-
-
From the outside looking in monarchies tend to control exactly what they need to. Why would a king make laws for his people if he doesn't have to, and, more importantly, when they rebel they do not seek to remove him from office but rather someone else in the role of government head, provided, that monarch still retain final say over land, military, and taxes, not to mention closed door meeting where the press simply set a camera on a door while contemplating or conjecturing what's being said inside between monarch and PM or some such.
That's kinda funny if accurate - and at a quick glance it likely is... the Netherlands too still got a monarchy and those dudes usually seem pretty happy too. Betrays some of my instinctive class prejudice probably.. I don't think the Swiss have had much truck with Monarchies for centuries though, the Cantons have always been fiercely independent if I recall right, and of course the anglophone countries of the former British Empire are independent in all practical matters.
I guess it's quite possible a benevolent Monarchy - where it has executive power at all - doesn't have to stand in the way of promoting ********ic values, and the modern constitutional monarchies of Europe are all technically subservient to the elected Government and have little more than ceremonial roles. Still they can have considerable influence on public opinion I guess... to me though they're just an anachronism... the idea that these figures should have a significant public role based simply on accident of birth just doesn't sit well with me.
Irony of course is that if the will of the people of those happily ********ic-ish countries that you mention is that they retain monarchies - even merely ceremonial ones - then that will should be respected... drat. Hoist by mine own petard!
I still object to paying taxes to Liz and her brood beyond what's strictly justified to cover the expenses of their official duties as titular representatives of state though. I'm in favour of letting Liz see out her reign and then putting the rest out to pasture although having recently witnessed what a presidential election looks like I'm starting to wonder if there ain't a better way to decide on who should be head of state
Incidentally the Democracy tally aligns fairly well with the list of nations by happiness:
10 happiest countries
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Iceland
Norway
Netherlands
Sweden
New Zealand
Austria
Luxembourg
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel...-a9414201.html
Use y'all as an example that way one of us know wtf I am talking about
I get told all the time "But Queen's role is purely ceremonial." Then I see things like a frumpy upset UK equivalent to a senator pick up a sceptor and shut down parliament for like a second until folks relieve him of it.
Those don't jive and there is more to this story.
I feel like they just followed Rome's lead and pivoted from direct control to ok you can for the most part control your own fates as long as you give me that money and do make any laws that would **** with my flow of money. Tides and offerings are catholic and religious now, once they were drawn by sword.
benevolent or just convenient and a better way for all parties? It's a win-win.
Correct me if I'm wrong but at any time Queen Liz can just say gimme my ****ing sceptor and no legal law making can happen now? That's some real monarch power that is. Can she not take charge of the UK military? How about who actually owns the land Canada is on?
Democracy isn't something I'd call that system. More like pass-the-buck monarchy imo with a dash of if y'all try to **** me I can take it all back classic dictator style.
With Liz, that's not very scary. She's been pretty cool and politically smart. The hereditary institution is though. I'd not feel comfortable knowing if Chucky or the next are ****s then they can pull the rug on this whole freedom bit.
Then again, I'm not sure I even agree with democracy. Bunch of unqualified idiots making judgment calls for the people who know better and little else. Shouldn't be people who have to bring up articles who vote for those subjects. Shouldn't be a convincing game. Let the experts decide expert ****.
Things like Christians telling Science what is moral without really understanding Science at all.
I've spoken to global warming before. It's clear there is no real leadership. There is juxtaposition and what must be done while politicians try to connect their name to a thing that will happen regardless of them.
And besides, even without a monarch, those with the gold are above the law anyway.
Comment
-
To people saying that lockdowns don't work: they do if you A) act early and B) don't half-ass it. Neither of those apply in the UK (or the US or basically every other western country besides a small handful.) China was ground zero, and yeah, while they definitely undercooked their numbers in the early going, the proof is in the pudding in that they're basically back to normal while in Western countries we're getting taken up the ass by the virus worse than ever. Even if you think that their real numbers are ten times the actual official values they've still come out well ahead of the West. The difference is that we twiddled our thumbs for weeks and let it spread and then put lockdowns in place that were mostly a joke - the first one when this all started did its job for a bit but it was ended too early and the most recent wave of them were a joke, basically nothing changed between being in and out of lockdown, and even if the rules were strict the police don't have the spine or the manpower to enforce it - the long-suffering retail staff in shops being given the cursed task of trying to get frequently-aggressive and deliberately ignorant customers to follow the rules even less so.
