Australia and the Monarchy

[Little brother]

The Queen had her b'day little while ago, it was publicised left right and center, i felt sick. all this pompous crap for a little old lady half the world away? Whats the point? What power does she hold over us? There was a day, hundreds of years ago when we followed a powerful leader because he or she was powerful, we followed out of fear for their punishment if we didn't obey, they were rightfully a leader because they were all powerful. Bravery, wisdom and we would respect them! Now lets look at these monarchs now! There is a little hobbled lady as head position and next up is a snivelling little man. Where is the respect? what the hell has happened? and more so, why do we follow them!?

[rioters bloc]

so... you're saying that the reason we shouldn't have a monarchy is because the current monarchs aren't strong, wise, brave, and powerful? :blink:

would you support a monarchy if the monarch was all of those things? :blink:

[bcbm]

Monarchs have always been worthless, inbred scum. I share rb's concerns; those are some curious statements...

[Commie Rat]

No one in Aus really cares about the queen. We only have to see onece every couple of years, and we get a public holiday to celebrate the decrasing amount of time between her death and now.

[Black Dagger]

Yeah, Little Brother sounds like a wannabe monarchist :(

And i disagree Commie Rat, a lot of people do care about the queen, all the retirees! Australia will be much better off when the current 'oldy' generation has passed on, they're the most reactionary section of our society, they still laud the queen, and grew up during the white australia policy, need i say more.

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I was really surprised the other day to find out that Queen Elizabeth is still head of state for 16 nations... It would appear you guys over in Oz take her about as seriously as we do here in the UK... most people (that I've spoken to) don't seem to give a rats ass about the Queen, although I was quite sickened by the amount of royalists out and about celebrating her birthday...

[Amusing Scrotum]

You know, I think that if anything from the early 19th century could be changed, it should be the dominance of the British Empire.

Had say France been the dominant world power in that period, places like Australia wouldn't have to pay homage Buckingham Palace....and additionally, Britain would likely have become a proper Republic.

That we still have a fricking Monarchy, is really fucking embarrassing; after all, the English bourgeois led the world for around a century, and yet, they didn't even manage to chop some heads off. :(

Classes which do things half-arsed, really do fuck with future society....I mean, not only did the ascendant English bourgeois keep the Monarchy in place, they also refrained from seriously attacking Protestantism and they kept the Welsh language alive. Bastards! :angry:

Frankly, I kinda&#39; hope proletarian revolution in Britain happens when William is King; because seeing his smug head being chopped off, would be rather amusing in my opinion. Heck, I&#39;d volunteer for executioner duty....I think I&#39;d probably look quite good in a leather mask. <_<


Originally posted by Black Dagger
....all the retirees&#33;

You now why that is don&#39;t you? That lot are closer to being 100 and therefore have more of a chance of getting a birthday card from the Queen. :lol:

[RebelDog]

She will remain head of state in Australia. She needs somewhere to run to when the revolution starts here.

[Little brother]

ARGH&#33;&#33; no no no no. I&#39;m saying, why do we follow a leader? becuase they are a powerful outlet. It&#39;s natural human trait to have and follow leaders. So back hundreds of years ago we had these leaders so we had someone to follow, we followed them becuase we needed them. Their presence as a
a) Strong leader, prevailing in skills in war
b) Wise leader
made us follow them, i&#39;m simply saying these are traits that our present "monarchs" don&#39;t have and as individuals we should be able to see that and therefore see how useless their presence is&#33; Plus. they get most of their money from us taxpayers.
hahaha i like the Dissenter&#39;s comment. Don&#39;t worry Australia has abit of a immagration policy, if our government can easily send away those in need, running from persecution and fear of death, then a pompous old cow won&#39;t have a chance.

[patrickbeverley]

No, Australia does not need the queen. Neither does Britain.

In the year 2004, she and her family received £35.7 million in tax money - for doing fuck-all&#33; Her salary, alone (not including chartered private planes etc.) is £7.9 million.

But no, in all seriousness, I do think she should receive some money from the state.

£84.25 a week is a basic state pension, isn&#39;t it?

[Janus]

Of course, Australia doesn&#39;t need the monarchy nor should any other area. The idea of monarchy is quite archaic and quite shameful even if that monarchy is powerless.

[apathy maybe]

You guys had better watchout that you don&#39;t insult our fascist (ask the CEC about it) monarch. ASIO will haul you away for questioning. And if you suggest that John Howard should be shot or any of the government are useless fuckwits and should be dropped in an acid bath, why that is even worse.

So I recommend that you don&#39;t insult our monarch or government, by for example calling them useless things from a past age or useless or any thing else. Especially don&#39;t call for them to be executed, for example saying that someone should kill Johnny, or say that you will kill them, I will kill John Howard being an example.

However I read an interesting thing the other day. Apparently you can insult our future monarch, that scumbag Charles, without any problems.

[Ian]

Fuck England.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Little [email protected] 6 2006, 09:22 AM
So back hundreds of years ago we had these leaders so we had someone to follow, we followed them becuase we needed them. Their presence as a
a) Strong leader, prevailing in skills in war
b) Wise leader
made us follow them,
Not really. Most monarchs haven&#39;t been particularly strong or wise. They&#39;re inbred, rich scum who claim God put them there and they can thus do whatever they damn well please. There&#39;s nothing natural about people following them, its simply a hierarchal relationship enforced with violence.

