Queen Elizabeth II - RIP

[Mysia]

Whether or not you agree with the monarchy she devoted her life to serving not only our own country but as the head of the commonwealth. She has travelled the world meeting with heads of state promoting and bringing stability to our nation.
Just because her authority was reduced does not mean she wasn't important. Although she didn't have a lot of 'power' in relation to governing the country she was still a much loved, admired and respected figurehead worldwide. She worked tirelessly up until 3 days ago when she met with Liz Truss to ask her to form a new government, at 96!
Losing her is a huge loss for our country and the end of an era in more ways than one.

R.I.P.

Does it not make you the slightest bit uncomfortable that someone is born with power over you without earning it?

The way (including every king/queen of England) justified their rule was declaring that they (the royal family) were all divinely ordained and came straight from god. The divine right of kings as it were. Essentially the commoners are lied to, and the whole idea of royalty is built on that lie. So, do you also like the idea that a family line of pathological liars lording over you? Or do you also buy into the laugh that royalty are all chosen by god, and are born better than you?

Are you going to defend them and say that they only lied to all of you for hundreds of years because it was the easiest route to suppress the commoners like yourself and therefore it was justified?

Their shit does not smell like roses either by the way.

who is to say that they were lying and did not believe it themselves? people in the past, especially medieval eras were very religious. and of course the commoners openly accepted their kings because there was no alternative that wasn't known to be worse.

often the stupid peasants would overthrow the king, only to have chaos and warlords pop up, and eventually would beg for another king

divine right to rule and being born into royalty is important because it protects the throne from usurpers and helps reduce rivals to the throne that would create civil war.

[Nexit]

who ?

[overtyped]

I'm afraid I don't see it in the same way you do. As previously stated, the monarchy has changed a lot since the 17th century, they no longer hold any real power. Nowadays, in this country at least, the monarchy is more a figurehead and representative of the country, in that regard I think she has done a great job and is very much respected, worldwide.

The power here is held by the government, who may have earned it but don't necessarily deserve it and when it comes to being pathological liars, well, I think that's true of the majority of politicians, worldwide.

There are many people who have 'direct' power over you as you go through life, starting with your parents ... I'm just grateful that so far in life those that have had direct power over me, from parents, teachers, bosses, constabulary etc have made it a pleasant experience and I've not fallen foul of them.

You've changed your wording slightly whilst I was typing ... but, my answer remains the same. In the future there may be a vote to remove the monarchy, I'm not gong to say which way I'd vote, but whilst there is one they are the least of my concerns when it comes to ppl who have real power and the fact still remains, imo, that she did a very good job in representing us on the worldwide stage, a much better one than the majority of prime minsters we've had during her reign.

The queen of england had the power to order the army even to this day, however the moment she uses it once she will likely lose it, and knew this.
That is still military power put in the hands of someone that you did not vote for, has not been vetted for competence, is not the best person for the job, but was rather born on their 'royal' throne. This is why monarchy's are abolished. One ruler might be competent, but the next might be a shitshow. Even if this deceased queen was the best queen ever, what about her unpopular son?

You don't want a general leading an army who has not risen up the ranks by proving their competency do you? It's like when they allowed you to buy a rank in the army, but after seeing the shitshow that resulted from that, that was quickly abolished.

[Kuriak]

I'm afraid I don't see it in the same way you do. As previously stated, the monarchy has changed a lot since the 17th century, they no longer hold any real power. Nowadays, in this country at least, the monarchy is more a figurehead and representative of the country, in that regard I think she has done a great job and is very much respected, worldwide.

The power here is held by the government, who may have earned it but don't necessarily deserve it and when it comes to being pathological liars, well, I think that's true of the majority of politicians, worldwide.

There are many people who have 'direct' power over you as you go through life, starting with your parents ... I'm just grateful that so far in life those that have had direct power over me, from parents, teachers, bosses, constabulary etc have made it a pleasant experience and I've not fallen foul of them.

You've changed your wording slightly whilst I was typing ... but, my answer remains the same. In the future there may be a vote to remove the monarchy, I'm not gong to say which way I'd vote, but whilst there is one they are the least of my concerns when it comes to ppl who have real power and the fact still remains, imo, that she did a very good job in representing us on the worldwide stage, a much better one than the majority of prime minsters we've had during her reign.

