Good Evening Friends,

To continue. We were talking about the English monarchy. I referred to two examples in which the Queen, apparently, and remarkable, seemed inclined and exercised the power to suspend parliament - in two other countries, neither of which was even England itself! Apparently, the monarch is still, legally, ceremonially, symbolically, traditionally, the head of state of the commonwealth territories.

The Queen of England, according to historian, Webster Tarpley, can be properly called the spokesperson of the ruling oligarchy as a whole. The consensus of the oligarchy is incubated within and expressed through the office of the monarchy, apparently - through the offices of the royal governors general.

The fact of the existence of the monarchy in, allegedly the twenty-first century, goes to my point about Old Money never really going away. The English monarchical system was a "first among equals" (remember that phrase?) set up, unlike the relatively uncompromising, absolutist French kingship.

This bring up some questions: 1) What should be done with deposed elites? 2) How can they be rehabilitated and integrated into ordinary society? 3) Whaty is ordinary society? 4) What should be done with the surplus property of the deposed elite? 5) By the way, what is the relationship between freedom and equality?

The question of how an old national monarchy and be rehabilitated and merged into normal society is a difficult puzzle. One couldn't just chuck the Windsors out of Buckingham Palace and say to them: "Okay, now you all go and get jobs." None of the royals, as individuals, can make a move without the tabloids all over them, which must cause disruption of normal life for other people, and so on and so forth.

And, of course, people don't generally want to go backward, or downwardly mobile, as they might see it. Man is the desire to become God, after all.

The tendency is good, bad, and indifferent. Man's desire to become God spurs people to creativity, discipline, focuse, determination, and perseverance. Man's desire to become God may results in activities of, what we have called in the past, applied philosophy [bodybuilding, for example, as I have mentioned].

Lastly, this tendency results in class envy, class mimcry or mirroring, and fear-based power and/or money greed resulting in subsequent violence - of one kind or another. Remember, I gave a broad definition of violence, before. It seems to me that we want to keep the first two effects, while thinking about how to greatly ameliorate the last one. But then again, if the last effect could be eliminated or severely ameliorated, would it necessarily come at the expense of the first two?

I don't know.

wingedcentaur