Friday, December 10, 2010

Mad Rant: The Nature of the Leftist Beast

In what has been described as the worst riots London has seen since 1990 the Prince of Wales himself has come under attack by the mob of empty-headed sheep and professional agitators when the car His Royal Highness and the Duchess of Cornwall were riding in was viciously assaulted on Regent street while the royal couple were on their way to the theatre. Eggs and paint were thrown, side panels were kicked and a window nearly broken during the tumult which has been going on for two days outside Westminster palace. The cause, as most know, is a bill raising the cost of college tuition as part of the efforts of the Tory-LebDem coalition government to cut government spending in order to fend off financial disaster in the UK. Thankfully the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were unharmed but it was a very nasty experience and a shameful display all around.

Everyone has heard the wise saying that you do not get between a momma and her cubs. It is also very dangerous to get between a bunch of snotty-nosed brats and their tax payer-funded handouts. Cut through all the crap, political spin and assorted BS and what this comes down to is a bunch of spoiled brats upset at the prospect of actually having to pay for services rendered to them. Of course, their liberal elite college professors are only too willing to encourage them because higher education is one of the biggest scams of modern times and they would much prefer the spoiled brat anger be turned against the government instead of the universities themselves for demanding such exorbitant fees for their services. Everything from tuition to books to living space connected with higher education is grossly overpriced. But, as with society at large, when it comes time to cut back because of overspending the old saying remains true, “Don’t tax you and don’t tax me just tax the fellow behind the tree”. Do not demand cost cutting by the universities but rather howl at the government and destroy some private property of innocent bystanders in the process in order to vent your rage at being expected to actually pay your own way.

That is said, of course, not to give cover to the government which has, to a considerable extent, brought this crisis upon itself by getting the spoiled brat brigade addicted to the lie of “free” education as an entitlement in the first place. It is only unfortunate that the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were caught in the crossfire. However, this illustrates very well exactly why revolutionary liberalism and the very concept of monarchy can never be reconciled, despite what some may try to pretend (and some royals among them). The clash between republicanism and monarchy is the ultimate expression of the class warfare seen in vivid color on the streets of London, it is the heart of the whole entitlement problem; one group of people demanding the property of others with no other justification than that the first group has it and the second group does not. These greasy, acne-covered bratlings demand that others pay for their education; in essence they are demanding that money earned by someone else be taken from those people and given to them in order for them to advance themselves.

It is fitting that it is a Prince of Wales named “Charles” who was caught in the middle of this because it was the martyred British monarch King Charles I who summed up his own fight with the “Roundheads”, the Royalists versus the Parliamentarians, as a struggle on his part, on behalf of all of his people, to safeguard the right of everyone to that which is legitimately their own. Trampling on the legal right of everyone to that which they justly earned or inherited, governments used their power to confiscate the property of one section of society to redistribute to another section because it was in their own selfish interest to do so. Now that the gravy train of the money of others is in danger of being cut off the cry baby cohort is trying to use their own power (street violence) to force the state to continue giving them the property of other people. It is just what King Charles I, at his “trial” warned of when he said, “For if power without law, may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his life, or any thing that he calls his own.”

Mobs of shiftless malcontents demanding property or privileges from others simply because those people have them and they do not is at the heart of every revolutionary republican movement that is or ever was. It was why King Charles I was the real champion of freedom in the English Civil War rather than Parliament and it is why the overthrow and death of King Louis XVI brought tyranny to France rather than eradicating it. It is why monarchies that are overthrown or those which have royal powers diminished to mere ceremonial status have, invariably, without fail, turn into big-government totalitarian states in which every aspect of our lives are regulated by the state and in which political elites decide everything for us from what we eat and drink to what we drive, how we work and how much money we are allowed to have. We have seen this all before! We saw it at the Bastille in France, we saw it in 1848, we saw it in St Petersburg in 1917. There are only two sides in this struggle and it infuriates me that so many simply refuse to wake up to that simple fact and to what larger movement is represented here. Of course, were it otherwise, I would not be … The Mad Monarchist.


  1. A disgraceful display of incivility, they should respect and attention to their future sovereign, whether or not the university fee-hiking is too much.

  2. I fully agree, and I want to make it clear (if the above rant was not clear enough) that I am not saying that the tuition cost is not too high. What I am saying is that anger over the cost of education should be directed at those who provide that education and not at the government simply for not forcing someone else to foot the bill for it.

  3. As an American I find the anarchist acts appalling. I pay $30,000 a year for university. More than twice the future cap. A bunch of godless and illogical anarchists!

  4. Whatever happened to the old saying, "the British don't have revolutions, they have satire"? Hmm, England is going to the dogs it seems.

  5. Simply put, I'm glad the royal couple were able to safely get out of a such dangerous situation. Also a thank you to their security detail.

  6. I found these events very distressing; I have no idea what these protesters could want to be taught! and cannot understand why they would not want to pay for their own higher education. And again, especially distressing when Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall so nearly came to harm. Appreciate your article. - from New Zealand.

  7. When I saw this on the news, I knew I would just find it here.

  8. And those who would protect the Prince and the Duchess have been disarmed. Shame.

    -- Mack

  9. I agree that a large part of what you have termed “Revolutionary Culture” is rooted in Selfishness. In fact, the hole of our Democratic Culture is based around the tenet of Egalitarianism, which can only work if we are all made Equal. You did a post on Pol Pot in which I responded with the same thing , so shant here go too deeply into it other than to say that the largest incentive for Socialism is that I can get things with other peoples Money. It id as Winston Churchill once said, Socialism is the Doctrine of Greed.

