.

    The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were an age of public enquiry, noisy debate, scientific discoveries, imperial expansion and a fair few atrocities — but also of a bouncing, self-confident conviction that Britain’s destiny was in British hands, not those of fate, or of a despot or even God.

    Two world wars, one collapsed empire and a de-industrialised North later, things look rather different. Today, younger adults widely believe the world has been getting worse throughout their lives, and are pessimistic about the capacity of science, government or their own agency to change this. In parallel, the freedom of speech first guaranteed in the 1689 Bill of Rights is increasingly regarded as a stalking-horse for hatred. Growing numbers believe that what’s right and wrong — especially where it concerns the rights of marginalised groups — are sufficiently self-evident they shouldn’t be up for debate.

    But who decides on the exceptions to our post-Glorious Revolution norm of debate? It’s been nearly half a millennium since Henry VIII ended England’s official embrace of the Pope in this role. Progressives have yet to offer a clear alternative to either the Pope or the Defender of the Faith, though many assert that no hereditary ruler should be allowed such spiritual clout.

    Unsurprisingly, then, progressives (such as Jeremy Corbyn) who support abolishing the monarchy, often also argue for disestablishment of the Church of England. Meanwhile a growing chorus of other progressive voices calls for a lengthening list of often self-contradictory articles of faith to be excluded from legitimate debate — a move that bears comparison with the religious ordinances of England’s Catholic and Anglican eras.

    But what if the progressives are wrong and power can never truly be democratised? This was the argument advanced by political theorist Carl Schmitt. Schmitt argued that democracy is always compromised by absolutism, because no matter how flawless a set of rules you devise, and no matter how fair your electoral system, sooner or later a situation will crop up that doesn’t fit the rules.

    When that happens, you have to break the rules: a situation Schmitt called the “state of exception”. Coronavirus lockdowns are a good example: of the past year, countless ordinary freedoms were abruptly suspended in the name of virus control. Schmitt argued that you can tell who’s really in charge by who gets to implement such a state: “Sovereign is he who decides the exception”.

    Carl Schmitt was, of course, a Nazi. For him, exposing the traces of arbitrary rule that persist even in democratic government was part of a wider argument in favour of strongman rule.

    Critics might argue that quoting a Nazi in defence of the Queen isn’t likely to make the monarchy seem more progressive. But if we accept Schmitt’s argument that even democracies can’t avoid the odd despotic moment, it’s far easier to understand why constitutional monarchies are so often more egalitarian than republics. For even if Schmitt is right, it doesn’t follow that because someone has to decide the exception, that decision-maker has to be a dictator. It wasn’t the Queen who decided to suspend our ordinary liberties for the pandemic, but Parliament, which is made up of our elected representatives.

    The role of our Queen is to symbolise that tyrannical twitch we can’t wholly eradicate even in democracies, lest such twitches break out more regularly among our elected leaders. And she must do so without availing herself of actual power. As such, she acts as a kind of inoculation against real tyranny.

    Our Queen has two birthdays: her actual birthdate, which is today, and her “official” birthday on the second weekend in June. This aptly reflects her double existence. On the one hand she’s a human individual with a family, a birthday and a recent, terrible bereavement. On the other, she’s an interchangeable cipher, a part not just replaceable but designed to be replaced by her heir apparent when the time comes. Her role is to act, with total self-effacement, as the fulcrum between tyranny and democracy. It’s a position that, once understood, is rightly seen as profoundly sacred.

    That understanding feels fainter than ever today. It wasn’t just our monarch who seemed fragile and bird-like in mourning for Prince Philip. A whole world feels as though it’s wearing thin, and that with the death of Philip yet another of its underpinnings has sheared away: the world of enquiry, debate and optimism; one that felt liberated by having only a titular head of Church and State and responded with two centuries of flourishing culture.

    Increasingly, I fear that a new generation feels less liberated than abandoned by such light-touch authorities, and yearns — under the banner of progress itself — for something closer to the moral and political strongmen envisaged by Carl Schmitt.

    For ultimately, progressive calls to abolish the monarchy — whether as head of Church or state — amount not to a democratisation of power, but a removal of the principal safeguard we have against a return of the political and moral absolutism that preceded England’s Reformation and Glorious Revolution. Should the mounting demands for authority over the moral exception merge with similar calls for authority over the political one, the relative freedom guaranteed for us by our ceremonial priest-kings may be replaced by something far more direct and assertive.

    If there’s any hope, it lies in the despised rural and post-industrial backwaters: Deep England. Perhaps only outside the bubble of elite discourse, our nation’s instinctive appreciation for the paradox of constitutional monarchy is robust enough to survive the progressives who seek to tear down its moral and political dimensions.

