Basically, the girlfriend of the leader of UKIP has apparently made public comments such as "Prince William's marriage to Meghan Markle is going to taint the white royal bloodline and create the eventuality of a black king of England" + "black people are ugly" + "black people have tiny brains" and as such has been suspended from the party. And the media is demonising her.
My arguement is that while what she said, the way she said it specifically may be unsavoury. Objectively speaking she hasn't said anything that's untrue. She's exaggerated, and said things in a vitriolic manner but that doesn't necessarily indicate racism.
I mean from the quotes I've seen she didn't say anything incorrect and she didn't suggest any kind of racial hatred or white supremacy, she basically just said that the royal white bloodline will no longer be pure white. Which is an objective truth.
And objectively speaking it's not actually racist to disagree with this mixing of the races.
I mean, it's perfectly fine to value your bloodline, your race, your culture, and want to protect it, as it all relates to your identity. And race-mixing symbolically shows a separation from that racial and cultural identity that's been passed down through generations, because it's not just race-mixing. You mix two families cultures and allsorts of other things too, and as a result, both racial and cultural heritages are done away with and you end up with a mish-mash of both, essentially devaluing both. So you could say it's actually negative for both bloodlines, as you end up with a great de-emphasisation on heritage on both sides.
Ryan Bennett
After all, AIDS is a deadly, incurable disease. But no matter how you come to judge Charles Wheeler and his partners, in ethical, moral, and in human terms, the fact of the matter is, when they fired Andrew Beckett because he had AIDS, they broke the law.
Christopher Morales
I haven't seen any quotes or screenshots of these instances. Did she actually say "tiny brains"? Were they her actual words? If so, I disagree with that as it's factually incorrect. But that doesn't necessarily indicate racism. It could just be an exaggeration on her part for other reasons. I say exaggeration because Africans do have smaller brains + smaller brain cases when compared to Europeans or Asians. I will provide a source below.
Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article, I will also provide you with a link for verification:
"J. P. Rushton has argued that Africans on average have smaller brain cases and brains than Europeans, and that Europeans have smaller brains than East Asians, and that this is evidence that the gap is biological in nature. Critics of Rushton have argued that Rushton's arguments rest on outdated data collected by unsound methods and should be considered invalid."
As for supposedly stating that black people are ugly. That also doesn't necessarily indicate racism. You obviously haven't heard the way men of different races speak of women of different races. Many black and asian men for example have little to no interest in white women and prefer women of their own races because of the physical aesthetics they've grown up around.
Typically speaking men are attracted to women that project a similar image to what they've been around for the most part of their early life, their mother. Men look to women for a similar kind of comfort that their mother gave them as a child so they tend to desire people of the same race, something they can relate that early childhood comfort to. This dynamic along with other factors creates a habit of men of one race having little to no interest in women of other races.
Austin Young
For example, black men will often comment on how white women are unattractive because of how thin they are. They tend to prefer "thick" women, and black women are typically far more "weighty" or "thick" than white women. But nobody attributes this to racism. They just consider it personal preference. So I don't think her comment on black people's physical appearance necessarily indicates racism either.
Although I agree that saying such a thing publicly is unsavoury and such opinions would be best kept to oneself.
there is literally nothing wrong with what she's saying. objectively speaking it's all accurate.
it's how she's saying it that's the problem.
and she's likely saying it how she's saying it because she's jealous.
prince william is one of the highest status males in the country. it wouldn't matter who he's marrying, this woman would hate her regardless of nationality or ethnicity.
so I would argue that the vitriolic "tone" of her messages are an emotional projection of her envy towards a woman whom is achieving higher hypergamy than herself, and she's using whatever she can to judge her because she feels threatened as a woman.
and I bet she's not alone. every woman covets the top 1% of men and secretly hate the women that achieve accessing that top 1% of men.
Aaron Jenkins
I mean prince harry, oops.
Adrian Peterson
And?
Leo Morgan
>prince william
It's Harry you mong, future King George isn't a mutt
Joseph Long
already corrected myself.
Jackson Moore
Is Henry Bolton hiding his power levels, or is this all ("abandoning his wife and kids for a racist model") to discredit UKIP...
