Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Sunday, 4 March 2007

Balderdash and Piffle

In more than two years of blogging I've never had to write a post like this, but I suppose it's finally time to face the unrelenting mischief of my accuser. J.J. McCullough means to level a piffle charge of racism against this blog, when he declares it guilty of celebrating "white pride", of indulging in "benign bigotry", of admiring "white men in top hats", of being interested in only the most Anglocentric aspects of the "white dominions", which, according to him, is a kind of "racism by ommission".

He attempts to substantiate this twaddle by preening that we have never missed an opportunity to order the "white realms" first and the "brown ones" last. He also cites the fact that we have never made an honest effort to champion the cultures, anniversaries and traditions of the non "Ethnically-British" countries like Jamaica and Papua New Guinea who also share the British monarchy, as if we are somehow morally obligated to do so.

Now it's true that I don't give one piddle whiff for the local habits and customs of the Papuans, nor do I profess to be all that interested in the indigenous traits of the Tuvaluans, Belizeans or Grenadians. He can call this smug indifference all he wants, this is not my hobby. Clearly the only reason why I mention these countries is because we all share allegiance to Her Majesty, because we all share something in common. It is not the things that separate us, but the thing that unites us. Our accuser is insincere and hypocritical when he feigns concern for the Papuans and the Solomons, but if he is genuinely interested in the annual feast day of the Saint Lucians, let him look it up. That is not why we are here.

To his preposterous claim that we are exaggerating the importance of "tiny New Zealand" when Papua New Guinea or the Crown Caribbean are marginally more populous, I say piffle again. As he must know, New Zealand with its wealth and aid is a much more geopolitically significant country, engaged as it is in expensive reconstruction efforts in such far away places as Afghanistan. It is to New Zealand that we look for assistance in Tonga and Fiji, for example, not PNG or the Solomon Islands, which have trouble enough looking after their own tribal and domestic affairs. On this blog there is a demand for a New Zealand perspective, and the scribes for the telling of it. I would hope for others, and other perspectives, but if not, so be it.

If tiny Tuvalu has a smaller font size it is because it is not as important as the United Kingdom, nor is Canada for that matter, and because there are 16 realms which I am trying to recognize in the small space chosen. Nonetheless, I have allotted more space for the 12 countries that have a combined population of around 10 million people, than I have for the four that have a population exceeding 100 million. Further down the sidebar he will notice them all mentioned again, only this time all the same font size where there is plenty of room, and all identified with their own unique flag. And yes, it just so happens that the historical order of these countries [UK (1801), Canada (1867), Oz (1900), New Zealand (1907), Jamaica (1962),...and the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis (1983)] has me listing the "white ones" first and the "brown ones" last.

To my accuser who levels this balderdash and piffle at me, let me just say that I have never read anything quite like the invective and hate spewed in his own essay on the British monarchy. While we are all perfectly free to make up our own minds about the Crown, the level of revulsion and enmity he displays towards something that is essentially benign and harmless suggests an unhealthy emotional incompetency, and explains why he has engaged in this undignified bit of race baiting. He simply hates the Queen, he hates our traditions and he hates this site for promoting it. It drives him crazy:

The fact that Canada still recognizes the Queen of England as our head of state embarrasses and disgusts me to no end. Every time I hear the term "crown counsel" or "crown land" I cringe. I find it offensive that my father was forced to take an oath of loyalty to the British monarch before he could work as a parole officer and that reciting this same oath is also the first act we ask of our nation's new immigrants. I hate the Governor General's stupid medals and the fact that she still has political power. I hate the Queen's face on our coins and the culture of our military, which still teaches our soldiers to worship a foreign monarch they will likely never meet. But most of all I hate how so many of my fellow conservatives in Canada eagerly line up to defend all this absurdity.

And he has the laughable temerity to call himself a conservative. What, pray tell us, does he wish to conserve? We can only hope his sanity.


Brian said...

Nice post, I agree.

Slight mistake, you say NZ in 1917, this is incorrect, NZ became a Dominion in 1907, and we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 47.

I think you might be mistaking 1917, for when new Letters Patent were issued changing the title Governor to Governor-General of New Zealand, however this was not anything special.

Beaverbrook said...

Thanks. I fixed it.

Younghusband said...

