• Replies 45 replies
  • Subscribers 42 subscribers
  • Views 675 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Restore the Aristocracy, end democracy.

HighToryPsychic

Sitting here waiting for my tooth brush to charge listening to Waltz No 2. 

I am in favour of restoring the Aristocratic High State, which was in power in Britain until the 1906 general election. I feel they will know what to do and will restoring a functioning state. 

England has gone down hill massively since 1906 and there is no way this current progressive Liberal ideological interventionist state can fix any of the problems in the country, because they created all of them to begin with by melting in society. 

The High state created common law, Parliament, the currency, the English language, the Anglican Church, the Royal Navy, the civil service so on and so forth. The low state has destroyed all of it in the name of English progressive Liberalism and destroying the High State itself. 

All High art, High culture, High Church Anglicanism, investment in the arts, university, theater, technology and innovation come from the willingness of the Aristocracy to uplift society, rather than changing it. 

The welfare state, NHS, abortion, national trust, privatization of the railways, utilities, post office all comes from the criminal state control of the progressive low state. We had the finest integrated railway network in the world and they ripped it up because they were poor commoners and bought off by the car industry, they used WW1-WW2 to force through there ideology, when there ideology caused those wars and murdered 1,000,000 British people for nothing. 

They also brought forth this new generation of rich people who create nothing of beauty and lasting value, as opposed to the Aristocracy. England was a self-governing society, a union of the High culture and folk culture, which created a wonderful, rich, powerful place. Since the overthrow its become a depressing, poor, weak place which can't function on its own terms, it can't even maintain basic rights like Jury trial. 

Parents

  • The aristocracy was just preserved theft and/or reward for fornication. Either one of your ancestors was a tribal leader who dispossessed their followers of control of tribal lands, as happened in the Highlands, or you were descended from one of the men of blood who were victorious in 1066 and stole land from the natives, which Ordericus Vitalis characterised as a 'monstrous theft', or one of your ancestors was a king's by-blow. None of these routes into the aristocracy is particularly meritorious, or invests their descendants with any sort of innate moral, cultural or political superiority.

  • in reply to Martin

    Meritocracy is a falsehood, it doesn't exist and never did. 

  • in reply to HighToryPsychic

    A good example follows about the fallacy of aristocratic superiority. Chaucer, a commoner, famous as the father of the English novel, married a woman who was the sister of the concubine/future wife of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Chaucer's granddaughter was the Duchess of Suffolk. Was Chaucer's granddaughter more inherently important, useful or gifted than her commoner grandfather? No!

    Chaucer's granddaughter married William de La Pole, who was made first Duke of Suffolk, the gt. grandson of a wealthy merchant from Hull. William's son married Elizabeth of York, a Plantagenet descendant of Edward III. The de la Pole family went from wool merchants to claimants to the English throne, who made both Henry VII and Henry VIII very nervous. Therefore Chaucer's descendants became not only aristocrats, but also royal, but none of them were as important to future generations as was the commoner Geoffrey Chaucer himself.

    Chaucer's family entered the sphere of the aristocracy, not because of Chaucer's merits as a writer, but because of a marriage connection to a royal concubine. This neatly shows how lacking in moral integrity were most of the routes into hereditary social prominence.

  • in reply to Martin

    Who said the Aristocracy was moral, superior or good? Your point literally illustrates why the Aristocracy works in line with human nature and the political life of the nation. You can be a talented commoner, marry or become rich or in a battle or gain favour with the state and your family will be raised to the Aristocracy. What's wrong or bad or immoral about it?  

Reply
  • in reply to Martin

    Who said the Aristocracy was moral, superior or good? Your point literally illustrates why the Aristocracy works in line with human nature and the political life of the nation. You can be a talented commoner, marry or become rich or in a battle or gain favour with the state and your family will be raised to the Aristocracy. What's wrong or bad or immoral about it?  

Children
No Data