The queen of england had the power to order the army even to this day, however the moment she uses it once she will likely lose it, and knew this.
That is still military power put in the hands of someone that you did not vote for, has not been vetted for competence, is not the best person for the job, but was rather born on their 'royal' throne. This is why monarchy's are abolished. One ruler might be competent, but the next might be a shitshow. Even if this deceased queen was the best queen ever, what about her unpopular son?

You don't want a general leading an army who has not risen up the ranks by proving their competency do you? It's like when they allowed you to buy a rank in the army, but after seeing the shitshow that resulted from that, that was quickly abolished.

Agreed, and to add something, recent events over the last few years in the US have shown us the problem with the good conduct of our leadership being enforced not by laws but by norms and traditions. Trump and his cult came through and have severely damaged US institutions partly because most of the crooked, evil shit he did wasn't against any laws, just taboo.

[Amanda44]

I'm afraid I don't see it in the same way you do. As previously stated, the monarchy has changed a lot since the 17th century, they no longer hold any real power. Nowadays, in this country at least, the monarchy is more a figurehead and representative of the country, in that regard I think she has done a great job and is very much respected, worldwide.

The power here is held by the government, who may have earned it but don't necessarily deserve it and when it comes to being pathological liars, well, I think that's true of the majority of politicians, worldwide.

There are many people who have 'direct' power over you as you go through life, starting with your parents ... I'm just grateful that so far in life those that have had direct power over me, from parents, teachers, bosses, constabulary etc have made it a pleasant experience and I've not fallen foul of them.

You've changed your wording slightly whilst I was typing ... but, my answer remains the same. In the future there may be a vote to remove the monarchy, I'm not gong to say which way I'd vote, but whilst there is one they are the least of my concerns when it comes to ppl who have real power and the fact still remains, imo, that she did a very good job in representing us on the worldwide stage, a much better one than the majority of prime minsters we've had during her reign.

The queen of england had the power to order the army even to this day, however the moment she uses it once she will likely lose it, and knew this.
That is still military power put in the hands of someone that you did not vote for, has not been vetted for competence, is not the best person for the job, but was rather born on their 'royal' throne. This is why monarchy's are abolished. One ruler might be competent, but the next might be a shitshow. Even if this deceased queen was the best queen ever, what about her unpopular son?

You don't want a general leading an army who has not risen up the ranks by proving their competency do you? It's like when they allowed you to buy a rank in the army, but after seeing the shitshow that resulted from that, that was quickly abolished.

Agreed, and to add something, recent events over the last few years in the US have shown us the problem with the good conduct of our leadership being enforced not by laws but by norms and traditions. Trump and his cult came through and have severely damaged US institutions partly because most of the crooked, evil shit he did wasn't against any laws, just taboo.

Now these points are something we can all agree on. Though not the purpose of the thread.

[Mysia]

The queen of england had the power to order the army even to this day, however the moment she uses it once she will likely lose it, and knew this.
That is still military power put in the hands of someone that you did not vote for, has not been vetted for competence, is not the best person for the job, but was rather born on their 'royal' throne. This is why monarchy's are abolished. One ruler might be competent, but the next might be a shitshow. Even if this deceased queen was the best queen ever, what about her unpopular son?

You don't want a general leading an army who has not risen up the ranks by proving their competency do you? It's like when they allowed you to buy a rank in the army, but after seeing the shitshow that resulted from that, that was quickly abolished.

the queen (king ) is a person whos entire life from birth was to literally be vetted for the job. generally when it comes to military, like all other affairs, they delegate the majority of power to subordinates as it is impossible to do anything on such a large scale by yourself

the problem with a general leading the army is that after he wins a great battle and all the troops are loyal to him, what's to stop him from turning around and marching on the capital to secure the political apparatuses? of course checks and balances are the key to a successful government, but having a democratically elected leader is dumb as fuck, military dictatorship, whatever, you need executive power but pretty much every form of government is fucked in one way or another.
Ultimately executive power is backed by the military. And just as you don't want a politician in front of the army, you don't want a general in front of the politics.