If an immigrant can't be bothered to give an oath of allegiance to our Head of State, why should we be expected to allow him in in the first place?
People like this guy who is eager to stick two fingers up to our tradition and culture shows even more how what defines a Canadian in this day and age is anyone who gets off the plane with sufficient money.
I'm a Canadian and a good dozen years older than him- for him to think his views are more valid than mine, when I am upholding those that were the bedrock upon which this country's foundation was based is the height of arrogance.
If he wants to sell his country off to the Americans then he is entitled to his view, but I don't understand why this site is allowing him to set up his soapbox.

Younghusband said...

By the way...
I'm sure I've seen more of this world than he has, having worked throughout Europe and travelled on through Africa and Asia. I can communicate in three languages and my girlfriend of the past three years here in Beijing, who I'm eventually planning to marry, is Chinese. Because I am grateful for the opportunities provided me through the freedom, language, customs and network established by Britain and wish to strengthen them , that makes me a racist?
Ah, the simple naiveity of those without the experience and cares to entertain such narrow views...

Fontaine said...

I love how you guys take a throwaway comment of his and blow it up as if it his entire thesis. I think this guy more or less argues that the Queen is a useless figurehead that does little more than exist, and I suspect that he doesn't hate this site, so much as view it as a pathetically hilarious view into the minds of people who apparently have not matured beyond the age of Princes and ponies.

But I digress.

What I want to ask is if you, "Lord" Beaverbrook, would care to actually debate JJ, one on one, and post the trasncript here. It would be as the Parliamentarians of old, two people from opposite ends of a political position arguing their point of view for all to see, as opposed to what passes as Parliamentary "debate" these days.

If you are so sure in your beliefs, if you are so confident that the divine nature of monarchy stands up and defeats republicanism wherever it rears it's ugly head then you really have no reason to say no to this.

If you accept I imagine McCullough would have no problem accepting aswell.

Shotgun said...

Your pomp is unbecoming of such a limited mind. This whole site is dreck.

I agree with the above. I would be quite entertained to see Messr. McCullough verbally masticate you in a debate.

George in Eastern Ontario said...

Not really a monarchist perse, however as a freedom-loving and non-apologetic proponent of the anglosphere I enjoy reading this site and exploring its softlinks to others.

For those who don't care for "Lord" Beaverbrook's (or whatever his parents named him...) content, you have the option of not clicking it.

Thanks for the service Beaverbrook. Keep up the good work. You offer a nicely packaged blog.

Scott said...

Having seen McCullough on TV, I must say I think it almost impossible to underestimate his uselessness at debating on this matter. Beaverbrook would take him apart.

Scott said...

But McCullough does do funny cartoons.

Scott said...

Perhaps if the contest is fought out via an adapted kind of Pictionary, JJ might win. Otherwise I would suggest he doesn't send his friends or pseudonyms in to boast on his behalf.

Erik Sorenson said...

Let's look at it the other way, using "black" instead of "white". You can also use "gay" instead, same effect:

" ...guilty of celebrating "black pride", of indulging in "benign bigotry", of admiring "black men in top hats", of being interested in only the most Anglocentric aspects of the "black dominions", which, according to him, is a kind of "racism by ommission".

It would seem to me that McWingNut, or whatever his name is, is the bigot here. Apart from thet, he obviously has many screws loose. And may be coloured putrid.

Neil Welton said...

Hateful selfish cut throat individualism or a devoted and loving community of loyal individuals. It appears clear cut to me. What else is there to debate? Other than whether we should give the cartoonist anymore free publicity for his rather Thatcherite twaddle. For we have had the debate already and JJ blew it by misplaying "the racism card". Saying that, it might be worthwhile getting JJ to debate on national television and radio - his obvious belief in self before community would work wonders for our cause.

Younghusband said...

Is it not singular that suddenly, from out of the woodwork, a couple of anti-monarchists I don't recollect ever seeing before here suddenly just decides to take time out of their Sunday regime to peruse this site and, low and behold, feel the need to argue on the behalf of this McCullough?
Or not?

J.J. said...

No odder than the fact that I am "suddenly" getting emails from irate monarchists.

Flattered by the attention, really. Though I must say I find this concept of "free publicity" rather amusing. My site gets thousands of hits every day, my cartoons have been published in books and magazines across Canada, and my columns are routinely syndicated in all manner of college newspapers. I've even been interviewed on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as has been noted. So if you're worried about people hearing my opinions, I'm afraid you're a bit too late.

