I recall many discussions that conservatives want a King. It's the control structure that makes sense to their brains. They essentially crave a King.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2024
588 points (97.6% liked)
History Memes
3328 readers
1040 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The central tenet of conservatism, whether they're consciously aware of it or not, is a belief in hierarchies. There is a stratification to society that must be maintained, which of course manifests a king or oligarchy at the top.
Men are above women.
The rich are above the poor.
Whites are above everyone else.
They don't care about religion or nationality except as tools to maintain that hierarchy.
Belief in hierarchies as natural, good and desirable is the definition of right wing, it is literally the first sentence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Can we just let them have a pretend king while the rest of us enjoy a nice democratic republic?
That's what celebrities are.
That's how we got a reality TV host as a president.
You had one of those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
I've lived in the Bay Area most of my life, how have I never heard of this absolute legend of a man?
I live on the other end of the country and I'd heard of him, so that's on you.
I think that one expired
I say we let the South break off and build a nice big wall to keep them out of the ~~rich~~ blue states. With all the money we'll save by not supporting them anymore, we could develop a kick ass system for taking in refugees escaping from the South.
this is literally what we do in scandinavia, we have a king/queen who might technically actually have fewer rights than regular people (which can of course simply be solved by abdicating) since they can't really do anything "political", and they just go around doing PR.
Works pretty well IMO, of course it feels a little bit shit that they get all kinds of luxury for being born royal, but hey, it satisfies a lot of monarchists and is otherwise basically meaningless so why not.
Kinda what the UK does, too, isn't it? I think I'm starting to understand why the tradition persists. Decoy monarch.
sort of, almost
the UK monarch has a bit more power/freedom, like the current king has pushed for people to eat more lamb and stuff which is.. a bit strange for a figurehead to do. Like it'd be less weird if he'd pushed for better healthcare or something..
I don't think the UK monarch is bad as it stands, but i think the position could do with a bit more neutering.
Anyways the actual political system in the UK is a way bigger issue, it's a god damn clown show on every level and it's a minor miracle that people managed to vote for a PM that seems vaguely reasonable.
What, you don't like lamb?
i have no strong feelings one way or the other, i just don't think the figurehead of a nation should be shilling a specific kind of product.
they should be utterly boring and inoffensive, their job is to be boring and inoffensive and refrain from uttering anything vaguely political or controversial.
Sucks that lamb is political.
They crave being dominated. Anytime somebody tells you they're a conservative just imagine them with a ball gag and gimp suit, 'cause that's what they really are on the inside.
Loki is that you?
Its anyone rational who's seen conservatives, really, but I enjoyed the reference.
I don't really mind loyalists. There's not some great moral difference between them and the revolutionaries like there was between unionists and confederates. Both were, deep down, fighting for their own best interests. It's not like the property and slave owning founders were particularly concerned about anybody's oppression but their own.
I don’t really mind loyalists. There’s not some great moral difference between them and the revolutionaries like there was between unionists and confederates. Both were, deep down, fighting for their own best interests.
I agree, at least to a degree. There's a right side and wrong side to the argument, but it's not the kind of stark moral contrast the way there is between Unionists and Confederates. It's more of a "Are you really so uncreative as to be unable to see that being ruled without a say in your own governance is some feudal shite?" than a "Jesus fuck you are fighting for the worst institution known to man."
It’s not like the property and slave owning founders were particularly concerned about anybody’s oppression but their own.
4 out of the 7 Founding Fathers were staunch abolitionists (Jay, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams). 1 became an abolitionist later in life (Washington). 1 turned against slavery half-heartedly (Jefferson). Only one was an ideological slaver (Madison).
But soon they will vote for a king.
King Don I. sounds like a chinese remake of 'King Kong I'. Big ape, huge building in New York, weapons involved ...
Just vote harder.