Britain’s black queen: Will Meghan Markle really be the first mixed-race royal?

[Swordsmyth]

Who is "you" in this hypothetical?

Whoever has decided that the current king is utterly insufferable and must be removed.

By the way, throughout history most bad kings have not been removed because either nobody tried because it was impossibly difficult or because the attempts to do so failed, as you say revolution is extremely dangerous, that is why a better system for removing bad kings is needed so that a revolution isn't necessary.

[H_H]

It worked well for the Maccabees.

That was not a revolution. Revolution was invented in the early 1600s by radical leftist Englishmen who wanted to import republicanism from the Dutch.

I also insist that America is better off because of the revolution than anywhere else in the British empire

Because of why? This is truly a bizarre historical-determinism something-for-nothing assertion. XYZ event happened to happen, 250 years ago (!), and so because of that particular blessed event we're going to have all the best of everything until the end of time. It's the gift that just keeps on giving. Magically.

No. TANSTAAFL. A society is her people. The people is their society. If America is the best, it is because America wound up with the best people. Thus, the best results.

Here is an Assertion From Helmuth:

Every gripe in the Declaration of Independence got worse, not better, after the Revolution than it had been before.

True or false? What say thee, Swordsmyth?

[Swordsmyth]

That was not a revolution. Revolution was invented in the early 1600s by radical leftist Englishmen who wanted to import republicanism from the Dutch.

What definition of revolution are you using? Are you only calling it a revolution if it changes the form of government?

Because of why? This is truly a bizarre historical-determinism something-for-nothing assertion. XYZ event happened to happen, 250 years ago (!), and so because of that particular blessed event we're going to have all the best of everything until the end of time. It's the gift that just keeps on giving. Magically.

No. TANSTAAFL. A society is her people. The people is their society. If America is the best, it is because America wound up with the best people. Thus, the best results.

Here is an Assertion From Helmuth:

Every gripe in the Declaration of Independence got worse, not better, after the Revolution than it had been before.

True or false? What say thee, Swordsmyth?

But it got worse at a slower pace than it did elsewhere because of the BoR and the other rights protections in the Constitution, having the Constitution also gives us a better chance to fix things than anybody else has.

[Swordsmyth]

A short comment: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?...omment-1732229

It might be possible for other cultures to successfully create their own republics with liberty and justice for all but only if they are allowed to evolve on their own, the anglosphere didn't produce America over night or on the first try, it certainly didn't have it imposed on it from outside.
Also America isn't yet perfect and it is quite unwise to export an imperfect system, it will take at least one more evolutionary step to get things right even if we don't take a wrong turn instead so we should be tending to the moat in our own eye.
You can tell that other cultures aren't ready for the American system because they A don't copy it exactly and B always start to revert back to authoritarianism unless the anglosphere dominates them.

[H_H]

Whoever has decided that the current king is utterly insufferable and must be removed.

That will usually be another member of the royal family or some important noble. Not, as I think your post imagined, some normal prole / the agglomeration of such proles.

By the way, throughout history most bad kings have not been removed

Define bad, then do the count. Count 'em up. You tell me how many were removed and how many were not. Post the list.

Then I will give your opinion on this the serious consideration that it will then deserve. No offense.

It need not be comprehensive. By all means, limit yourself to Europe. Or even smaller.

because it was impossibly difficult

Oh please. These guys are just mortals. Just a slob like one of us. Unless you are saying.... they're not?

or because the attempts to do so failed, as you say revolution is extremely dangerous, that is why a better system for removing bad kings is needed so that a revolution isn't necessary.

Revolution isn't necessary. Revolution has nothing to do with replacing a king. Replacing a king is: family is fed up or embarrassed by Bogart's clear mismanagement. Assassinates him and installs the nephew.

Nothing changes. Except things are now run competently. No massive structural changes. That is not a revolution!

Please "compare and contrast" with, say, the French Revolution of 1789. Now That was a revolution. I trust you'll be able to spot the differences. Bit of a long list.

Am I starting to make myself clearer? My point rising up out of the murk?

[Swordsmyth]

That will usually be another member of the royal family or some important noble. Not, as I think your post imagined, some normal prole / the agglomeration of such proles.

But the people have a right to remove a bad ruler, you are correct when you recoil from the dangers of revolution and point to the many that have gone horribly wrong and made things much worse, that is why there needs to be some other way to remove a bad ruler.

Define bad, then do the count. Count 'em up. You tell me how many were removed and how many were not. Post the list.

Then I will give your opinion on this the serious consideration that it will then deserve. No offense.

It need not be comprehensive. By all means, limit yourself to Europe. Or even smaller.

I don't have time for that right now so I will simply leave my assertion on the table and we can go on without going into it further.

Oh please. These guys are just mortals. Just a slob like one of us. Unless you are saying.... they're not?

They are quite mortal as has been historically proven by revolutionaries good and bad. (mostly bad)
However kings do an excellent job of protecting themselves with troops and secret police and by creating "divine right" theory to create extreme difficulty for anyone who might try to remove them.

Revolution isn't necessary. Revolution has nothing to do with replacing a king. Replacing a king is: family is fed up or embarrassed by Bogart's clear mismanagement. Assassinates him and installs the nephew.