    Never mind heaven on earth. On the whole, Deep England would just like to be left in peace. On this difficult birthday for Her Majesty, we can only pray that the destructive forces of progress accord her the same courtesy.
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that i'm perfectly happy the stuff i post is true. Do I care if you doubt my sources or information?, Not one flying fuck. . That's your prerogative, but not my concern.
    RIP Science Forum
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to UKSmartypants For This Useful Post:

    Authentic (09-29-2022),Brat (04-21-2021),dinosaur (04-21-2021),Oberon (04-21-2021),Oceander (04-21-2021),Quark (04-21-2021),StanAtStanFan (04-21-2021)

  3. #2
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsOverdriveTagger First ClassSocial1 year registered
    Overall activity: 10.0%

    Oceander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    LIRR
    Posts
    11,726
    Thanks
    19,760
    Thanked: 17,978
    Rep Power
    21474850
    Another analogy would be to the practice in the Roman Republic of appointing dictators: Roman dictator - Wikipedia
    So let us stop talkin' falsely now
    The hour's getting late -- Jimi Hendrix

    #RESISTBidet

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Oceander For This Useful Post:

    dinosaur (04-21-2021)

  5. #3
    Senior Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Mainecoons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas and Lake Chapala Mexico
    Posts
    9,840
    Thanks
    12,212
    Thanked: 12,103
    Rep Power
    21474856
    Today, younger adults widely believe the world has been getting worse throughout their lives, and are pessimistic about the capacity of science, government or their own agency to change this.
    I'd say they are quite correct. Not a week goes by we aren't thankful for the fact we are so old we won't be around when the wheels finally come off.

    We are watching the history of the collapse of western civilization and the descent into Islamic and racial barbarism take hold. White people should retreat to Eastern Europe and Russia and prepare to fight to the death.
    MEXICO HAS HONEST ELECTIONS WITH IN PERSON VOTING AND PHOTO VOTER ID. AND AMERICA?

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mainecoons For This Useful Post:

    Big Wheeler (04-22-2021),dinosaur (04-21-2021),Quark (04-21-2021),UKSmartypants (04-22-2021)

  7. #4
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialTagger First ClassCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 64.0%

    Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    47,631
    Thanks
    102,145
    Thanked: 53,943
    Rep Power
    21474891
    Very interesting. You forgot about Cromwell and the Republic under Cromwell.

    As an American I cannot tell my English cousins what to do or not do. I will give some of the problems under our system for whatever it's worth.

    Our Founders chose to combine the head of state and head of government under one office, the President as the prime or head magistrate. This to me I think was a great mistake. We vote and can change both head of state and head of government every four years with great upheaval as can be seen with the last election with the removal of President Trump for a brain dead corrupt Communist. You can see all the riots and looting going on in all of our corrupt Communist run cities. We are very quickly becoming a communist nation which will lead to a total break up of the USA into much smaller countries in the very near future and the future is quickly approaching. I think we would have a much more stable society if the head of state and the head of government were two separate offices with over lapping tenure. Maybe the head of the government up for election and re-election every four years and the head of state elected for one 12 year term. All I know is that what we now is is going to lead to a break up of the USA.

    A democracy is nothing more than a pack of wolves deciding what lamb they are going to eat. The USA went from a constitutional republic to a not-so constitutional democracy where 51% of the people get to push around 49% of the people. Fortunately, we sheep still have our guns to keep the wolves somewhat at bay but for how long.

    Personally, I'm an anarchist (the sovereign individual) who favors the individual over any government or state but we are probably a long ways from people understanding that all any government is is a legal crime syndicate run by criminals who suffer from libido dominandi. To save you all from looking up the word it means the "lust to dominate" and/or the "lust for government". One could also look at it as the "lust to govern."

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Quark For This Useful Post:

    dinosaur (04-21-2021),UKSmartypants (04-22-2021)

  9. #5
    Alumni Member V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialTagger First ClassCreated Blog entryVeteran
    Overall activity: 64.0%

    Quark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    47,631
    Thanks
    102,145
    Thanked: 53,943
    Rep Power
    21474891
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoons View Post
    I'd say they are quite correct. Not a week goes by we aren't thankful for the fact we are so old we won't be around when the wheels finally come off.

    We are watching the history of the collapse of western civilization and the descent into Islamic and racial barbarism take hold. White people should retreat to Eastern Europe and Russia and prepare to fight to the death.
    The Neo-Dark Ages are a coming.

  10. #6
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 2.0%

    WVYankee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,630
    Thanks
    4,185
    Thanked: 2,643
    Rep Power
    4800442
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    Very interesting. You forgot about Cromwell and the Republic under Cromwell.

    As an American I cannot tell my English cousins what to do or not do. I will give some of the problems under our system for whatever it's worth.

    Our Founders chose to combine the head of state and head of government under one office, the President as the prime or head magistrate. This to me I think was a great mistake. We vote and can change both head of state and head of government every four years with great upheaval as can be seen with the last election with the removal of President Trump for a brain dead corrupt Communist. You can see all the riots and looting going on in all of our corrupt Communist run cities. We are very quickly becoming a communist nation which will lead to a total break up of the USA into much smaller countries in the very near future and the future is quickly approaching. I think we would have a much more stable society if the head of state and the head of government were two separate offices with over lapping tenure. Maybe the head of the government up for election and re-election every four years and the head of state elected for one 12 year term. All I know is that what we now is is going to lead to a break up of the USA.