Overall, Monarchies are great, and with the right leader you can get 80+ years of consecutive prosperity ( 4 generations ), and when the leader is shit he can die. Typically his relatives will be the ones to off him because as they have been raised since birth to have this job and take it seriously they do not like to be disgraced in public.

Also, some of the most privileged citizens in the world live in Absolute monarchies today, see Qatar, United Arab Emirates, granted you have to be a male citizen and its simply because of oil money but eh. Interesting thing is being a male citizen in some of these Arab countries gives you very much rights, but in Qatar something like 85% of the population is non-citizen immigrants that are essentially treated like slaves and are allowed to be expelled back to their country at any point. This allows the people born there to never have to do the shitty jobs just live good. and yet the people still run from their non monarch countries to get a change to be a slave in this place? Interesting.

[overtyped]

The queen of england had the power to order the army even to this day, however the moment she uses it once she will likely lose it, and knew this.
That is still military power put in the hands of someone that you did not vote for, has not been vetted for competence, is not the best person for the job, but was rather born on their 'royal' throne. This is why monarchy's are abolished. One ruler might be competent, but the next might be a shitshow. Even if this deceased queen was the best queen ever, what about her unpopular son?

You don't want a general leading an army who has not risen up the ranks by proving their competency do you? It's like when they allowed you to buy a rank in the army, but after seeing the shitshow that resulted from that, that was quickly abolished.

the queen (king ) is a person whos entire life from birth was to literally be vetted for the job. generally when it comes to military, like all other affairs, they delegate the majority of power to subordinates as it is impossible to do anything on such a large scale by yourself

the problem with a general leading the army is that after he wins a great battle and all the troops are loyal to him, what's to stop him from turning around and marching on the capital to secure the political apparatuses? of course checks and balances are the key to a successful government, but having a democratically elected leader is dumb as fuck, military dictatorship, whatever, you need executive power but pretty much every form of government is fucked in one way or another.
Ultimately executive power is backed by the military. And just as you don't want a politician in front of the army, you don't want a general in front of the politics.

Overall, Monarchies are great, and with the right leader you can get 80+ years of consecutive prosperity ( 4 generations ), and when the leader is shit he can die. Typically his relatives will be the ones to off him because as they have been raised since birth to have this job and take it seriously they do not like to be disgraced in public.

Also, some of the most privileged citizens in the world live in Absolute monarchies today, see Qatar, United Arab Emirates, granted you have to be a male citizen and its simply because of oil money but eh. Interesting thing is being a male citizen in some of these Arab countries gives you very much rights, but in Qatar something like 85% of the population is non-citizen immigrants that are essentially treated like slaves and are allowed to be expelled back to their country at any point. This allows the people born there to never have to do the shitty jobs just live good. and yet the people still run from their non monarch countries to get a change to be a slave in this place? Interesting.

Imagine living in a literal sewer, but having the "best" rights, yeah, no thanks...

If you are talking about modern times in reference to the general coming home and taking over, no, that is nonsensical due the fact that there isn't a single great army in any real modern country, and the soldiers aren't fully loyal to the general, but to the country. Everything you say about a monarchy can also be applied to the country itself. If a general in the US army walked home with an army, the soldiers wouldn't help the general take over because the soldiers know where their loyalty's truly lie.

The west as a whole might be an oligarchy, but unlike those middle east countries, they don't turn half their population into little more than slaves(Their woman)
Want to know why the USA is the largest economy in the world, yet the middle east is a third world country Here's a few reasons, social and systematic oppression.

If you don't pick the best person for the job, but instead look at their bloodline, you make your country poorer through inefficiency and incompetence. This is shown over and over and over and over and over, and while we do that to a certain extent here in our oligarchy's, at the very least if you are intelligent enough, you can easily get a high paying job(like a doctor) even if you are from a poor family. Just imagine how many future doctors are instead buried due to the existence of societal oppression(India), or not allowing woman in those roles(Middle east). Places like these will stay third world country forever(by their own hands), and they deserve it.


A countries strength is not based on the military, but the strength of their economy, so they can continue to bury future skilled tradesmen, future future doctors, future generals, and future leaders, while I will continue to sit here in Canada and laugh at their impoverishing negligence.

