#can you tell i fundamentally disagree with the existence of a monarchy?

[duchessofostergotlands]

In (a very interesting!) reply to a recent ask, you said: “There are positives to having a monarchy, it does work to protect democracy even though it shouldn't.” In what way do you feel the monarchy protects the democracy? I don’t disagree with you but I’m curious about your reasoning! Is it the fact that the PM is in fact beholden to someone else who can hold him to account in theory (even if royal political interference is frowned upon in practice)?

So this will sound like a cop out but truly I could write a book on it, it’s just impossible to answer fully in a Tumblr message lol. You can start with our podcast episode Cones of Power (my favourite). It’s from about 34 minutes to 44 minutes. I’m the slightly less posh one who is very excited to be talking about it haha. I’ll try to keep it short but I could say much much more.

Essentially the greatest asset of having a monarch when it comes to democracy is that by giving power to the monarch you stop someone else having it. We know in practice that the monarch respects the government and the will of the people and so in most cases they do what the government tells them. They don’t use their powers. But they could. And that is always the elephant in the room with every prime minister. They can’t rally the troops to depose the monarch because the troops don’t swear allegiance to them. They can’t sign a law that makes them prime minister forever because the monarch’s loyalty is to the constitution and they have the power to stop it. They can’t pack the Supreme Court with their extremist besties because the monarch has to approve any appointment.

You might think “but Jessica, you’ve explained how the monarch prevents a dictatorial PM but what about the monarch becoming a dictator?” And that’s a great question! Theoretically the monarch can do what they want. But this is where the UK is strange and complicated. We have no single written constitution. The monarch doesn’t become a dictator because of constitutional conventions, rules that are not technically law but are generally accepted to be binding. To quote UCL’s dedicated constitutional unit:

“The fact that such rules are non-legal—and so legally unenforceable—does not mean that they lack enforcers, or sanctions; though these will be political, not legal in nature. Nor does this mean they are unimportant, compared to legal rules: on the contrary, conventions play a key role in the British constitution, and in other constitutions as well. They ensure that the constitution operates in accordance with prevailing constitutional values; existing conventions may evolve, and new ones emerge, in line with changing practice and changing attitudes. In this way, significant constitutional change can occur, over time, without any fundamental change in the law.”

The key constitutional conventions for the monarch are that they will be non-partisan and they will not use their powers but will instead defer to the government’s wishes. If you listen to another podcast episode Beauty Base Zero we talk about it at the start. The conventions we have now, for all their silliness and traditionalism and archaic qualities, are not arbitrary. We have them because of 1000 years of constant refinement and change, 1000 years of trial and error. So if the monarch doesn’t stick to those conventions, just because it’s legally ok doesn’t mean it won’t have consequences. Historically monarchs who have acted against convention have at best been forced to abdicate and at worst have had their heads cut off. Convention is set by what we the public deem acceptable. We elect the government to act on our behalf. So if convention is violated, the government have a mandate to act on our behalf to correct it. And so in turn the monarch generally behaves and does what convention dictates, because it would be bad for them if they didn’t.

In short, the monarch has the final say which the government doesn’t have and needs. The government has the public mandate which the monarch doesn’t have and needs. And so together they create balance, neither side can ever be too powerful or destabilising.

I appreciate it sounds counter intuitive - give up democracy to protect democracy - but it does work surprisingly well. Monarchies are consistently overrepresented amongst the most democratic countries in the world. It may not work for every country (Greece, Romania etc), it isn’t the only system that could work in theory, and it doesn’t erase the other solid arguments against the monarchy but I think a lot of the rhetoric from fellow anti-monarchists is “if we remove them that fixes everything and they have no positives” and that’s not true. And I think it’s dangerous to rush into the biggest change to our country in centuries without having a real conversation - not mindless nationalist flag waving, but also not blinkered and naive hot takes in an effort to sound progressive online. So unless someone could propose a democratic system which would work just as well (and costs nothing to implement lol) I’d be wary of voting to remove the monarchy at this particular moment in time, given the instability in this country at the moment. Even if I oppose it on theoretical grounds.