Secondly, I applaud this post for at least finally stating the truth in no uncertain terms. You simply do not care for the cultures, peoples, or traditions of the non-white Commonwealth. Fine. This simply confirms what monarchists in Canada and elsewhere have long sought to deny or undermine- that their support for the monarchy is, at heart, basically just a support that stems from feelings of Anglophilia and ethnic pride, and not from in any genuine faith in monarchy as a sound political concept. For so-called imperialists you have zero interest in celebrating the color and diversity of Her Majesty's empire, instead treating the "lesser" realms as bothersome technicalities that sully the purity of the Crown. As I said before, this sort of petty provincialism is a disservice to the grand orientalism of the British imperial tradition, and certainly makes this blog much duller reading than it should be. There was a time when people actually believed in and celebrated the crown as a force capable of uniting all creeds and races. Sad that this is now considered a sign of weakness rather than pride.

As for my allegedly lacking conservatism, I will say nothing else other than I find it endlessly amusing that the brilliant ideology of the greatest conservative prime minister of the 20th Century has been reduced to mere "twaddle" by my opponent.

Beaverbrook said...

Conservatism is not an ideology, Britishness is not an ethnicity and the "non-white Commonwealth", who support the British monarchy, cannot be all that interested in "white pride", now can they. We're really losing patience with your venom, so unless you can argue with a little more reason and a little less emotion, I'm not sure there is enough residual goodwill to go on.

Publius said...

Here here Beaverbrook to your post and for exposing the feebleness and empty rhetoric that this fellow has been stricken with.

Keep up the good work exposing this revisionist and all his fellow travellers.

Swift said...

This simply confirms what monarchists in Canada and elsewhere have long sought to deny or undermine- that their support for the monarchy is, at heart, basically just a support that stems from feelings of Anglophilia and ethnic pride, and not from in any genuine faith in monarchy as a sound political concept.

If you really think that, J.J., you haven't read very much of this site. I suggest you drop your assumptions for a minute and do so.

so-called imperialists you have zero interest in celebrating the color and diversity of Her Majesty's empire, instead treating the "lesser" realms as bothersome technicalities that sully the purity of the Crown.

Rubbish. What evidence have you got that this is the case? If we're talking about racism by omission, can we go through your cartoons to check for people from St. Lucia or Inuit sub-titles? Can we measure your font size too?

There was a time when people actually believed in and celebrated the crown as a force capable of uniting all creeds and races. Sad that this is now considered a sign of weakness rather than pride.

They still do so. There are many posts on this site which celebrate the Queen's uniting power over all her realms. You obviously haven't read them.

Fontaine said...

If you think am JJ posting with another name I suggest you look up where I am located to prove I am not. If I recall correctly JJ lives in Vancouver and I am in Montreal. Hit and a miss, bud.

But I maintain: you two should really debate. We've seen monarchists on here say Beaverbrook would destroy JJ, then let's see it. I mean this is the most attention the monarchist cause is ever going to get. I know monarchism in this country isn't going to end with a bang, but with a whimper. It'll be a small amendment in a grander constitutional package, where either the monarchy is omitted or thrown away in a line or two. So in your own interest, I suggest you take your sole opportunity to argue for your cause.

Neil Welton said...

Surely starting a new debate after JJ lost the last one is rather fruitless. For there's no one to convince other than ourselves. As we each know our beliefs there's no point in debate.

Yet JJ does make my point for me again. What with "my site", "my cartoons" and "my columns". Lots of me. Funny how the sound of self is so reassuring for some.

So, on the contrary, please keep talking to the media JJ and writing your articles about "the importance of the self" for the small number of students who will bother to listen. For the me, me and me ideology was so successful and popular in Britain - so much so the Conservatives haven't been in power here for fifteen years. What with their high unemployment figures, high crime figures and high interest rates. Do you mention any of these "brilliant" occurrences in your articles?

Oh, by the way, whenever you come to Wales I will take you to a Welsh hillside. There you will see "the brilliant ideology" of politicians at work. A Welsh hillside where a large number of miners are buried. Buried because they hung themselves due to the loss of their pits. A most brilliant sight JJ. A most brilliant sight to behold.