In England's case, they are at the very least smart enough to explain to their monarchy that they can have power as long as they don't use it. That is why British soldiers still swear an oath to the queen/king.

[Mysia]

We can agree to disagree about Qatar

The army could quite easily take over the democratic institutions in the United States. You say they are not loyal to a person but to a country. All they have to believe is that the person they want to see in power is what's best for the country see hitler.

For example if Trump had refused to step down as president whether or not he would succeed would lie on the army. The interesting thing to think about is that in the real world you can do whatever the fuck you want. but you are limited by laws, which are ultimately enforced by police. But if the police can't stop you? If you have taken control of a city and are defending it, like a more extreme Chaz or Chop or whatever the fuck, who will stop you? Where does the power ultimatly lie? Why can powerful people not do whatever the fuck they want? I say im president, someone else says "no you're not". I kill that person and continue the process until nobody else has shit to say lol. Because at the end of the day if you do not control the military you do not control yourself :p evyerbody bleeds.
also large groups of people who go through intense brainwashing and are literal property are some of the easiest to manipulate xD their whole deal is to follow orders

Move a regiment of units into a city, enforce curfew, disappearing, etc. You will consolidate power within the year, see communism.

You talk about picking the best person for the job but it's just a bullshit fallacy because in reality you have no way of choosing the best person for a job. Someone who is trained from birth to do the job is subjectively better than someone who say, won a popularity contest. Let's be honest, picking the best person for the job of being in charge of literally everything creates a situation where no person will be capable of fulfilling that role.
But you prefer , rather than having someone trained and groomed, to look to the chaos of the universe to create a majestically unique induvial, whos life experiences have crafted him into the perfect human being and led him directly down the road to becoming the ruler. How could such a person get stuck in the mundane life of a layperson? Learning a trade, having a family, buying a small home and living his life out peacefully? Never. This man will inevitably find his calling, beating out the selfish interests of his peers.
Well...
I don't see it that way :p

You say that economy is more important than military, see Japan in WW2 vs. China. ( although i do agree in this day and age u are more right )

I really don't think a monarchy is any worse than any other form of government, but i really wish something profound and new could be tried out. i hope canada has a revolution and throws off their monarchy tbh but then does some crazy shit i think it would be a good country for a testing grounds

One time i was thinking about it and i was like FUCK. I bet you somebody has theorized the perfect government before, but to actually have things align to get the opportunity to implement a new government in a legit country is like so fucking few and far between that even when you come up with the idea and kind of just dies with you

but anyways, i just love defending the ppl at the top ty for the back and forth bob i enjoy it

[overtyped]

We can agree to disagree about Qatar

The army could quite easily take over the democratic institutions in the United States. You say they are not loyal to a person but to a country. All they have to believe is that the person they want to see in power is what's best for the country see hitler.

For example if Trump had refused to step down as president whether or not he would succeed would lie on the army. The interesting thing to think about is that in the real world you can do whatever the fuck you want. but you are limited by laws, which are ultimately enforced by police. But if the police can't stop you? If you have taken control of a city and are defending it, like a more extreme Chaz or Chop or whatever the fuck, who will stop you? Where does the power ultimatly lie? Why can powerful people not do whatever the fuck they want? I say im president, someone else says "no you're not". I kill that person and continue the process until nobody else has shit to say lol. Because at the end of the day if you do not control the military you do not control yourself :p evyerbody bleeds.
also large groups of people who go through intense brainwashing and are literal property are some of the easiest to manipulate xD their whole deal is to follow orders

Move a regiment of units into a city, enforce curfew, disappearing, etc. You will consolidate power within the year, see communism.

