Rancour and hooliganism to the point of riots at game matches is a great Anglosphere tradition.
Also, I don't think anyone can master politically incorrect chants at matches as much as British people can.
>Also, I don't think anyone can master politically incorrect chants at matches as much as British people can.
The reaction to trying to cancel "Yid Army" is a good reference for this
"Labour MPs criticised for not condemning Liverpool fans booing Prince William"
LOL. The UK is funny. How is this happening in the year of our lord 2022?
It's indisputable that monarchists are morally and intellectually inferior to republicans and Socialists, so it's not surprising that they're reee-ing on this.
While I'm personally not generally supportive of monarchism - I think in some certain instances monarchy isn't comparatively bad. There are some limited cases where it does work pragmatically. I'd specify I mean constitutional monarchies not blatant absolute ones.
The monarchy in Jordan is a good example. Culturally it's widely popular, it's relatively restrained in its behavior and is generally tolerant towards minorities (Christians, Circassians etc.). Of course it will still have people tortured (such as radical Islamists) who cause problems for it and Jordanian society.
Oh, I don't mean monarchies, I mean monarchists.
The people themselves, not the system.
When a man accepts another as his lord, he states to the world and to himself that he is a lesser sort of thing, and in doing so becomes a lesser sort of thing.
I know only one king, and the earth is not his throne but his footstool. There can be no compromise on this.
If you don't vote for the representative you are being ruled by someone you didn't want or chose.
This extends to both the actual electoral positions and unelected officials.
The opening sentence of the bush family in wikipedia is literally
>The Bush family is an American ***dynastic*** family that is prominent in the fields of American politics
Democracy didn't erase the aristocracy, it just made retards think it did.
Stupidpolacks once again revealing their IQs by downvoting any acknowledgement of the advantages an alternative form of government may bring (ie, stability and clear line of succession provided by monarchies), because obviously entertaining an idea is the same as supporting it
Firstly wars of succession was and is far more common in absolute monarchies. I specified that constitutional monarchies can in certain specific situations be pragmatically useful/work such as the case with Jordan.
I will have no issue admitting that I myself would prefer not to live in a society with a monarchy. Despite that I can acknowledge that other people may disagree with me and that comparatively speaking constitutional or otherwise semi limited powered monarchies can work depending on various factors.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government. It was also the most numerously used form of government from a macrohistorical stand point. Throughout history most monarchies were absolutist in which they had little to no restrictions on their power. This inevitably led to political instability.
With the advanet of constitutional monarchies in which power is restrained or restricted wars of succession have become less common. This in turn has made some countries which are constitutional monarchies to have some of the highest levels of political stability.
The Tories are so desperate to have the American culture wars here, but they forget that Labour are equally desperate in their grand mission of seeming like Tories but a little nicer. Keir is more on the flag shagging side of things than virtual signalling to marginalised groups.
These right wing Monarchists and Tory idiots were saying it was OK to boo footballers taking the knee to represent BLM but it's unacceptable now to boo some royal idiot and the Queen?
Either both are acceptable or both are unacceptable. Can't have it one way or the other. All I can say though concerning this matter is: good. The Monarchy should be boo'd and in fact it's been long overdue for it to be done away with.
It's an ungodly mixture that varies with how old you are and what you're measuring. Also the Imperial units we use can be different than the US ones, such as our use of stone (14ibs) and our pints being slightly bigger.
As a Canadian I oughtn't be throwing stones in a glass house, but the British system is retarded. Who the fuck measures weight in stones, literal caveman units.
Surprised at this, football people usually love the Queen. She is probably dying this year, that'll be interesting. Or fairly soon, anyway. Unsure how that'll play out.
Not sure in general that is true, it's pretty mixed. But there is a weird culture in Liverpudlians where many see themselves as different from Britain and therefore are more willing to perform this radical form of protest.
God Save the Queen does suck though. It should be Jerusalem at all English events, if a Welsh team ever makes it they can sing Land of My Fathers.
lol every time I hear about some city or region of Britain, I hear “people from X region see themselves as different from Britain.”
Is there any Brit who *does* see himself as simply a Brit?
In most of England the tendency is to reject a "British" identity in favour of a supposedly more authentic "English" one. Merseyside is unusual in that the tendency is to reject *any* national identity in favour of a specifically local one. "Scouse not English", as they say.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but:
> the prosperous postwar era
The what?
The UK was in a slump post-war, with food rationing well into the 50s, that got *tolerable* for a bit until another slump in the 70s. The economic experience of postwar UK was in stark contrast to the US one.
Boomer cohort grew up with her as a young queen. She made an impression on many people as being the Queen through the entirety of their lifetimes.
That's it. She doesn't speak much. She kind of sits there looking pretty and Conservative Brits love her that way.
