3 ms·

Nevertheless they don’t, because they simply don’t have to. You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological

Nevertheless they don’t, because they simply don’t have to. You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone. But yeah if parts of it, such as islands in the Caribbean, want to become independent and republics they play along, but deals are still done and control still wielded.

_yb2s 3y ago
Do they have any power, and if so how? Just because they are complicated and ancient, doesn't mean they wield any power in modern times. I don't really know much about the crown but in my impression the only "power" they've had for a long time was that of well loved celebrities, and even that seems to have evaporated in recent times. It somewhat seems to me that at some point the power and wealth of the Crown was transferred to various private companies, some of which are still quite wealthy but no longer associated with the Crown.
- gizajob 3y ago
  Control of the judiciary and their training is a big one. How do you overturn the ideology of justice and power itself? It can’t really be done, because everyone in the system has sworn allegiance not to do so, and they apply cognitive dissonance to the very idea that the root of their authority can be undone. What I’m getting at is that it’s a power so old and embedded in the very fabric of the land it controls that it almost controls thought itself, controls the language and the meaning of language (legalese), prints the money and legitimises its use, allows concepts to become statutes or not. It’s like a web of embedded ideas concerning power and control in the areas where it operates - that’s what The Crown is, essentially, and it uses confusion and divide & rule tactics to hide in plain sight. What I’m saying sounds almost absurd but it’s kind of how it is. You’re dealing with the very idea that a whole territory can be “owned” by writing on dead paper, and everyone embedded in the system agreeing that’s how things are. In the case of Australia, these rules on dead paper were enforced over the living, non-contracting people already there. But the dead paper is backed with guns and extreme force, and makes for a neater world once it’s running. Brit-ish means “men of the covenant/contract” in Hebrew - the covenant with God to go and conquer the world in His name and enforce it with the same kind of dead-paper laws as found in His book. This trumps living people just “on” the land. And as for the sea…
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    For example, if you think the Crown still wields real power in Australia, could they today go to some remote Aboriginal community they supposedly "own," and tell those people to clear out so they can build a big resort, and pocket the profits? If they tried that there would be massive outrage, and immediate action to leave the Commonwealth. Yet relatively small construction firms pull this sort of thing successfully everyday, all around the world. It would seem to me, those ordinary construction firms each have more real power than the Crown. Neom in Saudi Arabia is also an example where this was actually done in modern times, showing that The House of Saud wields massive power. Your assertion seems to be that the Crown is so powerful that they don't need to actually do anything? That sounds like insisting I'm the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don't need to lift anything. Power is fleeting, and rapidly evaporates when it isn't wielded.
    - gizajob 3y ago