Nothing changes. Except things are now run competently. No massive structural changes. That is not a revolution!

Please "compare and contrast" with, say, the French Revolution of 1789. Now That was a revolution. I trust you'll be able to spot the differences. Bit of a long list.

Am I starting to make myself clearer? My point rising up out of the murk?

The best way to avoid revolutions is to make them unnecessary by making it possible to remove a bad leader without one.

The perfect example of the possible need for a revolution and the advantages of a system that provides other options is that if monarchists are correct they will either need a revolution to restore monarchy (an extremely dangerous proposition) or they can use the peaceful machinery of a Constitutional convention/amendments provided by our republic to get what they want with much less bloodshed and much less risk that things will get out of control and turn into another revolution gone wrong.

[Swordsmyth]

@H_H

If you remember my position I laid out in other threads you know that I want to create a nearly monarchical republic where almost all government power is concentrated in the hands of a "steward" but government is limited in its powers and citizens are protected in their rights similar to what the Constitution attempts, there would be a few other limits on the executive such as not letting the steward declare war on his own volition but otherwise he would be all powerful, restrained only by the system available to remove him and replace him with someone who will undo what he has done.

[Swordsmyth]

@H_H
As a mormon you should reread what the Book of Mormon has to say about kings.

[H_H]

But the people have a right to remove a bad ruler

The right. The right. Hmm. Yes. Well.

Am I starting to make myself clearer? My point rising up out of the murk?

They are quite mortal as has been historically proven by revolutionaries [aka:] anyone who might try to remove them.
The best way to avoid revolutions is to make them unnecessary by making it possible to remove a bad leader without one.

So, Answer: no. Oh well! No prob. But thank you for making your point again. You keep it simple and I have no problem understanding it. You want to have some sort of mechanism available to peacefully, easily, cleanly, and non-violently remove a ruler/steward. And to have that mechanism controlled by "the people."

Sounds good! I try to meet ideas on their level. I'll give your idea 4 stars, such as it is.

As for any strange and now-demonstrably incomprehensible ideas I may have: Back! Back to the shadows!

[H_H]

@H_H
As a mormon you should reread what the Book of Mormon has to say about kings.

It says they're awesome.

Or that they're lame sauce.

Depends who's writing. Multiple authors, you know.

But, I mean, you just want me to re-read it, not interpret or offer commentary.

Back to the shadows.

[Swordsmyth]

It says they're awesome.

Or that they're lame sauce.

Depends who's writing. Multiple authors, you know.

But, I mean, you just want me to re-read it, not interpret or offer commentary.

Back to the shadows.

It says that GOD will bless those peoples who come to the Americas by ensuring that there are no kings here if they remain righteous.
Individual kings may be praised but the system of monarchy is always put in a negative light.

[H_H]

@H_H
Revolution is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master, one of the greatest drawbacks of monarchy is that there are no milder options to effect necessary change.

Just as one final attempt, following your example and keeping it simple:

There *are* milder options. Assassination is a milder option. 100,000,000 times milder. Kings can even be non-violently pressured into retirement, if you're against all violence or something.

You can't define "revolution" as "anything and everything that changes or might change who is reigning." If you do, then sure, great, you are right that "there's no way to remove a king other than revolution." Because you defined "removing a king" as "a revolution." Congratulations.

[Swordsmyth]

The right. The right. Hmm. Yes. Well.

So, Answer: no. Oh well! No prob. But thank you for making your point again. You keep it simple and I have no problem understanding it. You want to have some sort of mechanism available to peacefully, easily, cleanly, and non-violently remove a ruler/steward. And to have that mechanism controlled by "the people."

Sounds good! I try to meet ideas on their level. I'll give your idea 4 stars, such as it is. <applause>

As for any strange and now-demonstrably incomprehensible ideas I may have: Back! Back to the shadows!

I am quite willing to discuss what you believe if you want to come out and say what it is.

[H_H]

It says that GOD will bless those peoples who come to the Americas by ensuring that there are no kings here if they remain righteous.

Yes, it says that too, I suppose. Stewards, though?

[Swordsmyth]

Just as one final attempt, following your example and keeping it simple:

There *are* milder options. Assassination is a milder option. 100,000,000 times milder. Kings can even be non-violently pressured into retirement, if you're against all violence or something.

But those options are not always available and don't always result in getting a new king who does anything different than the last one, they also can transform into a revolution if the king (or the new king if the old one is successfully removed) cracks down on those who try to use them.

You can't define "revolution" as "anything and everything that changes or might change who is reigning." If you do, then sure, great, you are right that "there's no way to remove a king other than revolution." Because you defined "removing a king" as "a revolution." Congratulations.

I have never defined revolution a "removing a king", but revolution can be the only option or the other options can transform into a revolution too easily, we both are against revolution if it can possibly be avoided but monarchy increases the odds of revolution while my system would retain most of the advantages of monarchy while reducing the odds of a revolution.

[H_H]

If you remember my position I laid out in other threads you know...

I did not know this, by the way, was probably absent for such threads, and I do thank you for laying out your position so nicely and concisely.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, it says that too, I suppose. Stewards, though?