For most ideology is twaddle, JJ. Twaddle indeed.

Scott said...

So, JJ, are you interested in the Papuans?

And as for free publicity, I don't think anyone's getting it - nor that anyone or any cause here has more than the other to lend by association. JJ was on CBC debating a monarchist, lest we forget, and did so rather forgettably.

But I do honestly love his cartoons.

Scott said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fontaine said...

You don't even make any sense. You're just try and paint JJ as some sort of generic enemy you guys are so fond of pillorying on this site, a scapegoat for all the worlds problems. It's sad, and indicative of a lack of any intellectual depth.

Anyway it's fairly clear that Beaverbrook and his ilk are too afraid of what how glaringly stupid they'd look in comparison to the common sense logic of JJ and anyone else like him, so I can't blame you for not wanting to debate in a medium other than the clunky, awkward and unintuitive medium of a blogs comment section. Churchill would be embarrassed that the blog that is apparently the "Patron Saint" of is so timid in the face of opposition.

Neil Welton said...


Scott said...

He's not really the patron saint. I think you should stop reading things quite so solemnly.

As for "common sense logic" - that gives it away. The simple and truculent canard about the irrationality of the Monarchy has been REPEATEDLY addressed by SEVERAL writers in DOZENS of posts. Which you clearly haven't bothered to read (not even the recent ones, or the ones readily available in Cherished Posts).

So, erm. You want us to engage in a debate with people, such as yourself, who are coming to the table having evidently not grounded themselves in our positions, and yet who possess apparently bottomless reserves of cheek to dismiss both the website and its writers as universally timid and useless. Yeah. Wow. That'll do it. We are incapable before you. Please stop. Ouch. Etc.

fontaine said...

See that's the point though, we argue that having a degree of logic and rationality behind a political system governing the lives of millions of people is typically a good idea. That's what the debate would be about.

Though yeah, you guys are useless. As useless as myself, and JJ and whomever else. We're all just largely internet nerds arguing stuff that most people do not care about. Hence why I say when the monarchy is abolished in Canada it'll be such a throwaway issue so as to attract no attention from anyone but this site, the Monarchist League of Canada and Citizens for a Canadian Republic.

Beaverbrook said...

You kids go ahead and leave chicken little, intellectually light weight me out of the fun. Some of us approaching middle aged men with families are in politically sensitive professions. Hence the nom de plume.

I don't mean to pick on J.J. - he challenged me and I took the bait, so let's just leave it at that. I merely did as he requested.

That said, I can't help but admire the irony of his biography page with him wearing that snazzy coloured sweater with a quite splendid royal coat of arms spattered across the front! I also note the absurdity of one of his self-described details ("race: white"??), as if we can't tell the hue of his skin in the photo, and as if being part of the white race is even a relevant and noteworthy detail that one would prudently include on his resume??! And so yet again, we come back to the point: Why this peculiar fixation on race??

J.J. said...

I am a cartoonist and I enjoy embracing absurdity.

fontaine said...

Mail clerk at the Pharmaprix down the street is not a politically sensitive position.

Juan Tolentino said...

Okay, gents, let's play nice, now...

Though, I do have my view regarding this entire debate. I shall begin with an epigram: Bring me the Proust of the Papuans, and I shall be happy to read him.

Granted, I do not consider myself quite as well grounded in the political tradition of the Dominion as most of the fine bloggers here. As a very obviously non-white immigrant, I sometimes wonder whether I have a "real" stake in the history of my adopted country. Yet, on further thought, does this really matter? Does my Oriental origin or my youth or my newness to this land mean that I am entitled to a lesser consideration, to a lesser share of the bounty of history and tradition that has served us so well over the years? The obvious answer, as was made painfully clear to me, is no, and I will tell you why.

I am a monarchist. I have come to believe that the institution of constitutional monarchy is a fine system under which to be ruled and governed. Granted, it is not perfect, but no human institution, however grand, is ever perfect, and if we were to set perfection as the standard for the management of our affairs, then we would have no government at all, but I digress. What is important is how someone like myself, a young brown fellow from the Philippines, could so easily adopt, and so firmly believe, in the majesty of the British Crown. Thus, I believe that J.J. is entirely wrong to suppose that monarchy is an essentially ethnocentric affair.

