Footer Pages


God Save The Queen & her Fascist Regime

Meanwhile in Britain the Queen’s jubilee approaches, 60 years of unelected rule over us simple peasant folk. I don’t know what is worse, a bunch of nobility ruling over us with little trouble at all, or all the people happily waving flags and cheering like mindless zombies amidst all the bunting.

60 years of Unelected Rule at the People’s expense.

Unfortunately, the Queen and her Fascist regime have been happily celebrating at our expense for hundreds of years, only occasionally interrupted by some foolish rebel who is quickly disposed off as an example to the other peasants.

Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the British Monarch in England.

God is my right – BOLLOCKS! God does not sanction the Queen and her fascist Regime or make it right, it’s just marketing and propaganda. The sooner we realise this the sooner we can begin to move to real form of ethical government that is not dominated by unelected officials.

19 Responses to God Save The Queen & her Fascist Regime

  1. Laura Stuart June 2, 2012 at 10:47 am #

    I prefer the Queen to a politician as Head of State. Imagine having Tony Blair or someone heading the U.K. Prince Charles can’t live up to his Mum’s record of stability and service after his affair with Camilla so once this Queen goes the Monarchy is going to look even more irrelevant.

    • Roy Bard June 2, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

      I prefer Joti Brar’s Take on this:

      Moreover, while she may not exercise power over governments or armies for herself, the Queen does have a real role to play on behalf of her class. It is not merely symbolic that a new prime minister has to ask the Queen for permission to form a government – that is the ruling class’s veto in case of an unacceptable election result. As is the Queen’s power to call a state of emergency and mobilise the armed forces. While she may not do either of these things on her own whim, these powers are retained by the class she serves in case of emergency, and she would have no compunction in using them on their behalf if they deemed it necessary.

      • Laura Stuart June 2, 2012 at 3:32 pm #

        Doesn’t Joti support the Monarchy in N. Korea?

        Although the Queen has those supposed rights, I really think she is unable to use them.

        I still would vote for Elizabeth II over Kim Jong or Al Saud.

  2. Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    I disagree with you again Laura, (:-)) I don’t want an unelected Head OF State at all. Ever.!! Whether its the Queen, President Mubarak, or Berlusconi. I am sick of all this fake democracy. We don’t have democracy and it is the unelected elite that maintain control not just here in Britain but all over.

  3. Laura Stuart June 2, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    I don’t believe that in reality the Queen has control over anything she has to take her orders from the government including having lunch with some very unpleasant people recently and letting the Saudi King ride down the mall in her golden coach. Personally I can’t wait until those Arabs are back on their camels where they belong, if you have to have a Monarch I would vote for Elizabeth II over anyone else.

    Who are the unelected elite maintain control?

    Does this website not have a “naughty word” filter? tut!

  4. Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 11:46 am #

    Laura we have a Constitutional monarchy.
    …” is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified, or blended constitution. ”

    NB we don’t have a constitution.

    “This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the source of power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution and has the powers to regulate his or her respective government.”

    The parliament is their to distract the peasant folk and make us feel that its not as bad as an asbolute monarchy…. There is little difference between us and Arabia except we don’t cut heads off … anymore. We are more subtle. People meet with mysterious accidents.

    This website does have a naughty filter, but it is not switched on.

  5. Laura Stuart June 2, 2012 at 12:24 pm #

    This website does have a naughty filter, but it is not switched on.

    Just shows how civilised we are here.

    After I posted that the Queen let the Saudi King ride down the Mall in her golden carriage, I worried that I might have expressed some subliminal naughty thought.

    Perhaps Jonathon you are targetting the system rather the person Queen Elizabeth II who I feel has a pretty good record as a Monarch.

  6. Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    I don’t blame the Queen for the accident of her Birth, but She and her family and friends are the only ones in the UK with Job’s for life. They live in ridiculous splendour whilst many struggle just to pay the rent or mortgage.

  7. Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Here is an amusing fact.
    Dame Vivienne Westwood recently said of the Queen that she

    was a really lovely woman

    This made me laugh as wonderful example of British hypocrisy.
    Vivienne Westwood made her name defacing the Monarch’s face with Punk clothing when she invented Punk with Malcolm Mclaren .
    But these days she feels somewhat differently, I wonder why….

  8. who_me June 2, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    i wouldn’t be surprised if they did talk about that.