James Adams
everything negative on UKIP is propaganda purely for the sake of discrediting it. because it's anti-globalism.
Thomas Wright
Based af
Isaiah Collins
>"Prince William's marriage to Meghan Markle is going to taint the white royal bloodline and create the eventuality of a black king of England" if it gets to the point where Harry is king, things have already gone terribly wrong
Charles Gutierrez
I really need to learn to proof read. especially when I've just woken up haha
and they're all as bad as each other desu. I don't agree with the idea of monarchy, or any other kind of "archy", I don't need a ruler.
Benjamin Garcia
Luckily for you, there's been no English monarchy for 400 years and the British monarchy is nothing short of a farce.
He shagged a younger model because he's a male with a sex drive is about all. UKIP discredited its self and if they won't stand up for hating wogs, they can go fuck themselves.
Nicholas Edwards
>I don’t need a ruler >flag
Bentley Anderson
I wasn't criticizing your mistake, I mean that Harry is 5th in line to the throne at this point, so if he ends up as king the monarchy is fucked anyway because it means that Philip, William, and both of William's kids are all either dead or dropped out of succession
Joseph Campbell
clever placement of that microphone in the picture
Blake Jenkins
Did not realize Meghan was black.
Lincoln Reyes
see? I made my own fuck up lol Charles, not Philip
Asher Torres
god save future king george
Gabriel Cook
well, that's not necessarily true. it seems to me that we've gone from an overt monarchy to a covert monarchy. when you look into the royal bloodline's positions in "secret societies" and the kinds of things these secret socities push and where they're found.
yeah I know mate, was just saying. and I agree, I think her point was more so that this is one step in the wrong way though. that it'll lead to a general acceptance of other races interbreeding with royalty over time so we end up with mixed race royals ruling over us. don't think she was necessarily referring to there being a "black king" anytime soon I think she just worded it poorly because it was an emotionally fueled rant.
Alexander Morris
...
Ryder Lopez
and the halo
Brody Sullivan
Reminder not to PR cuck, and never back down even an inch.
Christopher Martin
hahahahaha, it happens mate. it's Sunday, I don't think anyone is paying that much attention to anything today, such is life on a sunday.
Carter Peterson
>well, that's not necessarily true. it seems to me that we've gone from an overt monarchy to a covert monarchy You don't seem to understand that there is no overt monarchy or no convert monarchy. There is a royal family which has been irrelevant since 1689.
Andrew Morales
Not really, (((they))) do the exact same thing all the time
Luis Harris
then maybe you can kindly explain things to me? I'm all about learning.
Michael Foster
The English Civil Wars from the 1630s-40s. Cromwell's accession to Lord Protector. The Restoration. The overthrow of King James in the Glorious Revolution. The Bill of Rights 1689. The Act of Settlement 1701. Queen Anne's refusal of Royal Assent (approval for law) in 1707 on the Scottish Militia Bill. Victoria stopping signing Royal Assent formally.
I suppose start at the former and work to the latter. Or just skip straight to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights 1689.
Gabriel Roberts
interesting.
not gonna lie I don't know enough about these events to comment.
but I do know that when people in power want to conserve their power, they'll do anything they deem necessary. deception being a primary tool utilised to do so.
so could it be that these events merely shifted the power around and decentralised it, but kept it apparent with certain circles, as opposed to making it simply "irrelevant"?
Jordan Clark
btw guys, thanks for keeping it civil. this is why I love Sup Forums. can pretty much talk about anythin and get actual conversation out of people.
Cooper Reed
She seems pretty woke for a UKIPper
Brody Parker
Oi u hav a point bruv fuck white peepol
David Bennett
The events were just some on a slow road which started with Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford. The English monarchy seems to be the only one people are overly familiar with, thus it gets most of the attention directed towards it both good and bad. However it's important to remember the French were fighting in the 18th century for what the English achieved in regards to their monarchy in the 13th century. So it was only natural that it would play out this way, because there was a precedent for destroying a monarchy in Britain unlike there was in continental Europe. The most significant of this occurred between 1688-1689 as pointed out though. This is the absolute pinnacle of monarchical power in Britain since the 11th century.