[hillerska-official]

Okay so this post came across my dash a few days back and as I was writing my tags I realized something that I never thought of before. Y’all are so right on this post, and I think that the double standard here is actually so important, because it really is the issue that carries through their relationship that Wille keeps expecting things on his terms, so he can make the poor choices and Simon can’t. So I’m typing this all out in my tags and I’m about to say “Wille really shows his privilege here” and I got hit with a wave of thoughts about the roles privilege plays in Young Royals. So here they are.

Kristina tells Wille that being a prince is a privilege, not a punishment. Obviously in the context of this show, their relationship, etc, most of our immediate reactions to that were “no it isn’t, Kristina, look at him, he’s got anxiety!” and I still stand by that, being a prince has very directly and negatively affected Wille’s life and mental health. BUT, obviously Wille is also a very privileged person, and that privilege shines through very clearly in this one line.

His privilege is what makes Wille expect things on his own terms all the time, but it’s that same privilege that ultimately ends up being a punishment in and of itself, because that is exactly why Simon breaks up with him, so well yes, it is a ‘punishment’ (ie negative) to Wille in many ways directly, it’s actually the privilege he holds as a prince but hasn’t acknowledged that causes this ultimate fallout, and not the aspects of his princehood that Wille had recognized as negative already.

And it isn’t just Wille who is hurt by his own privileged position. August's privilege eats away at him too, though he would never admit it, with the pressure he places on himself to retain that privilege, and the hints we’ve been seeing of some sort of eating/exercise disorder, probably stemming from his public image/persona. Felice has all the trappings of wealth and nobility but they confine her - her trouble with riding, the curly hair, the size, are all “failures” at things forced upon her by her mother so as to fit in to society (high society, of course), but ultimately put her in a place of emotional distress.

Being a prince, or any other noble/wealthy person, has its privileges, obviously, but these privileges exist simultaneously, at least within the show, as both beneficial and destructive. Wille, August, and Felice all have privilege, and it has given them a distinct head start over characters like Simon and Sara, that much is obvious in any class commentary and I would never dispute it, but it’s that very same privilege that eats away at all of them, too. Ultimately, whether we feel bad for the privileged person or not (and it can go either way, just look at these examples), the privilege is not maintainable in any way at an individual level, it’s bad for those on top and those below, we see that in the damage it does both to Wille and to Simon.

Basically, I think it’s very easy to watch Young Royals and get swept up in the romance and the drama, the plot itself, but we all know that there is a very clear class commentary underlying the whole thing, and this is such an interesting way to look at the damages of those class systems. I think ultimately a class or wealth gap isn’t actually of benefit to anybody, and can in fact be detrimental to BOTH sides to some extent, obviously on the individual level of each character, but also at a more general level IRL. Placing people into a hierarchy the way we do does damage to human sociability and our capacity to relate to one another, and Simon and Wille are actively breaking down this hierarchy, and with it the system of privilege itself.

[mimiatmidnight]

Ok I’m aware I may be projecting and reaching. But I get the feeling the Meg is aware of her privileges and the fact that she did marry a prince with a terrible Track record personally and with family, and is coming to terms with what that means?. She talked about status quo and how The commonwealth has been affected by British colonisialm. Yes she hasn’t spoken in depth and still willingly married into a harmful institution, but I truly think she thought she could do good like actual good. In a naive way ( idk that I blame her if I was in love too) Idk if you’ve spoken on this topic before but I only bring it up bcuz as the Cambridge’s are going through their disaster tour, naturally Meg is being brought up and what her complicitness is within the family. Again I’m probably projecting but I’d still love to know your thoughts!

First, let me say that I am neither Black nor tied to any Commonwealth nation, so my perspective on this topic is extremely limited.

All I will say is that when I chose to follow Meghan in 2018, I already knew that she had made a life-changing decision that fundamentally put her at odds with my own beliefs. Personally, I would never choose to work for the British monarchy or any institution of its kind, because I believe it is inherently at odds with the dignity and sanctity of human life. But I was okay disagreeing with Meghan on this matter. Because, from what I can tell, we don't disagree on the importance of those values, but whether we think it's possible for those values to be worked towards within the monarchical institution.