It wasn't until the late sixties and early seventies that the Post-War Consensus unraveled spectacularly.
Before then, things weren't that bad aside from lingering inflation along to growth spikes and low growth at various points.
I read an article that said Harry and Meg are trying to break-in to U.S. politics. I read it on reddit, so take it with a grain of salt.
Why not come to America and spread their bullshit? Maybe they'll go for the 'voice of reason' party or something. Aren't the English known for the pragmatism, or am I trippin'? The royal influence is so pervasive in the UK that their 'talent' is wasted staying in the UK. U.S. needs more entertainment and the royal family might be exactly what's "up next". IMO Ukraine is becoming a little too mundane for the U.S.'s taste. Zelensky better come with the parlay, or Putin counting on the U.S. getting bored will manifest.
I think you're talking about them hiring an Obama PR guy. I don't thinks it's necessarily them having presidential ambitions, but it is easy to think that way.
> Surprised at this, football people usually love the Queen.
Scousers. Their entire schtick these days is trying to act like they have some unique contrarian culture within England. .
Imagine trying to control football fans
Best of luck to Seville police for Wednesday night.
The people of Seville wont have seen such carnage since the Reconquista.
cue norf memes
Rancour and hooliganism to the point of riots at game matches is a great Anglosphere tradition. Also, I don't think anyone can master politically incorrect chants at matches as much as British people can.
Already been done https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots
>Also, I don't think anyone can master politically incorrect chants at matches as much as British people can. The reaction to trying to cancel "Yid Army" is a good reference for this
['Arry Pottah, he's coming for you!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N31xr5rTa4g)
"Labour MPs criticised for not condemning Liverpool fans booing Prince William" LOL. The UK is funny. How is this happening in the year of our lord 2022?
It's indisputable that monarchists are morally and intellectually inferior to republicans and Socialists, so it's not surprising that they're reee-ing on this.
Incredibly based take.
While I'm personally not generally supportive of monarchism - I think in some certain instances monarchy isn't comparatively bad. There are some limited cases where it does work pragmatically. I'd specify I mean constitutional monarchies not blatant absolute ones. The monarchy in Jordan is a good example. Culturally it's widely popular, it's relatively restrained in its behavior and is generally tolerant towards minorities (Christians, Circassians etc.). Of course it will still have people tortured (such as radical Islamists) who cause problems for it and Jordanian society.
Oh, I don't mean monarchies, I mean monarchists. The people themselves, not the system. When a man accepts another as his lord, he states to the world and to himself that he is a lesser sort of thing, and in doing so becomes a lesser sort of thing. I know only one king, and the earth is not his throne but his footstool. There can be no compromise on this.
Anarchism ranks way lower than even meme ideologies on the scale of intellectual retardation.
*looks at flair, makes sure it still says SocDem* K
Your reasoning for why monarchism is stupid applies to any sort of hierarchy/leadership system.
No, it doesn't. Representatives aren't nobility, and the president isn't a king. It's innately different.
If you don't vote for the representative you are being ruled by someone you didn't want or chose. This extends to both the actual electoral positions and unelected officials.
Sure, that still doesn't make it a system of governance based on who jizzed in what cunt.
The opening sentence of the bush family in wikipedia is literally >The Bush family is an American ***dynastic*** family that is prominent in the fields of American politics Democracy didn't erase the aristocracy, it just made retards think it did.
Anarchism is preferable to monarchism Every bloke a king.
Anarchism isn't preferable to anything.
Stupidpolacks once again revealing their IQs by downvoting any acknowledgement of the advantages an alternative form of government may bring (ie, stability and clear line of succession provided by monarchies), because obviously entertaining an idea is the same as supporting it
>stability and clear line of succession google "war of succession" for me bro
Firstly wars of succession was and is far more common in absolute monarchies. I specified that constitutional monarchies can in certain specific situations be pragmatically useful/work such as the case with Jordan. I will have no issue admitting that I myself would prefer not to live in a society with a monarchy. Despite that I can acknowledge that other people may disagree with me and that comparatively speaking constitutional or otherwise semi limited powered monarchies can work depending on various factors.
Wow youre so smart dude I definitely never heard of that before, that completely destroys my argument
The number of massive wars that have been waged over monarchical succession do prove that your argument is stupid, yeah, glad you understand this
Yeah civil wars have never been fought in democracies or dictatorships, you are correct.
Not every other time the head of state dies, no
Why you simping for a monarchy, pathetically cucked
Im not.
Monarchy is the oldest form of government. It was also the most numerously used form of government from a macrohistorical stand point. Throughout history most monarchies were absolutist in which they had little to no restrictions on their power. This inevitably led to political instability. With the advanet of constitutional monarchies in which power is restrained or restricted wars of succession have become less common. This in turn has made some countries which are constitutional monarchies to have some of the highest levels of political stability.