Yet, I still hold an attachment to my home country. Even if I were many oceans away, I would still have that same sentiment I've always had, that I am a proud Filipino. I am proud to have come from that amazing little archipelago where the mangoes are always ripe (try them sometime) and the people are always friendly. Yet, to love my country of birth it would be incongruous to glaze over the truth, that despite our association with America, the Philippines does not have the political and social impact of other, "whiter" nations, but I'm perfectly fine with that. I do not love the Philippines because she is lavished with praise and attention. I love her because she is the Philippines, the facts of the matter be damned.

Returning upon the main road, it would seem wise to consider again the question: what exactly is so "white" about Britishness? Does being a certain colour or race prohibit me from appreciate the traditions of this country? Does having a certain ethnicity make my sentiment a fleeting spectacle, a luscious dream of doom? Nay, I say, and nay again. The proud Britannic culture is the right of all who profess their loyalty, their appreciation and love, towards the realm that gives them their livelihood and their life. We are all British by our shared connection to the past. You are British. I am British.

I first loved the Philippines, but now I also love Canada, and I love the Crown. Call it sentiment, if you will. Call it foolishness, or illogical, or what have you. I would not flinch, for it is all true. My attachment to the Crown is not something defined solely by words or declared by treatise, nor is it bound by human convention or legal instrument. It is simply there, either to be accepted or rejected, and I have chosen to accept.

I have seen how this question has divided many of us here who are otherwise civil and respectful persons. I do sorely wish that this come to an end, for it not fitting that we would live in the free country, a freedom purchased by the blood of those before us and secured by ties that bind, ties that stretch back generations, should so squander it with name-calling and ad hominem. Certainly, there must be merit to both sides of the argument, as there is always is among those who truly seek the truth. To J.J. and his republican friends, I encourage them to read through the earlier posts, for having read them I find no hint of malice or ill-will towards people of colour or transplantation, only a proud celebration of Anglo culture and history and a dismay at those who would wish it away. To my fellow monarchists, I say: let us not the sun set on us. To the Canadians, I say let us remember that erstwhile Republic, though fickle, a sister from the same Mother. We Britons shall never be slaves, and least of all to our passions.

God be with you all.

Pitt said...

After that post, there is little left to say.

Neil Welton said...

Other than "thank you Juan" for your post today.

fontaine said...

This is ridiculous. You are taking a throwaway comment of JJ's and portraying it as his entire argument. Why don't we have an actual debate on the usefulness of a hereditary monarch in the 21st century instead of a childish circle jerk centered on blowing a single person's comments grossly out of proportion.

Scott said...

Largely because debating people who show an obvious failure to have even read much of a website they immediately condemn - betraying as they do so a rather appalling ignorance of the matters under debate, and the various positions historically and presently taken on it - is one of the most pointless possible activities of all. We aren't here to educate you. You didn't keep your powder dry, but immediately discharged what little you had of it by lamenting the irrationality of monarchy. But that's a breathtakingly simple starting point - and shows ignorance of centuries of writing and thought, from Burke to Hayek - so much so, that a debate would be largely educative and little more. Us, educating you.

And I can think of little that would provide less fun than engaging in ANYTHING with someone who accuses others of being "childish" in the very same sentence they use the phrase "circle jerk".

It might be funny, but little more, and certainly too tiresome to be worth it.

Beaverbrook said...

One comment is a throwaway, two a statement, three a thesis. I packaged my post in response to a half dozen comments that made repeated assertions. In any event, I promise not to make any more hay of it, lest it does become disproportionate. Juan has offered an olive branch and a lesson in manly restraint. Let us put away the hatchet and follow his example.

fontaine said...

You're back off. Why don't you actually debate this guy? Be a man about it, one on one in AIM, MSN, a chat program of some sort.

You keep hiding behind this false sense of moral superiority while refusing to actually back anything up. It's as if you're afraid how glaringly wrong you will be seen as.

Neil Welton said...

I'm with Beaverbrook on this one. After all, some of us stopped debating all this "twaddle" over 24 hours ago. It could drive people away from the site - with boredom.

fontaine said...

People are already driven from this site by boredom. If anything this argument raises interest in the subject. I'll be honest when I say the only reason I visit this site is because it has become a running joke among me and some friends.

Scott said...

What a lively life you live; full of such subtle, clever humour.

