Restore the Aristocracy, end democracy.

It certainly is. 

I'm not sure all of these things I agree with as some are very separate things no longer at the same place they were if discussed even 30 years ago

We need to become a society that takes better care of its own citizens like Denmark or Sweden. 

HighToryPsychic said:

All High art, High culture, H

Hard to prove as the biproducts of art are not measurable in a monetary sense like that. We are far more cultured nation still, it has definately fed into other areas. Its just that these things also need to be maintained with more funding. And most of that goes to major cities and art instiutions. 

HighToryPsychic said:

They also brought forth this new generation of rich people who create nothing of beauty and lasting value,

Kind of agree that: They new people are lazy noveau riche neopotites. It worries me how easy the ride is for some of these unqualified people into top positions, they **** up nothing happens.

Immigration is complicated, it was probably wrong to think it was every going to grow the economy because we are overun with unqualified migrants who have no intention of working because the benefits system is so easy for them to abuse.  Digital ids and total surveliance are a step forward, people will get used to it.

Its all about control, the monarchy. the church, the media/advertising. If people really want to take back control of the country, then they really need to protect the beaches instead of complaining so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY-wP57x02I

I think work houses are a positive thing and the poor laws were better for society than the current welfare state. I disability benefits are positive. However  it comes at the expense of other things like Jury trail, a power navy to maintain our trade and functioning tax system. Every political system has trade off's. Ironically the Liberals got ride of the poor laws and work houses, the mental asylums because they cost too much money, of course the low state replaced them with something far more expensive. 

Healthcare isn't free, its raised through debt and taxation. I would abolish the NHS, because its a socialist institution. I would build a new Aristocratic, hierarchical health system to the poor/less well off can get a general standard of healthcare paid by taxes/debt. However there would be a independent healthcare market with insurance, cooperatives so on to fund/pay for healthcare. As it was before 1948. 

Those things would be greatly diminished, but wouldn't be taken from me. 

How do you feel about over 200,000 abortions a year, causing the collapse out British demographics, leading to the need to import millions of people from different country, changing the identity of the nation forever. I the cases of rape and women being thrown out, I would set up a charity to support and help these women, and uplift society's compassion and kindness. 

I see myself as a working class psychic with autism and cerebral palsy, Unable to vote and having to prove my need for state support. If the neo-fascist far-right get into power I will be the first person they will take out.  

*removed due to Rule 7* You want to be a downtrodden serf with no agency? You need to stop this nonsense.

I think only married adults who own property should be allowed to vote. I shouldn't be allowed to vote. And I don't vote because I don't want to consent to what the state does to society. 

Women or wives were not owned by there husbands or fathers. This interesting though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_selling_(English_custom)

Thanks for bringing up this point so I researched it and found out about this. 

So you are telling me that under the high state things massively improved? Like we went from a food/slavery based society to a industrial/fossil fuel society, then a technological one under the High state over 100 years. The most impressive advance is human understanding and living standards in history, all under the rule of the Aristocracy. And you retort is 'things were bad and got much much better? 

Also child mortality is much higher now than it should be because the state aborts over 200,000 baby's a year. And current mortality/life expectancy has stalled and is starting to go backwards. The High state made the industrial and technological revolutions possible, the low state has squandered it. Keep in my the High State only needed in 1906, so if you look at the progress from 1660 to 1906, come that society to our current one, you see why I support the restoration of the High state because the low state doesn't function. 

Given that, why do you give time to such a thing?

I am hoping that you aren’t really completely bonkers and that you just have a fantasy and interest which engages your time. Yet I suspect the reality is that you created this scenario in an attempt to wind people up for your entertainment. 

I really enjoyed history in school, we had a teacher who was good at engaging his class. I remember studying 19th century politics which was rife with corruption and 'rotten boroughs', and life expectancy was an average of 40 due to the fact most children died, though to the creation of the welfare state and the realisation that hygiene and access to food and clean water could save a lot of lives.

It's interesting to see what people idolise.

• Universal suffrage.
• Constitutional monarchy with largely ceremonial role.
• Parliamentary democracy. Clearer separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of governance.
• Structure enables greater accountability.
• Establishment of legal rights and protections.

I could list many more things but there isn’t any point as there are more than enough reasons here for me to not want an Aristocratic High State. But I’ll add one more thing.

As an ordinary citizen living in the 21st Century, I hold my head up joyfully because along with others, I enjoy equal rights and I have the opportunity to shape how the country is governed. That gives me hope

and, dignity.

For very good reason. I think you need to examine your views a bit more and wonder why it is that you hold them. Frustration with the modern day is one thing, but wanting to return to some mythical golden age while conveniently ignoring how utterly appalling a time it was for the vast majority of the country is just delusional.

"Sorry you family member was treated like that."

As you full know, the point is that it wasn't just one person's family member treated like that, it was huge numbers of people viewed as inferior by a supposed "upper" class. It was an awful period in our history and yes, while a lot was achieved in terms of the infrastructure of the nation, it was done at the cost of oppressing millions. Wanting to return to that is ill thought out and fantastical bollocks. It will never happen, so why waste time on it?

HighToryPsychic said:

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.

I can't decide if you are naive or disingenuous. 

When people's hands are tied they can't use them.

Do you think women should still be owned by their husbands? 

Do you believe that the power of the vote, which women in the UK only received less than a century ago, should be removed so that the disenfranchised are imprisoned further in powerlessness? 

Will you be happy to no longer be in receipt of state benefits eg universal credit etc etc?

If we were really to go back to those days how do you feel about no free healthcare (in the sense we have today) because the welfare state didn't exist at that time? 

If you are a disabled person receiving state benefits who makes use of the NHS how do you personally feel about those being taken away from you? 

How would you feel about a loved one who worked in service being raped by a member of the family she worked for and thrown out on the streets penniless once pregnant?

In this scenario do you see yourself as a person with power ie an aristocrat or a person without power ie a poor person without the option to vote for a government etc etc etc (see welfare state)?

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.

Meritocracy is an aspiration, never fully realised, but this does not mean that it isn't a hell of a lot better than aristocracy. I note that you do not engage with or defend my criticisms of the central moral vacuum in hereditary aristocracy.

Aristocracy is a Greek compound word, meaning 'rule by the best'. If aristocracy lived up to its true original meaning it would be the same as meritocracy.

I would support removing the German Royal House and replacing it with a British Aristocratic house 100%. The British Monarchy surrendered after Ernest Augustus failed to stop The Duke of Wellington doing Catholic emancipation.  

In what sense is the government we have now superior to any British government from 1660-1906? 

Your entire post is like 'I don't agree with human nature'. Like every single system in the world has a ruling class, which uses power to benefit itself, the question is 'does the system accept it and work to maintain it'. The High state worked because it maintain the system and it was understood how it functioned. 

Supporters I have none... 

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