You talk about picking the best person for the job but it's just a bullshit fallacy because in reality you have no way of choosing the best person for a job. Someone who is trained from birth to do the job is subjectively better than someone who say, won a popularity contest. Let's be honest, picking the best person for the job of being in charge of literally everything creates a situation where no person will be capable of fulfilling that role.
But you prefer , rather than having someone trained and groomed, to look to the chaos of the universe to create a majestically unique induvial, whos life experiences have crafted him into the perfect human being and led him directly down the road to becoming the ruler. How could such a person get stuck in the mundane life of a layperson? Learning a trade, having a family, buying a small home and living his life out peacefully? Never. This man will inevitably find his calling, beating out the selfish interests of his peers.
Well...
I don't see it that way :p

You say that economy is more important than military, see Japan in WW2 vs. China. ( although i do agree in this day and age u are more right )

I really don't think a monarchy is any worse than any other form of government, but i really wish something profound and new could be tried out. i hope canada has a revolution and throws off their monarchy tbh but then does some crazy shit i think it would be a good country for a testing grounds

One time i was thinking about it and i was like FUCK. I bet you somebody has theorized the perfect government before, but to actually have things align to get the opportunity to implement a new government in a legit country is like so fucking few and far between that even when you come up with the idea and kind of just dies with you

but anyways, i just love defending the ppl at the top ty for the back and forth bob i enjoy it

Trump very much tried to incite violence, he incited rednecks to take over the white house, which they sorta did, until someone got shot, and they all fled. The president can order the generals in the army to take action, but if you think this is comparable to when Julius Caesar took power, you are very very wrong.

For one, military power is in the hands of the generals, congress, corporate America, and the American oligarchs, the president just has some say in commanding them, but don't conflate it to mean that the people he commands are more loyal to him, than they are to say... the interests of the other four.

Secondly, these men in power are all very comfortable, especially the oligarchs, they will have far more to lose, than they have to gain in a coup-d-etat attempt. For one, it being next to impossible. Any leak of information(and it will leak) will instantly end the coup.

So, what happens when a president in the USA tries to convince a general to help him in a coup-d-etat? Well, i'll tell you, he will be laughed, and then told to shut his mouth until his end of term.

Hitlers case is also not applicable in the USA, there are too many reasons, and I don't want to go into too much detail, but I'll say this. Germany was in a poor state after the end of the first world war, with enormous debt and reparations to britian and i think france, the german people were seething. This kind of anger at the government, and impoverishment is what made it possible for Hitler to break up the congress, and have the army take his side completely in self righteous outrage at their government. Even if you looked all over the USA, you wouldn't find a spark big enough to create the environment for even 1/10 of that.

[Mysia]

I mean I will say I voted for Trump. But the more I look at the way he handled the end of his presidency and the time period after it, it really looks like he was trying to consolidate power permanently.
I think his failure speaks to your points, but we have to admit he was not a very charismatic leader.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... a2e9cdce2b
"Trump asks advisors about deploying military to overturn election"

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/08/us/p ... ivals.html
"Trump calls to indict political rivals"

So you are right, he did ask, and he was "laughed", but I do think it is still possible under different circumstances.

Also I stumbled upon this in my research
https://www.ancient-code.com/nostradamu ... of-the-us/
lmfao get ready for ww3



Here is a picture of the voter turnout for Reagans election. Somebody with that kind of support may be able to pull it off idk. I'm not sure how anybody could get such support nowadays though when they always have such divisive issues on the table such as abortion.
What WOULD have happened if they had stormed the capitol and somehow managed to kill a shitload of senators? How would that effect the system?

https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/06/wh ... -murdered/
"because he not only opposed the dismemberment of Germany, but also because he favored military action against the Communists. As the most popular hero of the Second World War, Patton would have been unbeatable in a presidential race."

In his letter to Harbord, Patton also revealed his own plans to fight those who were destroying the morale and integrity of the Army and endangering America’s future by not opposing the growing Soviet might: “It is my present thought . . . that when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth. . . . I should not start a limited counter-attack, which would be contrary to my military theories, but should wait until I can start an all-out offensive . . . .”

"Not only did the U.S. Army make no investigation into the “accident” which had put him into the hospital, but no questions were raised about his “embolism”. On previous occasions when attempts were made to kill him, no investigations were made despite the fact that he was one of the most popular and most powerful figures in America’s history."

Interesting that even the army didn't stand up for him. Perhaps, those "Oligarchs" and such, were actually afraid, of what he could do.

“I have been just as furious as you at the compilation of lies which the communist and Semitic elements of our government have levelled against me and practically every other commander. In my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to alienate the soldier vote from the commanders, because the communists know that soldiers are not communistic, and they fear what eleven million votes [of veterans] would do.”


Lots of interesting stuff from patton