[RedAnarchist]

You would think feudalism was dead, but it is still alive, until every palace in the world is burnt to the ground and every monarch is deposed and dead.

[Redeye]

Of course we don&#39;t need the monarchy. However to get rid of them at the moment we need a refrendum and I can&#39;t see little jackboot Johnie calling another on it as he loves the Queen. Even if the barstard did call one I can&#39;t see the majority of Australians voting for a repubic until the Queen is no longer monarch. In that i mean that there are alot of people, unfortunately, who won&#39;t vote to get rid of the monarchy until she hands over to Charles or William. When one of those two are the monarch I believe Austraia will finally stop being a constituional monarchy. The sooner the better.

[Andy Bowden]

I mean, not only did the ascendant English bourgeois keep the Monarchy in place, they also refrained from seriously attacking Protestantism and they kept the Welsh language alive. Bastards&#33;

Whats wrong with keeping the Welsh language alive? :huh:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 10 2006, 12:51 PM

I mean, not only did the ascendant English bourgeois keep the Monarchy in place, they also refrained from seriously attacking Protestantism and they kept the Welsh language alive. Bastards&#33;

Whats wrong with keeping the Welsh language alive? :huh:

Lots of things....including the fact that it&#39;s an incredibly ugly language that positively plagues the human ear, that it&#39;s used as a political tool by backward separatists and, of course, the fact that I wasted countless hours of my youth being forced to attend Welsh lessons learning a language that no one uses&#33;

If French is the "language of love", then Welsh is the language of shit shovelling&#33; :lol:

[Andy Bowden]

haha, well I suppose you might have a point :lol:

But one of the techniques of any oppressor nation is to attack the culture of the nation it is occupying, or ruling.

For example, when tartan was banned in Scotland - or more recently when the only Basque language newspaper was shut down by the Spanish recently.

[drain.you]

No one in Aus really cares about the queen.
No one in UK does either. Except the older generations and the christian and the tories....but i think them groups are the same one lol.

The monarchy sucks. The British media was all over her bday like a rash, who the fuck cares? With any luck it will crumble when she dies, i mean, no-one likes the rest of the bloody family but blah...tradition..blah...heritage...blah...english ness...and fucking cups of tea.
I dont know what I am more ashamed of, having Blair as my MP or having that old hag as my head of state.

DOWN WITH THE MONARCH&#33;

[chebol]

Dos i chwarae efo dy nain&#33; Welsh is a beautiful language, and it&#39;s survival has got bugger all to do with the monarchy. If you want an ugly language, look no further than the one you are using right now.
I don&#39;t want to start a debate on the usefulness or otherwise of Welsh, but try and keep it relevant.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden+--> (Andy Bowden)But one of the techniques of any oppressor nation is to attack the culture of the nation it is occupying, or ruling.[/b]

Indeed; but you see, I fully support the English colonisation of Wales....had that not happened, then Wales would likely be decades, if not centuries behind the modern-capitalist world.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Welsh is a beautiful language....

No, it&#39;s not.


chebol
....and it&#39;s survival has got bugger all to do with the monarchy.

Huh? :huh:

The Monarchy or the ascendant English bourgeois could have destroyed the Welsh language pretty easily. All they&#39;d need to do is not allow it to be taught in schools, bar it from being spoken in workplaces and so on.

Fuck, during the Protestant-Catholic conflicts, someone could have said that Welsh was "the language of the Devil" and then burnt all the people who spoke it.

Whatever method they could have used, the result, killing the Welsh language, would still have been beneficial as it would have led to millions of children not having to spend numerous hours learning a useless language. And, in addition to that, it would have seriously undercut Welsh Nationalism.

[Kurt Crover]

the only thing that the British monarchy is good for is being in tourists to look at Buckingham Palace. Other than that, pointless. Prince Charles, what a wanker.

[chebol]

The Monarchy or the ascendant English bourgeois could have destroyed the Welsh language pretty easily. All they&#39;d need to do is not allow it to be taught in schools, bar it from being spoken in workplaces and so on

They tried. Ever heard of the Blue Books? "Welsh Not"? Hell, by your logic, they should&#39;ve dropped an A-bomb on Wales, that would&#39;ve solved your little hang-up, that&#39;s for sure. And for all your English, you don&#39;t seem to comprehend the term &#39;bilingualism&#39;.


Indeed; but you see, I fully support the English colonisation of Wales....had that not happened, then Wales would likely be decades, if not centuries behind the modern-capitalist world.

So.... do you support &#39;civilisation&#39; by force? Would&#39;ve gone down a dream a couple of centuries ago, out in the colonies. Applying the same logic to Iraq then?

It also ignores the way in which Wales was colonised. Worse, it ignores the progressive nature of independence struggles against imperialist powers. One example would be the Scottish independence movement, which has both progressive and reactionary elements, just like all national liberation struggles.

But then, you don&#39;t support that very much either, do you?

A little history question, which nationalist welshman led the struggle against a military airforce base in Mon, by burning it down, before founding Plaid Cymru? Inspired by welsh nationalism, he still managed to do the right thing- or do you think the more imperialist militarism the better?

Hurtyn&#33;

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by chebol+--> (chebol)They tried.[/b]

Not hard enough....obviously.


Originally posted by chebol+--> (chebol)Ever heard of the Blue Books? "Welsh Not"?[/b]

Not until now; but a quick look over wikipedia and this turned up....


Originally posted by Treachery of the Blue Books
The Treachery of the Blue Books or Treason of the Blue Books (Welsh: Brad y Llyfrau Gleision) was the name given in Wales to the Reports of the commissioners of enquiry into the state of education in Wales published in 1847.

The public inquiry was carried out as a result of pressure from William Williams, Radical MP for Coventry, who was himself a Welshman and was concerned about the state of education in Wales. The enquiry was carried out by three English commissioners, Lingen, Symons and Vaughan Johnson. They spoke no Welsh and relied on information from witnesses, many of them Anglican clergymen.

Their report, published in three blue-covered volumes, was detailed. They concluded that the Welsh were ignorant, lazy and immoral, and that this was caused by the Welsh language and nonconformity. This resulted in a furious reaction in Wales, although it did not have any immediate political implications, although it was instrumental in the genesis of the modern Welsh self-government movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery_of_the_Blue_Books


Originally posted by Welsh Not
The Welsh Not&#39; or Welsh Note was a piece of wood, inscribed with the letters WN, that was hung round the necks of children who spoke Welsh in some schools in the 19th century. The "not" was given to any boy overheard speaking Welsh, and he would pass it to a different boy whom he overheard speaking Welsh. By the end of the week, the wearer of the not would be given a lashing. The idea of the not was to discourage pupils from speaking Welsh, at a time when English was considered the only suitable medium of instruction. This not was introduced as a result of the 1847 Parliamentary report into education in Wales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not

I imagine the Reports of the commissioners of enquiry into the state of education in Wales (1847) was what led to the introduction of the "Welsh Not"? In all honesty, I don&#39;t give a fuck.

The Welsh language is a hog-pit for reaction and the "political battle" won by the Welsh Nationalists to have Welsh taught in schools was an objectively detrimental thing to my mental development. So, as I said, either the ascendant bourgeois or the Monarchy should have completely eradicated the Welsh language.


Originally posted by chebol
And for all your English, you don&#39;t seem to comprehend the term &#39;bilingualism&#39;.

If I had any desire to talk to a farmer and his sheep, then maybe, just maybe, I&#39;d consider "bilingualism" as an option. But been as I don&#39;t, the principle of learning a completely irrelevant second language is fucking daft.


Originally posted by chebol
So.... do you support &#39;civilisation&#39; by force?

Depends what "civilisation" means. As rare as it is, on occasions, Imperialist countries have developed the economies of their colonies effectively; and on these occasions, I have little problem with that.

Wales is one of those very rare places where I actually support the Imperialists over the Nationalists....because they developed the Welsh economy efficiently.

Indeed, if Wales were to be made an Independent Country, the economic affects on the average citizen would likely be terrible.


Originally posted by chebol
Applying the same logic to Iraq then?

Nope. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49844&view=findpost&p=1292068243)


[email protected]
But then, you don&#39;t support that very much either, do you?

Huh? :huh:

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever commented on Scottish Independence on this board, because really, it doesn&#39;t matter to me. In my opinion, it&#39;s fucking daft and like all "first world" Nationalism, essentially populist and reactionary.

But hey, if the "Scots" want their Independence, then so be it....it&#39;s not really going to change much, except perhaps by giving "Scottish Patriotism" an extra lease of life. And that&#39;s about it.

Scottish Independence, at this time, unlike in the 70&#39;s, wouldn&#39;t lead to the Scottish economy being developed any quicker, so effectively, from the viewpoint of it laying the modern infrastructure required for proletarian revolution, it matters little.

I&#39;m, if you like, neutral on the whole thing.


chebol
Worse, it ignores the progressive nature of independence struggles against imperialist powers.

Ah shut the fuck up.

There&#39;s nothing progressive about Plaid Cymru who are, essentially, just petty-bourgeois Nationalists. And that they "fight for independence" through bourgeois "democracy" should give you an indication of the nature of this "struggle". :lol:

And on top of all that, you&#39;re in fucking Australia; meaning your attempts to lecture me, a "Welshman", on the benefits of "Welsh national liberation" just comes across as fucking arrogant&#33; Neither I, nor the collective Welsh working class, favour a "national liberation struggle", yet I can see where your loyalties are on this issue....that is, with the petty-bourgeois Nationalists living in rural shitopia (North Wales).

The idea that there needs to be some kind of "People&#39;s Army of an Independent Wales" that will fight for "Welsh Independence", is thoroughly reactionary. Not only that, but it also seriously degrades real National Liberation struggles against brutal occupations by Imperialist powers, by linking them to the situation in modern day Wales.

National liberation of Wales my arse.