A Steward in my system (you could pick an entirely different label if it suited you) is definitely NOT a king since he is elected and can be removed in an election and the office isn't hereditary.

[H_H]

A Steward in my system (you could pick an entirely different label if it suited you) is definitely NOT a king since he is elected and can be removed in an election and the office isn't hereditary.

Ahh.

Would be pretty cool.

[Swordsmyth]

A long article: http://unqualified-reservations.blog...bertarian.html

I have only just begun the article and he has already lost me, he is an anti-conspiracy theorist, conspiracies do and have existed for a long time a REALLY LONG TIME, yet he thinks he can just hand wave them away:

Note how gracefully Bailyn skates over the fact that (indisputably) no such conspiracy existed. In other words, our Founding Fathers were more or less the Troofers of their day. Or, to put it differently, America obtained its independence because of a war that was started by people who were genuinely terrified of the 18th-century equivalent of black helicopters.

[fedupinmo]

I think this fits here...

[H_H]

I have only just begun the article and he has already lost me, he is an anti-conspiracy theorist, conspiracies do and have existed for a long time a REALLY LONG TIME, yet he thinks he can just hand wave them away:

I did not like or agree with that part either.

Some of us can read and gain from people with whom we do not entirely agree.

That paragraph was gratuitous, just put in to upset and turn away simple-minded and low IQ people who he wants to weed out. Moldbug wanted only a certain type and class of disciples. (And he got them, by the way. It worked. Pretty smart guy.)

[Matt Collins]

[Swordsmyth]

I did not like or agree with that part either.

Some of us can read and gain from people with whom we do not entirely agree.

That paragraph was gratuitous, just put in to upset and turn away simple-minded and low IQ people who he wants to weed out. Moldbug wanted only a certain type and class of disciples. (And he got them, by the way. It worked. Pretty smart guy.)

But he builds his whole case on the idea that there was no conspiracy to establish despotism in the British empire, then he tries to use the fact that it didn't succeed to "prove" that it didn't ever exist.

[Anti Globalist]

Some people call them the royal family. I call them the royal tyrants.

[TheTexan]

Line of Succession:

1) Prince Charles
2) Prince William
3) Prince George (William's oldest son)
4) Princess Charlotte (William's daughter)
5) Prince Louis Arthur Charles (William's youngest son)
6) Prince Harry
7) Prince Andrew

Then Andrew's children

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...sh-throne.html

Then TheTexan

[Swordsmyth]

Then TheTexan

What plans have you for eliminating those who stand in your way?

[TheTexan]

What plans have you for eliminating those who stand in your way?

I intend to purchase Elon Musk's technologies and build a robot army to subjugate the earth.

[Swordsmyth]

I intend to purchase Elon Musk's technologies and build a robot army to subjugate the earth.

Roger Roger!

[H_H]

But he builds his whole case on the idea that there was no conspiracy to establish despotism in the British empire, then he tries to use the fact that it didn't succeed to "prove" that it didn't ever exist.

I know of no evidence that that particular conspiracy did exist. Nor does Moldbug. Nor does Bailyn. Nor does any historian. Nor does anyone, anywhere. The American Revolutionaries themselves, despite believing in it, presented no evidence for it in their pamphlets and other literature. So, we can safely ignore the possibility. Moldbug doesn't try to "prove" that it didn't ever exist. He just baldly assumes that, because clearly it is the truth.

He clearly didn't need to tarnish all conspiracy-minded persons, but he calculated that doing so would be a good rhetorical move. I disagree with him on that... but I did not make myself into the most influential people of the century and found a new strain of political thought by.... writing some blog posts. So I cut him a little slack. Nevertheless, it's too bad that one paragraph makes it impossible for you to hear all the other good ideas he writes. You are one of the good guys and deserve the best philosophy and knowledge available.

That's OK, you'll eventually get it second-hand from a source you find more palatable. Zero Hedge, e.g., gets more NRx by the day.

[Swordsmyth]

I know of no evidence that that particular conspiracy did exist. Nor does Moldbug. Nor does Bailyn. Nor does any historian. Nor does anyone, anywhere. The American Revolutionaries themselves, despite believing in it, presented no evidence for it in their pamphlets and other literature. So, we can safely ignore the possibility. Moldbug doesn't try to "prove" that it didn't ever exist. He just baldly assumes that, because clearly it is the truth.

He clearly didn't need to tarnish all conspiracy-minded persons, but he calculated that doing so would be a good rhetorical move. I disagree with him on that... but I did not make myself into the most influential people of the century and found a new strain of political thought by.... writing some blog posts. So I cut him a little slack. Nevertheless, it's too bad that one paragraph makes it impossible for you to hear all the other good ideas he writes. You are one of the good guys and deserve the best philosophy and knowledge available.

That's OK, you'll eventually get it second-hand from a source you find more palatable. Zero Hedge, e.g., gets more NRx by the day.

I read the rest of the article, I just disagree with it.
My Steward Republic system is as close to Monarchism as I will ever get.
I am very traditionalist and reactionary but there are some things that needed changing in the good old days.