      It’s not really the style any more to go and bash up aboriginal communities, but it was what was done originally over the whole continent, ie what legitimises Gina owning that giant swathe of land, which was certainly aboriginal territory? The Crown. Call it The State if you like, but as I mentioned, it’s an entity that looks like The State, but in reality is much more nebulous and complex like that. See even the Wikipedia article: “Legal scholars Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne opined, "the nature of the crown has been taken for granted, in part because it is fundamental and, in part, because many academics have no idea what the term the crown amounts to".[4] Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson theorised that the crown is "an amorphous, abstract concept" and, thus, "impossible to define",[5] while William Wade stated the crown "means simply the Queen". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown These scholars find it impossible to define because it’s the sort of entity that has set itself up to be impossible to define, even to the best scholars, and everyone invested in the legal system with the ability to try and define it still cannot define it, because to do so would be to talk “externally” to the very system of language and being in which they’re embedded and allowed to comment upon. But in reality, The Crown is much much more akin to a private corporation with private beneficial owners and controllers than it is to a government or state, it’s just now constructed where it looks like the state and can’t actually properly be defined to delineate it from the powers it has and wields through the state. I’m really not trying to spread confusion or conspiracy, or talk shit, but you almost hit the nail on the head saying “I’m the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don’t even need to list anything” because that’s basically correct as to the level of power and strength you’re dealing with.
feoren 3y ago
> You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone. I always find silly the amount of ritual and ceremony around Kings, Popes, heads of state, and the like. It's so clearly this big theatrical production to try to convince everyone that these people aren't just frail, mediocre little humans whose backs hurt and whose farts stink. The vast majority of any "power" they have comes from people believing that they have that power, and the theatrics serve that purpose very well -- look at how deeply they've convinced you, for instance. They don't want to be hidden! If some small remnant of these formerly-powerful groups do take to the shadows, their power goes away, because nobody believes that they have it anymore. It'd be like talking about a secret group of celebrities -- it's an oxymoron. Power does not grow as it ages. Old power is just diluted remnants of wistful theatrics that occasionally shits its pants.
- gizajob 3y ago
  Yeah but that’s what I’m also getting at. It’s the kind of ritualised control that’s done in a very baroque way and in total plain sight, but nevertheless slips under the radar or virtually everybody, or the confusion around it leads to even articles like the one posted thinking that “King Charles” owns those lands, when in reality it’s a corporation he’s the frontman for, same as he’s the frontman for the British state. Being the frontman for one isn’t identical with being the frontman for the other, yet hardly anyone even notices, including the author of the article. What I’m saying isn’t even controversial, it’s simple to look up. I’m not some “believer” in a conspiracy. It’s just that how an entity such as “The Crown” wields its power is done in a way that confuses almost everyone, because it’s not really an entity like any other, being some hybrid of government, corporation, trust, club, society, and one whose members all do other things and are embedded in other roles in the state, so it’s both clear and in plain sight while actually being totally weird and hidden. Just go to the Square Mile in London - you’re in London and not, both at the same time, and there’s no passport control, but it’s nevertheless some kind of alternate domain that’s privately, not state, controlled at its fundamental level. It’s not woo woo, it’s just how it operates, and has been doing for about 1000 years. See also the Dutch East India Company - a private company / entity that acted as if it was a state, because it had the backing of the Dutch state, and why not, it may as well be the state given it’s on the other side of the earth and there’s nobody to stop it acting like one.