    A democracy is nothing more than a pack of wolves deciding what lamb they are going to eat. The USA went from a constitutional republic to a not-so constitutional democracy where 51% of the people get to push around 49% of the people. Fortunately, we sheep still have our guns to keep the wolves somewhat at bay but for how long.

    Personally, I'm an anarchist (the sovereign individual) who favors the individual over any government or state but we are probably a long ways from people understanding that all any government is is a legal crime syndicate run by criminals who suffer from libido dominandi. To save you all from looking up the word it means the "lust to dominate" and/or the "lust for government". One could also look at it as the "lust to govern."

    Quite right. However, it must be fully understood that our form of government, as written in our constitution, had nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, but a FEDERAL REPUBLIC. And in that were built in checks and balances, to prevent what has happened to societies over the millennia that embraced it "democracy." (Hello the fall of ROME and its Caesars!!!) Hence, our three branches of governance were wisely put in place. Not flawless, but the best solution mankind had come up with over the millennia. It's workable, doable, PROVEN and rational--IF it's not corrupted, which it obviously has been with the last "election" results. And was CLEARLY a deep state coup to upend it.

    Secondly, it was clear to our founding forefathers that the monarchy they fled, enslaved those that weren't born with the proverbial "spoon in their mouths," and fought to replace it with something that served the common man--IF he worked hard enough to earn his right of privilege that he could never attain under a monarchy. And a nation was born.

    Furthermore--and perhaps more prominent, was the RIGHT to serve our God...the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his Holy Son, our Messiah--as we saw fit. Without persecution for so doing. All swept under the table by the "progressives" who usher in false gods and pervert our First Amendment with their hedonism and outright heresy.

    But I totally get what UKSmartypants is saying. The last Monarchy has served her people well. And the dogs that are salivating to totally consume it once the Queen dies, will be the end of the world as we know it. I have deep respect for Her Majesty and the Monarchy. She is conservative to the core, as were most Monarchs of the day, despite what I just pecked in. A two-sided coin, if you will.

    I don't proclaim to be a genius, but it hardly takes a genius to figure out what path our two nations are taking today...

  11. #7
    Banned Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    TheOneOnly2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    2,462
    Thanks
    1,266
    Thanked: 1,259
    Rep Power
    0
    Pfft. You guys go on with a lot of nonsense. ( English and Americans ).

    Dictator is way to go.
    Last edited by TheOneOnly2; 04-21-2021 at 05:31 PM.

  12. #8
    Banned Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassOverdrive1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 0%

    Authentic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Not far from Hollyweird
    Posts
    30,435
    Thanks
    13,611
    Thanked: 21,883
    Rep Power
    0
    Long live the queen (just like the OP).
    Last edited by Authentic; 04-21-2021 at 05:59 PM.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Authentic For This Useful Post:

    UKSmartypants (04-22-2021),WVYankee (04-22-2021)

  14. #9
    time soldier V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger Second Class
    Overall activity: 64.0%

    ruthless terrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    on the river in Florida
    Posts
    11,854
    Thanks
    9,689
    Thanked: 21,940
    Rep Power
    16680035
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoons View Post
    We are watching the history of the collapse of western civilization and the descent into Islamic and racial barbarism take hold. White people should retreat to Eastern Europe and Russia and prepare to fight to the death.
    what with around 14 or 15 thousand nuclear warheads (that we know about) in the world .. the fight to the death may not take very long. I would think that most in the free world would rather set the world on fire than surrender to Islam or worse. it would only take a few hours to finish.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to ruthless terrier For This Useful Post:

    Quark (04-21-2021)

  16. #10
    Alumni Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registeredSocial
    Overall activity: 15.0%

    UKSmartypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    10,230
    Thanks
    1,142
    Thanked: 12,728
    Rep Power
    18891648
    The bright hope might be that of the two predicted wars, Armageddon and Apocalypse, (one being a Middle Eastern affair and one a world affair ) the saving grace might be that the Middle East one might just wipe out enough of the barbarians to make the otherwise inevitable, not so inevitable. The Moslem invasion of the west is powered by the Middle East, and by Iran and Saudi. After a decent nuclear exchange with the jews, they might not be in a position to keep it up......
    Last edited by UKSmartypants; 04-22-2021 at 04:44 AM.
    I declare that the entire content and attachments of any and all of my posts are for the purposes of personal entertainment, and that i'm perfectly happy the stuff i post is true. Do I care if you doubt my sources or information?, Not one flying fuck. . That's your prerogative, but not my concern.
    RIP Science Forum
    REMEMBER: Xenophobia Can Save Lives!

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to UKSmartypants For This Useful Post:

    Quark (04-22-2021)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •