27 June 2012


You're looking at a photo of Queen Elizabeth shaking hands with a former commander of the Irish Republican Army ("Mr McGuinness was a senior member of the IRA when it killed the Queen's cousin Lord Mountbatten in a bomb blast in 1979.)  Via.


  1. And at the same time, the Crown is prosecuting a random idiot for tweeting a 'terrorist threat' that no one sane took seriously at the time, but had to be reported up the chain of command because of 'accountability' regulations...

  2. Replies
    1. From the Urban Dictionary:
      This mathematic slogan is used by the Irish republican movement and by supporters of an unified Ireland. It expresses the wish and struggle to unite Ireland once again. It is often seen on t-shirts or bumper stickers.

      "26" refers to the 26 counties that form the Irish Republic.

      "6" means the 6 remaining counties (Fermanagh, Tyrone, Derry, Antrim, Down, Armagh) in Northern Ireland, which belong to Britain.

      "1" finally represents the united Ireland as one Republic.

  3. Why do people give any legitimacy to monarchy? Lacan said a person who believes to be a king by divine right is a mad person, even if she or he is actually right: there's no divine right, every body knows and understands it; yet vassals are willing to respect it anyway. It is also often said that, since the Glorious Revolution, the British Crown has no real power, but acts like these seems to me like clear evidence of the contrary. The same people who lead and legitimized the invasion, enslavement and genocide over the irish (and hundreds of other people) for centuries, and was able to criminalize, marginalize and corrupt all independence movements is posing, now, as forgiving christians, only because one (one!) entitled mad man was killed on the other side. That's what I think is really remarkable.

  4. She's not the "Queen of England", do some research. I'm not a monarchist but any system that prevents arseh*les like Tony Blair from becoming "President of the United Kingdom" is fine by me.

    1. The fact that I don't use the wording that the aristocracy and, as it seems, yourself as well believe to be entitled to impose on everybody, it doesn't mean I don't know them. Your supposition that you can lecture me on how to orientate myself in this matter is a bigger demonstration of your ignorance than mine. If you disagree with what I'm saying, you can also try to expose reasons for your position, unless you believe that arguing is some kind of uncivilized fashion.

    2. Paulo, I think Anonymous was responding to my use of "Queen of England" in the text of the post, rather than responding to your post. I've subsequently changed the wording to "Queen Elizabeth."

    3. You are right, Stan, I had not the time to review my comment to see if anon was refering to my wording. The second part seems to me like an answer to my argument anyway. In either case, it is very rude.

      English aristochracy does not use this title in order to emphasize what they believe to be the solid union between the nations that form the british union. What they are trying to hide with this is that their dominance over other countries is made by warfare and corruption. That's why I sympatize with the irish unification and with the scotish independence movements.

      To believe, in the other hand, that Lizzie's enduring allies such as Blair are hold away from evil doing by the crown, well that's something. It is monarchism that enables their deeds.

  5. Paulo, check your spelling. Whatever you think about "English aristocracy", they have been an educational, civilising and positive influence on the world. The Brits were the ones to abolish slavery (against ther wishes of the African Kings who were profiting from it) and the Irish question could have been solved YEARS ago if the Irish (including McGuinness) hadn't keep changing it. The British (including the English) are a kind, tolerant, mature, inventive GENIUS race who are a comparatively anti-racist, civilised society. Don't believe all you read in the press Paulo. And by-the-way, how was I rude? (Unless you're a Tony Blair fan).

    1. It's just a typo - he spelled it correctly in his previous comment. Let's not be petty.

      Now you guys can continue your debate...

    2. "Whatever you think about 'English aristocracy', they have been an educational, civilising and positive influence on the world."

      How am I suposed to argue with a person who says things like this? So it doesn't matter what I think, because your particular judgement on history must be accepted as plain fact?

      It seems to me that ethnocentric thought will always strive to find narratives that suit their greed. That's how countries are invaded in the name of independence, wars are fought in the name of peace and money is now being extorted in the name of austerity. So "the british" abolished slavery? Was it the same process of international trade of people between three continents "they" were the managers for centuries? How noble. By the way, I haven't made any judgement of value based on whole nations, and I don't believe that they are feasible.

      The reason why slavery needed to be substituted for free labour is not due to morals, but to efficiency. The complete reasoning about it can be found in the Wealth of Nations. And I have absolutely no hostility against british people, and have never in my life said a word againt them. You miss my point completely. I was always talking about that elite group in particular.

      Oh, and you don't know anything about what I read in the press or anywhere else, so please don't pretend to do so.

    3. "Do some research", "check your spelling" - this is what you say that I find offensive. I don't care about Blair, and I've put out my position about him above. I do care about Stan, who is not obliged to publish this blog, and I am often outspoken about how thankfull I am because he does. You, on the other hand, have no politeness on your observations, and no right to tell people what to do, specially an author who offers you quality material for free.

      And yes, I do know that my english is faulty. I always accept sensible rectification. Yet I am a little upset about how some people deal with it. I have no formal training in english - I've learned the little I know by reading the internet, grammar entries like the ones published here. Nonetheless, focusing over other people's lack of domain in speech is clearly fallacious - it deviates from the matter and imposes a false hierarchy between causes. That's why members of the elite often use it: it is a way to diminish the truth of the matter defended and to give advance to the background of the person who defends it. People who believe that real education is to mimic the ways of the rich and powerfull tend to mimic this as well.

      So no, my first language doesn't have the same rules to transcript the greek, and I often forget wich words are written with Chi, wich with Kappa, so I am not very good on writing greek words in other languages. Tell me again how does that invalidate my point about the monarchy.

    4. Sorry for the flood, Stan. Re commenting anonymously:




Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...