It's ironic, but those changes are probably the reason why England still has a monarchy, where as, say, France doesn't.
Levi Adams
LMAO
I actually like her, but she needs to tone it down a bit and learn how to be a little more savoury.
Nicholas Jones
But why tho?
David Thomas
If they are irrelevent then why are they titled and treated special and better than you when they do absolutely fucking nothing.
Lol Brexit has exposed the fact that you don't even have a constitution, subject.
Owen Phillips
Have you been in Brit/pol/ taking baiting points from people or are you genuinely this fucking dense? It's hard to tell but I'd rather know before I have to correct every single thing you've said.
Charles Hall
Also I'm a monarchist you mong.
Angel Harris
very interesting. thanks for the info man.
I hope you don't ridicule me for this but I get a lot of information on the monarchy from conspiracy style videos and relating online materials. and from what I can gather the monarchy still has a LOT of influence in the world, but it's not a direct monarchy. it's the prime mover of certain global corporations (like the crown corporation) that actually own countries through child corporations like the United States (which is actually a corporation). it's still one of the most powerful public entities in the world, only really equal to things like the Vatican (which is also a global corporate entity that has a lot of stakes in things across the world).
I don't think things are as simple as "the monarchy rules" anymore but it definitely isn't irrelevant. the power is much more diversified and intertwined with other global powers and in much less obvious ways than before.
Aiden Perry
You are correct. Basically they got to keep all the benefits while not having to do any work. And also keep everything they stole from the peasants. While the peasants now have more work to do.
Oh and there is still a House of Lords in their bicameral parliament, with hereditary positions of power lol its a big joke.
Josiah Russell
because when it comes to recourse or discussion you have to be as polite as you possibly can be, because the second you say something with any vitriol whatsoever, you lose, and you leave yourself open to being demonised.
you have to be polite, courteous, straight to the point but in a way that is as pleasant as can be. you still might not get through to people, but at least you can take the moral high ground and call out the other people for being vitriolic and immature if they respond as such.
Andrew King
I avoid the conspiracy topics on the English monarchy just because history suggests they've been useless for three centuries but I wouldn't ridicule the prospect of an extremely rich family participating in anything particular covert. In fact it's plausible. Things like offing Diana and what not are also more plausible than not.
Interestingly enough, I heard the conspiracy theory regarding the United States and the British monarchy only this morning from a Canadian. Not buying it personally, and I don't think any yank will, the Queen struggles to rule over Britain so I don't think there's a chance she rules over a nation which claimed independence in 1790.
It's not unreasonable to say that any family with as much money as the royal family will have more influence than the common person though. How they use that influence is where the conspiracies come from I suppose.
Isaac Morales
95% of women are intellectually inert and will adopt whatever beliefs their bull espouses.
Noah Smith
yes and their power center spans the globe and is interwoven with global banks + the vatican. from what I can tell anyway.
and it's all connected through various secret socities and orders.
Jackson James
A monarchist is a cuck who worships the spoiled descendants of the best murdering raping thieves.
Liam Edwards
You'll find a infinite amount more corruption coming from parliament than the monarchy in the UK. The body that took over all active duties from the monarchy in 1689 and now collectively wields absolute power with only their own boundaries on that power.
Jaxon Rogers
I have a lot of respect for you man. I like how like me you take different perspectives and are neither here nor there about them but just take the information you've observed and go with that as best you can. that's really respectable.
but yeah I feel the same way to a degree.
also I do believe personally that there is an awful lot of social engineering that goes on, a lot more than most people realise. and whatever difficulties states of monarchies have in rulership tend to be imposed on themselves by themselves for a particular purpose. so I think those difficulties are desired for a reason.
Jonathan Hughes
this. 100%.
Jayden Hill
Alright, but if your alternative is Republicanism, we were the first nation since the Republic of Rome to experiment with such a system and it failed spectacularly.
Ayden Davis
>gender equality t***
What is this censored word?
Julian Rogers
I would actually respect them if they did off that whore Diana
David Powell
I'd say the corruption in parliament is so commonplace because it reflects the mentality of the rulership in general, including the monarchy. they moral relativists, all of them. so it's to be expected. and accepted.