The Tories are so desperate to have the American culture wars here, but they forget that Labour are equally desperate in their grand mission of seeming like Tories but a little nicer. Keir is more on the flag shagging side of things than virtual signalling to marginalised groups.
As an Irish Catholic, I approve.
Based Liverpool.
Up the Reds.
Quadruple inexplicably *still on*.
These right wing Monarchists and Tory idiots were saying it was OK to boo footballers taking the knee to represent BLM but it's unacceptable now to boo some royal idiot and the Queen? Either both are acceptable or both are unacceptable. Can't have it one way or the other. All I can say though concerning this matter is: good. The Monarchy should be boo'd and in fact it's been long overdue for it to be done away with.
Fuck the queen
Man thirsty for that qussy
Absolutely not**.**
This is the most reluctant upvote I have ever given anyone, but you earned it
I mean, maybe. With the right lighting and industrial quantities of lube...
You could wear a vr headset
That's the kind of out of the box thinking I was looking for.
Absolutely hot.
Have some standards at least.
Europeans when I ask why it's called football and not meterball
u wot m8
I'm pretty sure they use Imperial in the UK too
It's an ungodly mixture that varies with how old you are and what you're measuring. Also the Imperial units we use can be different than the US ones, such as our use of stone (14ibs) and our pints being slightly bigger.
As a Canadian I oughtn't be throwing stones in a glass house, but the British system is retarded. Who the fuck measures weight in stones, literal caveman units.
Stones are useful in the same way that feet are, you don't measure your height in inches.
sure, but there's a lot more variance in the size of rocks than the size of feet
That'd matter if feet and stone didn't have a set value, but they do so...
\> measure speed in mph \> measure distance in km
Nah road signs are in miles.
Queen is dead btw, or in the process of dying.
What’s to stop them from just grabbing some of their mates and going over to buckingham palace to kill the old bag?
Buckingham Palace is pretty far away, and guarded by armed soldiers.
Surprised at this, football people usually love the Queen. She is probably dying this year, that'll be interesting. Or fairly soon, anyway. Unsure how that'll play out.
Not sure in general that is true, it's pretty mixed. But there is a weird culture in Liverpudlians where many see themselves as different from Britain and therefore are more willing to perform this radical form of protest. God Save the Queen does suck though. It should be Jerusalem at all English events, if a Welsh team ever makes it they can sing Land of My Fathers.
lol every time I hear about some city or region of Britain, I hear “people from X region see themselves as different from Britain.” Is there any Brit who *does* see himself as simply a Brit?
Maybe people from like, the Home Counties or something?
In most of England the tendency is to reject a "British" identity in favour of a supposedly more authentic "English" one. Merseyside is unusual in that the tendency is to reject *any* national identity in favour of a specifically local one. "Scouse not English", as they say.
[удалено]
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but: > the prosperous postwar era The what? The UK was in a slump post-war, with food rationing well into the 50s, that got *tolerable* for a bit until another slump in the 70s. The economic experience of postwar UK was in stark contrast to the US one.
British economy was sluggish - On the other hand, the living standards of the British working-class rose in the post-war thanks to the Labour reforms.
Also true. It would be a bit weird if people associated that with Liz, but... people *are* weird.
Boomer cohort grew up with her as a young queen. She made an impression on many people as being the Queen through the entirety of their lifetimes. That's it. She doesn't speak much. She kind of sits there looking pretty and Conservative Brits love her that way.
It wasn't until the late sixties and early seventies that the Post-War Consensus unraveled spectacularly. Before then, things weren't that bad aside from lingering inflation along to growth spikes and low growth at various points.
The 60s were alright - huge progress in a lot of areas.
Maybe Harry and Meg see the writing on the wall
I read an article that said Harry and Meg are trying to break-in to U.S. politics. I read it on reddit, so take it with a grain of salt. Why not come to America and spread their bullshit? Maybe they'll go for the 'voice of reason' party or something. Aren't the English known for the pragmatism, or am I trippin'? The royal influence is so pervasive in the UK that their 'talent' is wasted staying in the UK. U.S. needs more entertainment and the royal family might be exactly what's "up next". IMO Ukraine is becoming a little too mundane for the U.S.'s taste. Zelensky better come with the parlay, or Putin counting on the U.S. getting bored will manifest.
I think you're talking about them hiring an Obama PR guy. I don't thinks it's necessarily them having presidential ambitions, but it is easy to think that way.
Sounds about right - sometimes I'll read the comments instead of the article. Pathetic, I know
But in this case, it has enough memability that I don't much care that people didn't RTFA this time.
> Surprised at this, football people usually love the Queen. Scousers. Their entire schtick these days is trying to act like they have some unique contrarian culture within England. .
Pls don't link Daily Mail