It is not my impression that Meghan believes in the implicit righteousness of the Commonwealth, that it is her in-laws' divine right to rule over these nations. Nor that she wanted to work to keep the Commonwealth together for its own sake. Rather, she believed that for the people who willingly wanted to remain within it, she wanted to make that system work for them as best as she could. To better the system, to have it rise to meet the values that she and I both hold dear. She is a reformist, not a revolutionist. As much as I would love to see her join the calls for the (metaphorical!!!) guillotine, I never expected that of her.

I think it is good and right that Meghan and her supporters think critically about her privilege, her blind spots, and her complicity in monarchy and colonialism. These are valid criticisms that deserve to be discussed. But I also think it's unreasonable to pretend that she was coming into this with perspective of upholding the right of white supremacy. She was hoping to, as you say, do some actual good. And she believed she could. That is where she and I differ, the belief that goodness can be achieved under the current system, but I never doubted that she was truly striving for it. And that is what, to me, is most important when evaluating her character. And it's why I can still consider myself a fan of hers. Because we agree at the core, even when we disagree at other levels.

It's kind of like the whole Leftists vs. Liberals debate. I truly do not believe that liberals are our enemies. I mean, they are WRONG, and they absolutely should not be in charge. But it doesn't mean we can't have meaningful discussions and connections, and CERTAINLY not that we shouldn't work together to achieve our shared goals while a much greater threat exists before us.

[quesadillo]

A little mabon thanksgiving ritual, and me rambling on how you can use things not in the books💗

Witchcraft is a practice, utilizing and manipulating energies to our specific intent.

With that being said, everything can be used in witchcraft. Everything. Yes, even that.

Witchcraft in its sense is being resourceful with everything and utilizing it, because Witchcraft also believes that we are all abundant of everything, just that we stretch our magick muscles and realize that we do have everything, just that we act upon it and how we can get it.

(and yes, you can have separate beliefs from mine, witchcraft is tailored to your experiences and materials, so we can all agree to disagree, but there are some basics and fundamentals that shouldn't be ignored [also, witchcraft ≠ wicca ≠ pagan, wicca and paganism do encourage doing witchcraft but witchcraft is not inherently of any religions, and there are closed crafts, which are from different cultures and you do need to be blessed or ordained by a priestess or shaman or whatever high position-practitioner they have on their practice to be a part of their practice, group, or coven])

(you can be a solitary witch or be in a coven)

Utility in witchcraft is not necessary, but is somewhat important, being that said, you can use anything but not anything can be used for a specific spell, ritual or ceremony, like how we don't substitute flour with cornstarch when baking a cake.

With that being said, research is key to spellcasting, some herbs may have the same xyz magick, but they do differ in terms of what level of xyz you're doing.

Like how cornstarch and flour can be both used in frying, but only one is used in baking a cake.

So do do your research as to what they represent and take notes (which is one of the many reasons grimoires exist)

That being said, it is important to assign and tell the material you use on what you're using it for in a spell, like how you can use thorns for protections spells or for hex and curses, same with war water.

Sentimental values can also enhance certain spells and bring out the witchy essence of the craft. Sacrificing objects with sentimental value can greatly influence your spell and your intent, and is also one of the things in witchcraft, which is you should be always serious when making a spell.

With that being said, research is key, and if you're good enough, you can definitely wing it with objects and materials, which is close to traditional witchcraft although there are some rules to traditional witchcraft that I won't say anything on, (since I know nothing compared to what the elder practitioners know)

But yes. Many old practitioners do use materials other than herbs, crystals, seashells, etc.

Have superglue? Use it in binding a person to a spell by rolling a paper with the recipient's name on and wrapping it with a binding sigil, wrapping it again with black string and supergluing everything together.

Have dice? Use it in a curse spell to remove most chances of the person to break the curse.

Can also be utilized for luck spells by putting the six dot face on front, or any spells that may include probability and chance.

(there are lots more to talk about but that's saved for another ramble session)

Intent matters kids, whether you're a queen, a king, or a non-gender conformative monarchial bean.

[jesseturri]

The Parochial Right: Dave Rubin, Free Speech, and “Classical Liberalism”

“Once causes are determined, then there is talk of social injustice and the privileged begin to resist.” –Gustavo Gutiérrez

I recently watched a video called Why I Left the Left featuring comedian and talk show host, Dave Rubin, who seems to be popular among clever, secular, atheist (in the worst sense), libertarian “free-thinker” types (Rubin is also a good buddy of Sam Harris, apparently. Do I need to say anymore?); I’d not heard of him until now and only watched the video because one of my Facebook friends had shared it. Rubin doesn’t like progressives (although he used to call himself one) and now describes himself as a “classical liberal” which, from what I can tell, is really just another way of saying libertarian.