Seriously, you're looking ridiculous now. It's fairly obvious that you're around 16, spoiling (as all 16 year olds do) for a fight, a bit of abrasive argument: but you just look foolish.

Really. You want to debate about monarchy? What, exactly, do you wish to debate about it? Why it's good? Why it's bad? What? I mean, do you just honestly want a debate on those simple lines - a debate which everyone has had, internally or otherwise, at some point, but which is so laughably simplistic and old, and which has been addressed so many millions of times, and advanced in any number of interesting directions, that far from being somehow risky, it is the most tedious activity possible?

Don't you realise (you would if you read this site, and you would if you were a serious repubican) that the philosophy of monarchy has always been (and has become even more so) enormously complex, and one might choose any number of points in the history and discussion of the matter to spark a new discussion? Judging from the simplicity and unsubtlety of your remarks I would suggest not.

You keep on claiming an active interest in debate: well, go ahead, give us a provocative starting point. Do you have anything original to contribute? That's the key: anything else would lead to a simple repetition of arguments and debates that have taken place here and elsewhere for centuries.

fontaine said...

Oh I fully recognize the monarchist philosophy is complex, but I don't attribute that complexity to anything other than constant need to justify it. It's like a lie, if you tell dozens of little lies it's hard to keep them all in order and a complex web of lies is formed. That is fundamentally the monarchist philosophy.

Anyway, my age isn't the only thing you have wrong. If you are genuinely interested in a debate you can find me on MSN at or on AIM as ptefontaine

Scott said...

No, no. Please say your interesting new things in public. Let us see them. Just as you wanted. Nothing to hide here.

You, I am afraid, misunderstood my remarks, and do not understand the language you use. Complex is different to complicated. Complex means something with "interconnected parts or involved particulars ... An interweaving, contexture" (OED). It is the opposite of disorder: it is beautiful, consistent, judicious, equable argument.

(I hope that's a little lesson in why debating with people of your abilities is, for all involved, a pointless and glum business. Maybe in five years time - after University?).

James said...

A close look through Mr. McCullough's website will reveal that his idea of a perfect Canadian utopia is one under a U.S. style government; a government where, of course, the race for head of state is all about "cut-throat individualism," personal gain, and is the perfect illustration for the triumph of money and machination over familial bonds and voluntary service; all of which, of course, causes the president to divide the nation rather than unite it. So much does he love the country to our south that he pointedly chooses to spell “colour” as “color.” How quaint!

J.J.’s real issue has nothing to do with Canadian, British or Australian monarchists failing to amply celebrate the diversity of the peoples under the Crown, because, in reality, they do. His main beef is simple: Canada’s history and traditions are monarchical, and not republican, in nature. Oh, what he would do to erase all that! And so, iconoclast that he is, he has devised to undermine the institution, traditions, and trappings he hates so much by purposefully associating the celebration of those specific countries’ monarchical histories and heritages with cultural and racial-self aggrandisement, using the coincidental fact that those histories are dominated by mostly white, European characters, as “evidence” of a ethnic motive. Thus, his quips about “white pride” and “benign bigotry” being associated with monarchism are hardly off-the-cuff, throwaway remarks, as his devout worshipper Spencer Fontaine (a.k.a. “fontaine”) would have us believe. Indeed, they are examples of a common assertion of that endangered breed known as the Canadian republican; a specifically concocted association that is an easy way for republicans to effectively use the current trend of cultural cringe to denigrate that which they inherently dislike, and the little time needed for a bit of analysis will reveal from behind the eloquent rhetoric the rather distressed need of republicans, in the absence of actual reason and logic, to simply slander and demoralise their opponent, making their cause look better in the process. It’s really just a game of politically correct propaganda vs. substance. Could it be that Spencer was trying to veer us away from these comments, telling us we should dismiss them and are making too much of nothing, because he all too well knows their straw-man nature?