Jason Stewart
It failed because you didnt kill your monarchs and aristocrats and they undermined it. Better luck next time.
Josiah Mitchell
they're*
Robert Hughes
Okay, so you say 'objectively' all these things you quoted are true. 1) Tainting the royal bloodline, leading to a black king of England. Categorically false. Harry is something like 5th in line to the throne now, unless there's some kind of royal 9/11, it's never going to happen.
2) black people are ugly. False. You may think they are ugly, 99% of the world may think that they're ugly, but that is still 'subjective.'
3)black people have tiny brains False- brain size is the same, whether you like it or not. Literally old school racist propaganda.
Regardless of your political leanings, it boggles the mind why you'd jump to defend this piece of trash.
Tyler Foster
>with only their own boundaries on that power.
Because you idiots never wrote a constitution.
Cameron Russell
Twat. I'm guessing. Cheers lad. I'm no one to say the billionaire royal family aren't corrupt which is why I can't be biased on it. In fact, I'd bet my house on the prospect that they are. They absolutely wield next to 0 (official) legal authority though.
I used this example before but Queen Anne's refusal of Royal Assent on the 1707 Scottish Militia Bill shows how parliament respected the monarchy post-1689.
An anointed Queen uses powers which are, technically, within her legal capability but because William and Mary established the supremacy of parliament over the monarchy in 1689, parliament were able to just tell her to go fuck herself and the bill pass regardless.
>It failed because you didnt kill your monarchs and aristocrats and they undermined it We did you utter mongoloid. King Charles was beheaded and Cromwell assumed the role of the Lord Protector.
Sebastian Walker
Literally shill-speak.
Ethan Gray
I think any system no matter how fair and balanced it is will fail at some point if the general consensus isn't based on principles, morality and shared values. I think there tends to be systemic breakdown in nations eventually because there is never a general consensus. most systems tend to be formed on the basis of "what I think is best for me" not what is right and proper.
Nicholas Parker
Brain size is not the same. Also their brains have different less productive structure.
Dominic Stewart
Again, I can't tell whether this is just someone from Brit/pol/ who has observed this bait before and chooses to use it or whether you're serious.
For the record though, if you are serious, every country on the planet has a Constitution. Somalia has a constitution. A constitution is the way in which a government functions.
The U.S. Constitution is central to the U.S. Bill of Rights and codified examples, where as the British Constitution is based on precedent and legal documentation.
We can discuss which system is better all day, but it'll be no less autistic than the 10 discussions on Brit/pol/ daily on it.
Joseph Watson
Yeah I didn't mean that it was true that there would be a black king I meant what she said about tainting a pure white bloodline was true.
And I already pointed out that thinking black people is a subjective point of view.
And well, that's not what the wikipedia article says. It says that there was an arguement for this comparison, and an arguement against it, but there was no irrefutable proof either side. So we're back to subjectivity on your part.
Juan Thomas
*and common law
David Martinez
You killed one guy. One. Out of a spawling mafia.
Michael Wright
200,000 people died in the three English civil wars you mong. More in Scotland and Ireland.
The Glorious Revolution killed off around 70,000 people too.
Caleb Fisher
""Glorious""**
Colton Jackson
well if you wanna talk about officiality and unofficiality you have to recognise that nobody has any legitimate or official legal authority because nobody has the right to tell anybody else what to do. but that doesn't stop them from trying to do so, or trying to convince others that have the right to. so with all due respect, I don't think that's really an arguement that can be used, that they don't have "official" legal authority. that only matters in the eyes of people who believe in the right to rule. but there is no right to rule.
and that brings me to my next point desu. this is objectively true. nobody has the right to rule, and nobody ever has nor ever will. and these people will know this. they're at the top of society for a reason, they recognise social dynamics for what they are and know how to exploit them. they know they have no right to rule. but they don't care. they just have to fool people into believing they do. or into being complacent with the status quo in other ways. which makes me go back to what I said earlier about deception. things like "Queen Anne's refusal of Royal Assent" I believe, were likely deceptions to keep the facade going. to manipulate the masses into certain modalities of consciousness in order to have them react in certain ways that the self-appointed rulership required for its own continuity.
