Royal Babylon - crimes of the monarchy

demos

Really Experienced
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Posts
175
I came across this very interesting film last night (available to view on vimeo and youtube).

Because of censorship, you will not be able to see it on mainstream channels - despite the fact that it is a well researched and assembled contribution to the debate about whether monarchy can ever be part of a true democracy.

I would invite the irrational supporters of monarchy on here to view this film and allow their minds to engage with the serious points being made *.

(* All except the bit about Malcolm X - the establishment may have been out to get him and the dalliances of Brenda's sister with underworld figures were certainly cause for concern for them, but the man was without doubt a very nasty piece of work)
 
Most people on here are yanks who don't give a damn. Nobody in the UK apart from a few pinko lefties care either because they trust Queen Lizzie more than they trust politicians. Diana's boys are extremely popular and seem to given the Royals a new lease of life.

With a bit of luck you'll soon get independence and can have a Socialist Scottish Republic and with 'queen' Nicola in charge. As long as there's no currency union or dual citizenship on offer we'll all be happy.


I came across this very interesting film last night (available to view on vimeo and youtube).

Because of censorship, you will not be able to see it on mainstream channels - despite the fact that it is a well researched and assembled contribution to the debate about whether monarchy can ever be part of a true democracy.

I would invite the irrational supporters of monarchy on here to view this film and allow their minds to engage with the serious points being made *.

(* All except the bit about Malcolm X - the establishment may have been out to get him and the dalliances of Brenda's sister with underworld figures were certainly cause for concern for them, but the man was without doubt a very nasty piece of work)
 
I take it from the tone of your reply that you don't like the home truths revealed in the film, which are never exposed by a reactionary main stream media happy to be part of the dysfunctional establishment which has so failed this country.

"Nobody in the UK apart from a few pinko lefties care either" - Really? Nobody? So you classify the 25% of people who favour a republic as "nobody"?

25%, given a news landscape of fawning coverage of royal trivia, with an objective or critical voice being as rare as hen's teeth. Once Brenda has popped her clogs and the prospect of Charles and his mistress at the top of the pyramid becomes reality, there will undoubtedly be a different scenario.

"Socialist Scottish Republic" - your description, but a very lazy one. Scots have a greater level of communitarian values than our neighbours south of the border, but also linked to enterprise, so this can more accurately be described as social capitalism, rather than the uncaring capitalism-without-borders model favoured by USA and England.

The Scottish Socialist Party is nothing more than a fringe group, now without any representation in a parliament which, unlike westmidden, is democratically elected by proportional representation.

As for currency union, if an independent Scotland (coming soon) chooses to use the pound as an interim currency without agreement, London will just have to suck it up.

Getting back to the point of the film, I notice that you do not actually offer any defence of the misdeeds of royalty.
 
Think about this: The last non-royal person to rule England was Oliver Cromwell. :eek:
 
Think about this: The last non-royal person to rule England was Oliver Cromwell. :eek:

No Scotsman or Irishman will be unaware that the cruelty and devastation visited upon both countries was every bit as savage as anything inflicted by his Anglo-Norman royal-bandit predecessors, but should Cromwell really be cast up as an argument in favour of the retention of an anti-democratic, unelected system? Hardly.

Lest anyone offer the prospect of a president Blair - well, like or loathe the vacuous, opportunist little shit, he was elected three times, with a minority of the vote but a majority of seats. (Thanks a bunch to the mumsnet demographic, BTW!)

Some democracy, eh? (Tell it to the 3 million dispossessed UKIP voters!)

So, consigning Cromwell and Blair to the fires of hell, let me propose some admirable examples of non-politicians who have been head of state: Havel, Walesa, Robertson.
 
It's a pretty sure sign no matter what side of the ocean you're on that when your argument begins with "the main stream media is against me" it's probably because you're equal parts wrong and retarded.
 
Yeah, a very astute point, Sean Retard.
Thanks for your invaluable, insightful and prescient contribution from the land of the brave and the home of the weird.
 
You're quite welcome to it. You can file it under shit you'd already know if you opened your eyes for a moment. Sure every so often the powers that be genuinely do screw you over but the media is a reflection of the people. It is after all something essentially for sale. If more people were on your side the media would cover it more often and more favorably if for no other reason than to get you to watch more often and increase their own ratings.
 
"the media is a reflection of the people"

Ha ha, very good. Keep on watching Fox News.
 
"the media is a reflection of the people"

Ha ha, very good. Keep on watching Fox News.

I prefer Al Jazeera US and CNN thank you but I do occasionally wander over to Fox just to see what they are on about. But they don't make money because nobody is watching them.

Unfortunately, Fox News is a reflection of a big bunch of people.

Yep. I don't have to like them I have to accept that they wouldn't be in business if people weren't following the trail they lead. Given a look at Congress I'd say it's safe to assume anywhere between 33% and 60% more or less agree with Fox on any given subject at any given time. And some of the disagreers are the liberals who wouldn't believe Hannity if he told them that the sky is blue. Hitler is dead and we gained our independence from the Crown.
 
Probably a majority of the people, or at least a plurality.

Definitely not a majority at least not if we judge by voting trends. Perhaps if we judged solely by viewership it's been a while since I've looked at their ratings. And a plurality is a bit meaningless without the proper context. For the sake of argument (and I'm sure this in no way represents the numbers) but if Fox has 34%, CNN has 33% and MSNBC has 33% then Fox has a plurality. . .for whatever that's worth even if the three represented entirely opposing viewpoints on everything.
 
I didn't even watch the film because I'm not bothered enough about the royals to wwant a republic. If the yanks and frogs and Panama have one then good for them its their business. Their suit suits them and our suits us.

The 25% you state want a republic are insignificant to the 75% who don't and are perfectly happy with the status quo. I don't give a damn but maybe I would if I was in the 25%. I quite like the royals for winding up the lefties and I don't give a solitary flying fig what foreigners think.

As for the currency union you're right that Scotland can continue using the pound but it won't be in a currency union. It will be like the relationship the USA has with some of its neighbours where they use the currency but have no say whatsoever in managing it. You should apply to join the euro its your destiny. Bit like Cuba or the Domincan Rep.

Anyway GSTQ!

I take it from the tone of your reply that you don't like the home truths revealed in the film, which are never exposed by a reactionary main stream media happy to be part of the dysfunctional establishment which has so failed this country.

"Nobody in the UK apart from a few pinko lefties care either" - Really? Nobody? So you classify the 25% of people who favour a republic as "nobody"?

25%, given a news landscape of fawning coverage of royal trivia, with an objective or critical voice being as rare as hen's teeth. Once Brenda has popped her clogs and the prospect of Charles and his mistress at the top of the pyramid becomes reality, there will undoubtedly be a different scenario.

"Socialist Scottish Republic" - your description, but a very lazy one. Scots have a greater level of communitarian values than our neighbours south of the border, but also linked to enterprise, so this can more accurately be described as social capitalism, rather than the uncaring capitalism-without-borders model favoured by USA and England.

The Scottish Socialist Party is nothing more than a fringe group, now without any representation in a parliament which, unlike westmidden, is democratically elected by proportional representation.

As for currency union, if an independent Scotland (coming soon) chooses to use the pound as an interim currency without agreement, London will just have to suck it up.

Getting back to the point of the film, I notice that you do not actually offer any defence of the misdeeds of royalty.
 
It's a pretty sure sign no matter what side of the ocean you're on that when your argument begins with "the main stream media is against me" it's probably because you're equal parts wrong and retarded.

Thank you.

In Germany, it's called PEGIDA.
 
Back
Top