This is the definition of hate.
"White people are inbred and soon to die out"
This is the definition of hate.
He's in a museum with portraits of european royalty. His reference is factual.
Reality and facts are not hate. Reality and facts are reality and facts.
His statement "They are a long line of inbred spawns soon to die out themselves.", which you completely misquoted and misrepresented, while his video clearly shows images of european royalty, is unequivocably a reference to the inbreeding practices of this group. That their prestige, houses and lineages are soon to die out, is debatable, but it is not an unreasonable or racist claim.
"They are a long line of inbred spawns soon to die out themselves.",
Hey Einstein you think this video is against the monarchy?
It's very clear that it is. As it does not call out the specific monarchy system by name but references it by visuals of members, it is quite possible it is a criticism of all these monarchies.
If I recall right, the American founding fathers had very similar criticisms of these inbred monarchy systems and were similarly skeptical of their claims to innate authority and rule by divine right.
It looks like an educational project which aims to show white people how it feels when you have blatant racism targeted at you.
I think it's a good idea.
>If I recall right, the American founding fathers had very similar criticisms of these inbred monarchy systems and were similarly skeptical of their claims to innate authority and rule by divine right.
Re: Somewhat off-topic
I think we have all seen pictures/videos of a crowd of people waving to members of the Royal Family (e.g. the Queen of Great Britain). I was always perplexed why so many people still idolize/worship a powerless monarchy.
> I was always perplexed why so many people still idolize/worship a powerless monarchy.
Likewise. I also wonder about the worship of sports teams and players, musicians, actors & actresses, and successful business people.
Get on with your fucking lives losers! The people on the TV don't know you.
>I was always perplexed why so many people still idolize/worship a powerless monarchy.
They're just celebrities, albeit with somewhat more class than Trump.
The Queen is the head of state. German president is also quite powerless, but he/she is the head of state.
Also, a monarch may have very little power but can be a backstop in case the democratically elected government goes crazy or is overthrown by the military. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23-F
> The Queen is the head of state.
You could make a statue head of state without much consequences.
It is just some relict of the past that there must be a person head of state. It could as well be a collective, like a government.
All responsibility is with them anyway, why does one want an actor for that function?
August 13th, 2017 3:06pm
Because it looks nice and gives the government a human face.
The government needs a bit more than institutions, police and military to be a successful, legitimate government. It needs the consent of the governed. For this, you often need to give people some sentimental reason to feel attached to the state. In many countries, this is a monarch.
Empirically, it worked very well for the UK for centuries - far longer than for most other democratic countries - so why change it?
Netherlands also have a monarch, no?
To the OP, Groningen nobility started dying around the 1800's, when they had consolidated their dynasties into just a handful, where the lack of sons in a single generation would wipe out the local lines, with the property dispersing into various related German families.
This doesn't have to do with inbreeding and degeneration, but just with probability laws.
August 13th, 2017 3:11pm
> Netherlands also have a monarch, no?
Yes, imposed by the Congress of Vienna after 1815.
Without a monarch the territory would have been divided by neighbouring great powers. They were formally part of the French Empire at that time.
Before the Revolution, the Dutch republic did without a monarch, having elected place-holders, per province, the Stadhoouders.
The House of Orange succeeded in making that position hereditary during the 18th century, and were offered the Monarchy for the above mentioned reasons.
But the Dutch had ruled themselves without Kings since the lat 16th century already, and the monarchs didn't get much power after the first king.
August 13th, 2017 3:19pm
Spain's king actually played an important role in transitioning the country to democracy IIRC.
"But the Dutch had ruled themselves without Kings since the lat 16th century already, and the monarchs didn't get much power after the first king."
But you kept them even after WW2. Why?
Best answer: "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
August 13th, 2017 4:32pm
> But you kept them even after WW2. Why?
Because the masses love them.
They are idols, better than celebrity stars.
I had intelligent co-workers who were still fond of the monarchy because is is so cute!
There are little princes and princesses, dresses, travels, they go to big sports events, all in all they give a good show for the simple minds.
August 13th, 2017 6:58pm
They are just fairy tales. Every little girl dreams to be a princess.
August 13th, 2017 7:00pm