It’s certain that celebrating the history and heritage of one’s nation, whether it be monarchical or republican, is not a crime, nor even a demonstration of prejudiced cultural and racial gloating at the expense of others; every country views its traditions and culture in a brighter light than others. And why not? What is a country, after all, without pride in its customs, symbols, cultural paradigms and history to unite it and give it strength for the future? Thus, the hypocrisy of Mr. McCullough, who we remember admires the United States, is revealed when we observe that Americans openly display this type of pride in their republic (perhaps a tad bit too much sometimes). Because they embrace and celebrate their culture - one built on British roots, no less - over any other; because they generally see the United Kingdom (and, by extension, Canada and Australia) as greater nations than Ecuador or Libya (despite their being republics); and because they idolise old, dead white men, some of whom even wore top hats, could J.J. possibly bring himself to accuse his beloved Americans of upholding “white pride” or practicing “benign bigotry”? No, of course he couldn’t.

How confusing it must be for J.J. He embraces the modern Liberal-Canadian thinking wherein any remotely British aspect of Canada’s past should be associated with guilt and shame, using this as a justification to rid the country of its crown and all monarchical associations, while all the while claiming to be a conservative and worshiping a country that openly embraces and glorifies the British-descended, imperial, and “white” foundations of their nation, and has only ever seen old white men installed as its leader.

Contributors on this forum seem to celebrate what we ARE, which, in every sense, includes what we were, the good and the bad. We all certainly have a British past, but I don’t think anyone looks to Britain as an example of how to be anymore. So that silly “apron strings” argument is completely moot; we are all mature nations that stand on our own, but have the luxury – and it truly is a luxury – of being so closely and amicably associated that we can multilaterally share the same person as our monarch. That ability to share, to me shows a mature pride in our heritage, our history, what we are now, and gives me faith in the future. In no way does this mean I believe the cultures and histories of Jamaica or Belize or any other smaller “non-white” nation to be inferior – they are simply different. That’s the beauty of the Crown: difference can exist united under an apolitical sovereign. However, whining about the past, blindly attacking and knocking down everything that reminds you of it, and willingly sounding like a hypocrite in the process, all while seeking inspiration and solace in another country’s customs and culture (or, worse, someone who seeks inspiration from someone who does those things – Spencer), seems to demonstrate a fearful, timid, lack of confidence. But, then, the narcissistic are often actually rather insecure.

fontaine said...

Scott -

I have no problem debating in the open, but it's too clunky and awkward here. I promise, if you debate me on AIM or MSN or some other more convenient medium you can post the full log here. I have no objections to that as I'm all about accountability. It's the republican in me ;)

fontaine said...

For all your talk of superior intelligence and debating ability you seem awfully apprehensive to debate someone who is supposed to be inferior to you. Oh well.

Scott said...


You couldn't wait 24 hours for my reply?

Like I said: the ball is in your court. Prove you have a provocative new take on the matter, and we'll consider a debate. Justify one. Make one required by the force of your proposition. Why not go and logically destroy everything we have already written and linked to about Monarchy? It stands as an implicit opening argument. If you are so eager, go ahead: tackle it.

At the moment we aren't required to defend our positions because you simply haven't assailed them; and we aren't required to attack yours, because you simply haven't advanced any.

Do you understand how intellectual contestation works?

fontaine said...

I don't have to prove anything to you, and I think this is just an attempt to get out of a one on one discussion about something. If you're man enough you can contact me on AIM or MSN to discuss these things like clear thinking adults. If you're more comfortable sitting here spouting your views in an echo chamber be my guest.

Scott said...

Please don't stop proving me right with every post you make.


(P.S. It's only an echo chamber because you are conspicuously failing to respond to our arguments; failing, that is, to partake in even the most cursory and improvised of debates, for all your boasts of 'manliness' and eagerness to do so. Sigh.)

I am so glad, though, that your imbecility is being displayed for all to see in real time; something that would be absent from any private MSN conversation. So much more revealing.

James said...

Touché, Scott.

Neil Welton said...

Methinks Fontaine has been rumbled.

fontaine said...

Maybe you missed the part where I said I would be completely 100% in favour of you posting the logs of the MSN discussion. I'd insist upon it in fact.

But again, if you're scared no problem, man. Have fun participating in the circle jerk.

James said...

He's waiting for your start-point, Spencer - perhaps you need to read it again:

"At the moment we aren't required to defend our positions because you simply haven't assailed them; and we aren't required to attack yours, because you simply haven't advanced any."

Your childing rantings about circle jerks is so clearly just you avoiding the request.

James said...

Oops - I mean "childish." Should have spell-checked that one.

Scott said...

James is right. I'd advise you actually read what I write in future.