I want to reflect on a few things here that Rubin talks about in the video:

1) The “Progressivism” (or “regressive left”) that he rejects/criticizes in the video

2) The “Classical Liberalism” (or libertarianism) that Rubin espouses in the video

3) Freedom, free speech, and trigger warnings

I don’t claim the label of progressive for myself, but it’s for different reasons than Rubin. As I understand it, progressivism really is just a louder form of liberalism, as Rubin says. Although progressives may have a more radical egalitarian approach to some cultural/social issues, they often can be categorized on the existing American political spectrum as center right to center left; so in other words, some progressives are fine with settling for a humane form of capitalism achieved through fundamental reform (center right), while others are focused on the fundamental empowerment of the working class in capitalism but only within capitalism (center left). Essentially, progressives are better than the typical old fashioned U.S. social liberals but generally do not go far enough in challenging structural problems such as the capitalist mode of production that is one of the staples of liberalism, and this is why I personally don’t think of myself as a progressive.

Now, let’s talk about “classical liberalism.” This is what Rubin calls himself, a “classical liberal” (or, let’s be honest, a libertarian). When I hear the term “classical liberalism” here is what I think: the philosophy formed during the Enlightenment by White European thinkers like John Locke, Voltaire, Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, John Stuart Mill et al. This philosophy provided the driving force for both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. It can be very insufficiently summed up by key concepts like the idea that the autonomy of the individual should be maximized (liberty), and the individual should be freed from whatever institutions are preventing them from reaching their potential (life, liberty, property ((Locke))), be it the Church or the State. Liberals are also famously supporters of democracy, secularism and free markets. Cool, right? Sure. Except history has not stopped. New things are being uncovered, learned, and created in each freaking moment. It turns out that liberalism, while going a long way in helping the West to get over things like feudalism and monarchy, doesn’t go far enough. It’s vision of “liberty” is an anemic,  feeble, and parochial one. Liberal/libertarian “liberty” is NOT liberating enough largely because it has zero to say about power.

This brings me to freedom. In the video, Rubin gives a bunch of examples of why he thinks progressivism should really be called “regressivism.” To directly quote the video:

“Progressives used to say: ‘I may disagree with what you say but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.’ Not any more. Banning speakers who’s opinion’s you don’t agree with from college campuses; that’s not progressive. Prohibiting any words not approved of as politically correct; that’s not progressive. Putting trigger warnings on books, movies, music, anything that might offend people; that’s not progressive either. All of this has led me to believe that much of the left is no longer progressive but regressive.”

Essentially, Rubin thinks progressivism and (I assume) other more radical leftist schools of thought, like Marxism and Anarchism, are regressive because they’re more sensitive to the very real existence of things like power hierarchies and how they shape societies and dictate how people are able to live. Humanist thinker, James Croft, who has also criticized Rubin’s naive libertarianism recently, says it well:

“The classical liberal dream of a level playing field in which individuals, each judged by their character and not their group membership, make their own way unfettered, is precisely that – a dream. It cannot exist until all the restraints of class, money, race, sexuality, gender, ability etc. are removed – exactly what the “progressives” Rubin disdains are trying to achieve.”

This is a critical point to understand. Freedom is a very deceptively complex concept; at face value it seems simple but the fact is that our individual freedoms are constrained by many, many things. For instance I may, conceptually, in another reality (one in which I’m a billionaire) have the freedom to hop on my private jet and jaunt off to my Florida golf club anytime I want. Unfortunately, in *this* reality I DO NOT have that freedom. But you know who does have that freedom? Donald Trump. This is because Donald Trump is a) a billionaire and b) the President of the United States. He’s got power on top of power on top of power. The constraint of geographic distance from Washington DC to Florida does not impede upon his freedom. The constraint of travel cost does not impede upon his freedom. The environmental concerns surrounding owning a private jet and burning jet fuel does not enter his conscience and thus is not a constraint that impedes upon his freedom. Simply put, Donald Trump has more freedom than me because I have more constraints on my freedom.