Contrast that with China, which was utterly ruthless in enforcing the strictest lockdowns possible, to the point where they were welding people's doors shut and dragging infected people off in vans. It was honestly quite shocking at the time but it got results. It's a pretty bad look for ******* democracies that they were that badly outdone by a country that's basically a dictatorship, especially when you look at all the other ways they're outperforming us that have nothing to do with Covid. What the UK should have done was close the borders shut entirely as soon as possible and then enforce a strict lockdown until community-transmitted cases come down to zero. Every public place shut, rent, debt interest, utility payments and other cost-of-living expenses cancelled for the duration, and door-to-door rationing of food and other essential goods by the army. Yes, it would be utterly miserable for as long as it lasted and the conspiratards would flip a tit about it, but honestly after I don't give a single **** about them and their BS. It would have been preferable to months and months of the ****show we have now.Comment
-
TBF man, I do specify there that I'm talking about agenda 21 - which was largely ignored outside of the US - rather than 'The Great Reset', but your point is a fair one. I think whilst it's received most approbation in the petrochemical producing nations it's also spread through the anglophone conspiracysphere like wildfire... accelerated much like everything else this year by fear and uncertainty (and too much time on people's hands) during COVID.Looks like Klaus Schwab is a former member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group.
Can't let you get away with painting the concerns about this as US-centric, man.
According to Wikipedia when Justin Trudeau expressed support for this proposal a petition was launched in Canada to stop it and amassed 80,000 signatures in less than 72 hours.
Like I say I'm cynical of anything that comes out of the WEF... whatever motives they say they got they're all about making sure the profits keep flowing and this initiative of selling us cuddly capitalism is nothing new... nice article here which actually ain't too far away from my takes both on Davos and on the subsequent wave of alarmist conspiracies which have followed in the wake of their latest initiative:
However, I do believe they also genuinely do have some interest in keeping the world afloat and economies working as long as possible even if just so that they can control and exploit them, whereas contrasted to that I see other groups of corporate interests - especially in the US - pushing for business as usual, unbridled free markets and an easing on restrictions on resource exploitation and environmental protections.... in short an economic model which is driving us off a cliff edge. I don't agree with that either.
The 'Great Reset' isn't what Schwab and Davos are saying but it also isn't what your various shades of conspiracist are saying either... at least IMO.
Understand that I ain't with Davos here, but I am with greater international co-operation and concerted efforts to increase sustainability, conserve resources and reduce greenhouse emmisions... conserving part of our rapidly shrinking biodiversity would probably be a good idea too, though human welfare is probably my highest priority (I think the two things go hand in hand however). We got problems happening at a global level and it's my opinion we need to be putting aside our differences and tackling 'em at a global level.Last edited by Citizen Koba; 01-04-2021, 04:02 PM.Comment
-
I know of it, man, I'm not yet quite sure how it's best interpreted though. What specifically would be your concerns with it? What I've seen so far tends to lead make me think it's more along the lines of a collaborative voluntary initiative to increase international co-operation... which to me makes a great deal of sense given that increasingly as a species we're facing global threats and challenges. Certainly greater sustainability - which is claimed as a primary goal of TGR - is something we should all be aiming for, it should be blindingly obvious to anyone that a growing population in a world of finite and diminishing resources can only lead to catastophe, especially under an economic systewm which actually encourages and even demands wasteful consumption.
Where it becomes more problematic is if and/or when it such initiatives start to impact on ********ic rights or becomes able to enforce supranational legislature against the ********ic wishes of the people of signatory nations. So far it looks to me much like the huge furor over agenda 21 which was also entirely voluntary but aroused the ire of various pressure and lobbying groups with connections to the petrochemical industry who have gone to great lengths to oversell it as an attack on US personal freedoms.
Just outta curiosity what do you see as the way forward for the world yourself? ... In my view for better or worse we are now inextrcably part of both a global community and a global economy, technologically and economically linked across national and other traditional societal boundaries. In some way as a species we have to embrace that - accept it, or otherwise try to roll back the clock to an earlier age of national seperation and rivalries of the sort that led to the catastrophic wars of the 20th C. And given that resources are increasingly gonna be under pressure in coming decades I can only see that ending extremely badly.
I honestly don't know the answers (I personally believe in more atomised socieites and folk living, working and making decisions in smaller interlinked units - voluntary communes or syndicates - but I got no roadmap and I'm digressing) but it does seem to me that greater rather than less international co-operation has to be a good thing though I'm deeply sceptical of the WEF and this particular program. It's a genuine enquiry though... what sort of future do you see for the world and our individual nations, or alternatively what sort of future do you believe is most likely?
...Damn, this thread's gonna need shifting to the lounge if we carry on like this... and I'm behind with the PIck Em updating too... gotta get on that.
You do make a very interesting point.Comment
-
Well, at least I have gotten you to acknowledge that concerns about globalist plans extend beyond conspiratorialism and paranoia and Christian fundamentalism in the US political arena.
But besides the Anglophone conspiracysphere let's also add the Francophone one. In Canada anyway.
Comment
Tweet
Comment