  9. Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 7:22 pm #

    lol most likely

  10. etominusipi June 2, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

    as a slightly aspergers person i have always felt deeply ill-at-ease with formality. whatever good or useful purposes it may serve, all formality offers a fertile breeding-ground for serious socially-corrupting vices like vanity, snobbery, hypocrisy, plain old-fashioned lying, nepotism and institutionalised inequality.

    large-scale formality is particularly toxic, since it is always used to legitimise otherwise questionable power structures by distracting potentially inquisitive minds from real questions.

    it employs various cynically manipulated symbolic images and rituals to recruit popular sentiment in favour of what, from the point of view of human development, is merely a pernicious mythology, offering a false account, indeed an incoherent account, of what life is, what a country is, what a human being is, and what are, or should be, the true relations between these different hierarchical levels of the planetary biosphere.

    all states, monarchical or otherwise, have their pomp and circumstance. simply take a look at ‘flags’, or ‘national anthems’ – anyone possessing the proverbial modicum of aesthetic discernment, not to speak of spiritual insight, cannot but see such grotesque travesties of art for what they are.

    but the courage to bear public witness to the conclusions clarified by such perceptual or cognitive integrity is a relatively rare quality. the average intellectual or functionary is an instinctive ‘collaborator’. in all countries of the world, except during very brief epochs of intense social transformation, professionals of all kinds will queue for hours to be seen kissing the arse of whatever modern Baphomet has the power to preserver them in office, or to propel them a little further up their personal greasy poles of ‘social status’ or material advancement. one very English archetype of this is the fabled ‘Vicar of Bray’.

    so two things:

    (1) my personal feeling is, as i tweeted this morning, that monarchy, whatever it may have been in the past, is a harmful anachronism in 21st century Britain.

    (2) it would be naive in the extreme to believe that merely getting rid of monarchy would of itself do a great deal towards solving the more general problems briefly adumbrated above in connection with the notion of state formality.

    Laura, i do not think this is about whether Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Mountbatten is personally a nice lady, or has done a good ‘job’ for sixty years. she has certainly shown an impressive dedication and consistency to performing a task i personally would have fund unutterably tedious most of the time. but after all, if push comes to shove, she can always send herself a congratulatory telegram to take care of that.

    her mere existence, or rather the existence of her role, her squabbling extended family of quislings and sycophants, and the horrid Palace of Lies bureaucracy which surrounds her, hampers the intellectual and emotional development of the entire ‘people’ now inhabiting these islands.

    we are now, in Britain, experiencing a powerful need to achieve, and articulate, a form of collective realism. such a project has no chance of success if we are not ready and willing discard a lot of ‘inherited’ mental-emotional junk.

    any move towards realism, which involves giving up fondly-held self-delusions, is a painful process to initiate. that does not mean it should not be attempted. without it, the eventual result will be still more painful, albeit for a later generation.

    • Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 10:07 pm #

      THank you as ever for your thoughtful, considered and fascinating choice of words. I was daydreaming the most amazing thing earlier, what if the Queen did a speech announcing that she would boycott Israel and she would support the Palestine struggle, Israel would go crazy. If she could do that, I would think she is a good ethical woman. Its good to dream…. and if you are going to dream.
      Dream BIG.

  11. Jonathon Blakeley June 2, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Is the Diamond Jubilee good for Britain?

  12. Cosmo June 3, 2012 at 8:16 am #

    King of the who?

  13. Jonathon Blakeley June 3, 2012 at 9:59 am #

  14. Jonathon Blakeley June 3, 2012 at 10:39 am #


  15. Hue Longer June 3, 2012 at 9:44 pm #

    Hello all,

    New here, found you through Gilad’s site (Hello Gilad)

    I like the article and the comments- especially the idea that the the parliament is a ruse and that the queen represents those with true power. When the vetted sycophants know what will happen should they make a move against real power, why would they?

    BUT, there is a real example of the Queen having to get in on the wet work (or her office anyways–the official story is that she wasn’t informed but happy to not have been). The coup against Gough Whitlam. In fact, that is a GREAT example of what these people can do. It’s a fascinating story involving spooks, Murdoch, royalty and banks. Pilger covers it in detail in “A Secret Country”. Scary is that most Australians (having been affected by the propaganda) dismiss the whole thing as if it would have happened anyways by vote because of the financial and budget situation. Everyone had their orders and the banks and the little traitors in government all went along. It’s the same everywhere…you don’t play ball, they shut the country down and blame it on you.