And look, once these constraints on freedom begin to be recognized, it substantially changes things. One can begin to see the severe deficiency of liberalism/libertarianism, it’s minimalist values and myopic, self-centered version of freedom very clearly. Further, when viewed through a more developed, mature, socially aware lens that recognizes all of these various constraints on freedom (class, money, race, sexuality, gender, ability etc.), Classical Liberals/libertarians begin to look…well, let’s be honest, morally reprehensible and nihilistic. In his great essay on why he left libertarianism, designer, writer and anarcho-socialist (a label I also use for myself, btw), Will Moyer, sums up what I’m saying here very well:

“Political libertarianism [classical liberalism] is a deformation…only attractive to those who valued the sentiments of libertarianism but weren’t principled enough to carry it to its logical (and moral) conclusions.”

In his essay Moyer is right to conclude that the logical and moral conclusion of classical liberalism/libertarianism is something that falls under the umbrella of anarcho-socialism. Regarding constraints that restrict our freedom, Moyer goes on to say:

“A poor Chinese factory worker is far more constrained than a rich white businessman. His range of possible options is tiny in comparison. He is less free. The same may be true depending on your race, gender, class or sexual orientation. The way you were treated growing up  —  by your parents, teachers and peers  —  may contribute. The way people like you are represented in media and entertainment may contribute. Social prejudices and cultural norms may contribute. These factors don’t mean people are being outright forced to do anything, but simply that they’re constrained by their environment. We all are, in different ways.”

This notion of being constrained is vitally important, especially when it comes to things like free speech and those terrible things that Rubin thinks are so, so regressive: trigger warnings. I suppose that, yes, from a valueless, morally frail perspective like Rubin’s, things like “political correctness” and trigger warnings are simply terrible because they make it exceedingly difficult for people who have traditionally been able to say anything they want to continue to say anything they want the way they always have. Now, because of “political correctness,” there is a huge danger of white supremacists being protested and comedians being banned from college campuses for cracking racist jokes on stage. Oh no! I’m reminded of Gustavo Gutiérrez’s famous line that “once causes are determined, then there is talk of social injustice and the privileged begin to resist.” Yes, it’s true, what seems like “regression” to the powerful is really progress for everyone else.

I often think about this sort of thing in very concrete and practical terms. No matter how much I wanted to believe I was completely autonomous when I was younger, as a father it has become increasingly evident just how socially interdependent we all are on each other, and thus constrained by each other as well. I mean, I have responsibilities to my loved ones, and because I love them there are certain things I cannot do; I must try to be self-aware and restrain myself is many ways, otherwise I can’t say I’m a responsible person. For instance, I care about my five-year old son and his psychological development and well-being, therefore, I resist the urge to watch horror movies with him that contain horrific violence, abusive language and adult themed sexual situations (until he’s older at least…). In fact, I appreciate the rating systems that movies, video games, and music have for this very reason. The Motion Picture Association of America’s film rating system, for instance, is used to judge a film’s suitability for certain audiences based on its content. Likewise, it seems to me that trigger warnings are just the next logical step in expanding our scope of care/concern for those around us, those that we love. Freedom of speech is very closely connected here; there are limits to it, constraints. We don’t defame, we don’t slander. In the U.S. someone’s right to free speech/free expression is often times revoked in cases of pornography, obscenity, violence, and stealing intellectual property. I mean, geez, liberalism’s hero, John Stuart Mill, came up with the harm principle which is perhaps the most well-known justification for limitation of free-speech.

In an effort to drive his twisted individualistic point home, Rubin references Martin Luther King Jr. in his little video (as is the habit of all White liberals everywhere), specifically mentioning MLK’s desire that people be judged by their character not their skin color. Well if we’re quoting MLK then we should also remember that MLK was a socialist who was critical of capitalism and also famously said that “no one is free until we are all free.” So if a white comedian getting booed offstage for making a racist joke is a threat in the sense that it’s a metaphorical window closing for white dudes (a constraint), let’s look on the bright side and recognize that it’s also simultaneously a door opening for more voices to be heard that previously weren’t.

The Parochial Right: Dave Rubin, Free Speech, and “Classical Liberalism” was originally published on TURRI