4 ms·

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 everyon

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.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    I appreciate that you are discussing this in good faith, and you know a lot about the complexity of the Crown that I don't, but I just don't see it. It seems to me that those examples you are giving are historical examples of power that is now held by a bunch of separate people and organizations with no modern day connections to one another or to the current Crown. Edit: e.g. for example, what does Gina Rinehart have to do with the Square Mile in London today?

_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.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  I appreciate that you are discussing this in good faith, and you know a lot about the complexity of the Crown that I don't, but I just don't see it. It seems to me that those examples you are giving are historical examples of power that is now held by a bunch of separate people and organizations with no modern day connections to one another or to the current Crown. Edit: e.g. for example, what does Gina Rinehart have to do with the Square Mile in London today?