(For, of course, you misread me again: I said "your imbecility is being displayed for all to see in real time", "real time" being rather a critical term here, and one that your snotty and weirdly sexualised reply missed. My point is: rather than in some lengthy, inhospitably enormous copy-pasted MSN transcript, here the whole process of the 'debate' is open and visible for all, for it is taking place before our eyes, with time enough for everyone to savour and consider each movement in the discussion. This favours, particularly, cogency and consideration; qualities you have shown yourself no fan of).

But please. Prove us wrong. Make us debate by making us NEED to debate; i.e. have some devastating, clever, pithy arguments that, for the sake of our own honesty and position, demand rebuttal. Repeatedly calling us to go off and debate the matter in general terms on an instant messenger in order to prove our manhood with you (instead of "circle-jerking"), is not only extraordinarily sinister and bizarre, but deeply suspicious and pathetic. It suggests you somehow desperately need the medium of MSN (for whatever reasons), rather than having a confidence in your arguments (which would surely benefit from the more relaxed time in this format). What is it about MSN that you so prefer? Do you just want to heap rapid abuse on your opponents? What honestly is gained from it? The instant, rapid back and forth (wholly alien to traditional debating, as I'm sure you know)? The demand that arguments be brief, cursory, quickly and disorderly considered as they are flung onto the screen? Do you just want to reduce your opponents, through technical constraints, to the same intellectual constraints you always suffer?



Neil Welton said...

Ha! Ha! Ha! I love it.

fontaine said...

This place is a horrible place for a debate. One, smug idiots like Neil Welton pop in with their absolutely irrelevant little musings that serve no purpose other than to annoy, and two, it's a clunky, unintuitive and slow process. I'd rather the quick back and forth that instant messaging provides than this.

I really don't see what you have to be afraid of debating in an environment that leads itself well to quick, clear thinking rather than this slow medium. If you were so sure of your arguments you'd jump right in, and if you want a stepping off point for the debate you can add me on MSN and I'll pose a question. If you're not sure enough in your abilities just admit it and I'll let you be.

Neil Welton said...

I've annoyed a republican - you've made my day! For I just speak as I find. I don't believe in pussy footing around or being "highbrow" or "clever" just because I can. I believe in speaking to the public directly and clearly in a language they will grasp and understand for the age they live in. Nothing wrong with being chatty and friendly, is there?

Everything I have said here is factual - that is why you haven't challenged a word of it and instead resorted to personal remarks. The first signs of a loser in a debate. For you play "the man" rather than "the ball" as you would do in your political games. Yet this tactic fails here because I am not personally standing for elected office. You are therefore forced to play "the ball". As everyone here has seen in these circumstances you are out of your intellectual depth. My "irrelevant little musings" are therefore most suited to the level of "debate" which you now offer. So start improving it.

I'm sorry if you find my intellectual certainty "smug" and my personal beliefs "idiotic". I stopped thinking like that about others at the age of about nine. It is called maturity. For your reasoning is sounding increasingly like lame excuses. If I choose not to debate on MSN or Yahoo then that's YOUR problem, not mine. Perhaps you should consider going elsewhere to satisfy YOUR need.

Scott said...

Fontaine - are you serious?! Could you just try and remain tolerably sane for a moment? It is poisonous and laughable to keep on refusing to accommodate or address the arguments of other people, and insist that they are refusing to debate you on MSN out of fear (when everything else, explicitly and implicitly, that they have done proves the opposite).

Those of us who are employed in full-time work scarcely have the time to give over enormous chunks of the day to continuous, online debates.

And like I said: you haven't justified the need for one yet.

So, until you do, you can, I'm afraid, get lost. Our site speaks for us: tackle that, if you can. We are yet to see you - for all your manliness - articulate any coherent, determined argument; yet you have found our website (available to the whole world) where we have published ours (and much else besides) for all to see.

You are a useless waste of time at the moment, and only fooling yourself - with increasing desperation - into a very odd and unrealistic opinion, if you believe that somehow we are scared or incapable of confrontation. For all your advertised desire for it, you continue to prove, in your inaction, that YOU are incapable of it. Go ahead. Kill our website with your wit. Try. At least try! Please!

Force a debate. At the moment you haven't justified one.

fontaine said...

Head to some of the other comments sections, decent debate going on there, as awkward and unwieldy as it is.