    While Modern Socialists and Liberals tend to depict Big Business and Corporations as Evil and Capitalism as the height of Greed and selfishness, and their own Beliefs as the opposite, base don Compassion and Mercy, the Truth is that the Wealth Redistribution Schemes emerging form the desire for an Egalitarian Society do tend to exist to make sure no one has more than anyone else so that all can be made the same. It also must, by definition, punish the hardest worker so that the worker with less willingness to work doesn’t feel too bad that he has less money or less cool stuff.

    People have lost the very principle that one must work for what one has and what one owns is ones own to command. Instead, somehow everything is now “Socially Owned” to an extent and everyone has an innate “Social Duty” to promote the welfare of the Greater Whole.

    The end result of this is that we no longer truly own anything, and no longer truly can prosper because the People, via the State which acts as the Instrument of the Will of the People, can regulate on the Peoples Behalf. In a Democracy, we remove the King as Ultimate Owner and replace it with the People as Ultimate Owner and the State as the Manifestation of that Collective Will.

  10. We are then fed a Story of how the Aristocrats of Old grew wealthy and Decadent on the work of the Common Man, who is always depicted as noble and good, while the Aristocrat is Lazy and cruel, and not deserving of this Wealth grown by the Labourer. The Common Man, with simple values and a True desire to improve the world, is shackled, till the Aristocracy is overthrown and he can then be secured in Freedom!

    That’s the old Story, but, what we see here is that the Selfish Aristocrat was not replaced by a cooperative Common Man, but a Selfish one out for Handouts. Gone is the Local Baron or Due who gets money from the Peasants, but in his place stands “The people” who are just as greedy, and who demand Payments form the State as a basic Human right.

    But whereas the Aristocrat inherited or purchased his Fief and thus had Legitimate claim to all that was grown on it, or produced, the Common Man has no actual claim to the Labour of others, save that they can Coerce the State into taking that Money or those possessions and giving them to others.

    It has to be by nature this way, for Democracy all but worships the Common Man, and see’s in him an innate good. Democracy says that all things must be held in Common at the end, because the whole premise of society is that the people make all the Laws so must be sovereign over all Land and possessions, therefore they must be to some extend communally owned for said Laws to even exist over them. Democracy lead inevitably to Socialism and Wealth Redistribution, which is why even in Conservative Nations like Britain was before 1950, or the United States till more recent times, tend to gradually move toward the direction of Wealth capping and redistribution. In fact, even the United States has a Long History of this, with several attempts to cap the Personal wealth one can attain, or to prevent too much money from being captured by Private Hands.

    People don’t realise this but, its even been proposed as an Amendment to the United States Constitution that pour personal Wealth be capped at 1 Million Dollars each.

    It never passed, but the thinking is that its unfair that someone should have that much Money. It should belong to all people.

    So this is not a new problem, and of course when the Handouts of other peoples money ends, those how are the recipients are angered because they now feel owed that money even though they never earned it, because somehow their personal comfort or education has become an inviolable Human right whose cost must be borne by all pf society by Tax Pounds raised. it’s the inevitable and logical step to take, for if we will not have those dastardly elite Aristocrats over us, because they were Wealthy and Powerful, then neither will we have Wealthy people in pour society who have more than us, and others should pay my way because if we can take the Palaces of a King, then surely we can tae someone else’s Farm or townhouse, can’t we? What’s to stop us?

    I will end on an old Quote, attributed to many, though its original Author is unknown. It goes something like this, Democracy will only last until the Voters realise they can Vote themselves Money from the Public Treasury. I feel we have reached this Stage, and our Democratic Culture will collapse upon itself, and fall, due to its poor fiscal policies and even poorer Philosophical Underpinnings.

  11. Very true. I would not dispute that there are problems with capitalism but I always say that capitalism is the only system that can make a society rich enough to think they can afford socialism. We are coming to the point now where, as Margaret Thatcher once said, the governments of the world are running out of "other people's" money. However, they still refuse to face the fact that the liberal, revolutionary, socialist model has utterly failed and indeed cannot work for any extended length of time.

  12. MadMonarchist, I have a question: Why do you hate students? You may disagree with their protesting, but calling them greasy and acne covered is a little far. Perhaps you were like this in your own student days, but there's no need to be bitter about it!

    Furthermore, I would be interested to know your opinions on the NHS. If you are not content with your money funding the careers of tomorrow's doctors and teachers, I'm assuming you also resent your money being used to help someone through cancer, or recover from a broken hip.

  13. Oooh, did I hurt the feelings of the poor little cry baby brigade? First, learn the difference between protesting and rioting, the difference between expressing a position and vandalism. Why bring up the NHS though? Don't have a real defense for getting prissy and violent about not getting totally free what most people in the world have to work hard for? Easier to gain sympathy when talking about your poor old aunt with lung cancer and a broken hip isn't it? The real question is what makes YOU think that you and your buddies in the spoiled brat battalion are entitled to the hard earned money of other people? Why should anyone else pay for you to advance yourself? Why are you too good to get off your lazy hinder and work for a living to get through school like I did?

    There is NO justification for this behavior, this vandalism, assaults on police officers and assaults on the Prince of Wales who has nothing to do with the bill and could do nothing about it one way or another. I have rarely seen such rampant immaturity displayed and defended with such pride.

  14. But wasn't it the Prince's own police detail that put them in the path of the protesters? I know the heir to the throne is not allowed to go anywhere without a police escort, so how could this have happened?

  15. As I understand it that is being looked into and I'm sure will be dealt with. However, the Prince of Wales should not *need* an escort to protect him from his own people. That may be the case in tin-pot dictatorships, it should not be the case in a free and civilized country.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...