_yb2s 3y ago

Do they have any power, and if so how? Just because they are complicated and ancient, doesn't mean they wield any power in modern times. I don't really know much about the crown but in my impression the only "power" they've had for a long time was that of well loved celebrities, and even that seems to have evaporated in recent times. It somewhat seems to me that at some point the power and wealth of the Crown was transferred to various private companies, some of which are still quite wealthy but no longer associated with the Crown.

gizajob 3y ago
Control of the judiciary and their training is a big one. How do you overturn the ideology of justice and power itself? It can’t really be done, because everyone in the system has sworn allegiance not to do so, and they apply cognitive dissonance to the very idea that the root of their authority can be undone. What I’m getting at is that it’s a power so old and embedded in the very fabric of the land it controls that it almost controls thought itself, controls the language and the meaning of language (legalese), prints the money and legitimises its use, allows concepts to become statutes or not. It’s like a web of embedded ideas concerning power and control in the areas where it operates - that’s what The Crown is, essentially, and it uses confusion and divide & rule tactics to hide in plain sight. What I’m saying sounds almost absurd but it’s kind of how it is. You’re dealing with the very idea that a whole territory can be “owned” by writing on dead paper, and everyone embedded in the system agreeing that’s how things are. In the case of Australia, these rules on dead paper were enforced over the living, non-contracting people already there. But the dead paper is backed with guns and extreme force, and makes for a neater world once it’s running. Brit-ish means “men of the covenant/contract” in Hebrew - the covenant with God to go and conquer the world in His name and enforce it with the same kind of dead-paper laws as found in His book. This trumps living people just “on” the land. And as for the sea…
- _yb2s 3y ago
  For example, if you think the Crown still wields real power in Australia, could they today go to some remote Aboriginal community they supposedly "own," and tell those people to clear out so they can build a big resort, and pocket the profits? If they tried that there would be massive outrage, and immediate action to leave the Commonwealth. Yet relatively small construction firms pull this sort of thing successfully everyday, all around the world. It would seem to me, those ordinary construction firms each have more real power than the Crown. Neom in Saudi Arabia is also an example where this was actually done in modern times, showing that The House of Saud wields massive power. Your assertion seems to be that the Crown is so powerful that they don't need to actually do anything? That sounds like insisting I'm the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don't need to lift anything. Power is fleeting, and rapidly evaporates when it isn't wielded.
  - gizajob 3y ago
    It’s not really the style any more to go and bash up aboriginal communities, but it was what was done originally over the whole continent, ie what legitimises Gina owning that giant swathe of land, which was certainly aboriginal territory? The Crown. Call it The State if you like, but as I mentioned, it’s an entity that looks like The State, but in reality is much more nebulous and complex like that. See even the Wikipedia article: “Legal scholars Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne opined, "the nature of the crown has been taken for granted, in part because it is fundamental and, in part, because many academics have no idea what the term the crown amounts to".[4] Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson theorised that the crown is "an amorphous, abstract concept" and, thus, "impossible to define",[5] while William Wade stated the crown "means simply the Queen". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown These scholars find it impossible to define because it’s the sort of entity that has set itself up to be impossible to define, even to the best scholars, and everyone invested in the legal system with the ability to try and define it still cannot define it, because to do so would be to talk “externally” to the very system of language and being in which they’re embedded and allowed to comment upon. But in reality, The Crown is much much more akin to a private corporation with private beneficial owners and controllers than it is to a government or state, it’s just now constructed where it looks like the state and can’t actually properly be defined to delineate it from the powers it has and wields through the state. I’m really not trying to spread confusion or conspiracy, or talk shit, but you almost hit the nail on the head saying “I’m the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don’t even need to list anything” because that’s basically correct as to the level of power and strength you’re dealing with.

feoren 3y ago

> You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone. I always find silly the amount of ritual and ceremony around Kings, Popes, heads of state, and the like. It's so clearly this big theatrical production to try to convince everyone that these people aren't just frail, mediocre little humans whose backs hurt and whose farts stink. The vast majority of any "power" they have comes from people believing that they have that power, and the theatrics serve that purpose very well -- look at how deeply they've convinced you, for instance. They don't want to be hidden! If some small remnant of these formerly-powerful groups do take to the shadows, their power goes away, because nobody believes that they have it anymore. It'd be like talking about a secret group of celebrities -- it's an oxymoron. Power does not grow as it ages. Old power is just diluted remnants of wistful theatrics that occasionally shits its pants.

gizajob 3y ago
Yeah but that’s what I’m also getting at. It’s the kind of ritualised control that’s done in a very baroque way and in total plain sight, but nevertheless slips under the radar or virtually everybody, or the confusion around it leads to even articles like the one posted thinking that “King Charles” owns those lands, when in reality it’s a corporation he’s the frontman for, same as he’s the frontman for the British state. Being the frontman for one isn’t identical with being the frontman for the other, yet hardly anyone even notices, including the author of the article. What I’m saying isn’t even controversial, it’s simple to look up. I’m not some “believer” in a conspiracy. It’s just that how an entity such as “The Crown” wields its power is done in a way that confuses almost everyone, because it’s not really an entity like any other, being some hybrid of government, corporation, trust, club, society, and one whose members all do other things and are embedded in other roles in the state, so it’s both clear and in plain sight while actually being totally weird and hidden. Just go to the Square Mile in London - you’re in London and not, both at the same time, and there’s no passport control, but it’s nevertheless some kind of alternate domain that’s privately, not state, controlled at its fundamental level. It’s not woo woo, it’s just how it operates, and has been doing for about 1000 years. See also the Dutch East India Company - a private company / entity that acted as if it was a state, because it had the backing of the Dutch state, and why not, it may as well be the state given it’s on the other side of the earth and there’s nobody to stop it acting like one.