Hunter Brown
>Literally shill-speak. no u
Luis Moore
>Brexit passes >oops who has the power to execute brexit we dpnt really lnow cuz we forgot a constution >of course we have a constitution otherwise how are they forcing us to pay TV tax when I only use it to watch youtube videos. >dont be a dork, bin that spork!
Bentley Green
constitutions are wholely meaningless. the only power they have is attributed to the people's belief in them.
the things that have real power though are the principles behind them which are immutable and unchangeable, and immaterial.
natural law is the only constitution people need and that can be passed on by word of mouth and observed in nature.
Colton Allen
Yet you still have a royal family and aristocrats
Daniel Hall
Why don't one of the other 109 countries with a TV license ever get any shit? I mean at least in the UK it's a choice whether you want to watch TV or not. In Italy for example, you're forced to pay regardless.
But seriously Hernandez, do you want to make a point showing you know what a Constitution or legal framework is or is this the pinnacle of your intellect?
Blake Long
>constitutions are wholely meaningless. Bill of Rights, I think you mean. Even Americans don't know the difference between their Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution, no one else on the planet seems to know either.
A Constitution is literally the legal framework in which a nation operates. A Bill of Rights that is central to that Constitution is what you're all thinking of.
Aiden Carter
Well it would help restrict parliament's power
Henry Price
The bill of rights are a set of amendments to the constitution, they are part of the whole.
Gabriel King
English history is centered on crippling the monarchs power in favour of parliament.
That's what the British Bill of Rights 1689 is.
>The Bill of Rights is apart of the Constitution >The Constitution is NOT the Bill of the Rights
If a Bill of Rights is all you needed to run a nation, then my worldview is totally wrong.
Robert Johnson
Harry will never be king
The Royals are all mutts anyway, Liz is kraut, Philip is greek
Colton Harris
thanks man.
my point is though, that it doesn't matter what the document is or what it entails, if it isn't in-line with natural law it's utterly meaningless.
and even when it is in-line with natural law, it's still utterly meaningless because it has no inherent meaning itself, it gets its meaning from natural law. which needs no legal document to apply.
and more often than not, legal documents tend to attempt to curtail natural law and replace it. it's essentially word-magic, that's created to make people believe in some authority separate from natural law so they fall into moral relativism.
parliament has no power other than that which people within the aggregate believe it has.
what would restrict it's supposed power is people not needing rulership at all due to a believe in a higher ideal, shared values, morals and principles based on philosophy and natural law.
Mason Allen
I agree with that entirely. That's why I support precedent and common law over civil law and codified law.
A magic piece of paper that stops corrupt politicians... I suppose these people believe in dragons and unicorns too.
Nolan Bell
It didn't work
Jeremiah Wilson
...
Jeremiah Long
that's how it should be. civil law and codified law is simply the law of commerce. and it only applies to commercial entities. not us.
it all comes down to belief, or a lack thereof.
any belief in a higher worldly authority is immoral.
and it's born from sheer laziness and nascience. people not wanting to rule over themselves and be responsible for themselves.
Wyatt Harris
Krauts and anglos are blood-cousins, and true greeks are white.
Jacob Murphy
What are you talking about she was very precise in her comment, she was polite enough not to comment about how they are delusional about being kings and are almost all rude and thieves.
Brayden Baker
The other 5% take traits from strong fathers who ingrained good values and interests into them while allowing them to make mistakes and realise themselves the reality of the modern world.
Josiah Mitchell
but it's not wrong, and that's what counts
Grayson Ramirez
>spent 10 minutes trying to get the perfect shot to make him look like "EEEVULL" hitler >gives him a halo poetic
Connor Evans
She's right about the genes thing, but it doesn't in any way lead to a black king since harry's line will never get the crown unless his brother's entire family die first.
Henry Diaz
yeah that's what I meant desu.
Jason Turner
Wow as if she reads Sup Forums
Benjamin Perry
Why does he have a "girlfriend" and not a wife? What an utter fucking shambles of a man.
