The Islamophilia of King Charles is fast becoming all of our problem.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
Samizdata quote of the day – Charles III is a problemAugust 13th, 2025 |
 24 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – Charles III is a problemLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Strange. I thought that in Islam both he and his wife would be stoned to death?
This of course, explains in part the appeal of Cromwell, as per this feel-good song from Ulster, Cromwell, Protector of the Realm.
One should bear in mind that as it was said of the late Queen, ‘she thinks the World smells of fresh paint.’ Everywhere Charlie goes is curated, sanitised and carefully selected people on their best behaviour are put forward for a brief chat, so he only meets people who want to meet him, apart from the occasional incident. So his words and choices are done with a view to making the Monarchy appear inclusive. Unless I am very much mistaken, he has said nothing about the rape gangs, following the lead of his mother, who did make the occasional dig such as at the LSE asking why no one foresaw the 2008 crash (she hadn’t asked that of the Austrians).
However, my favourite conspiracy theory is that Charlie has ‘converted’, for which I can see no evidence at all. His very first act as King was to sign an oath to uphold the Church of Scotland. Oddly, he is also head of the Church of England. Now looking at that body, one might not have noticed but there is no Archbishop of Canterbury, he resigned before Christmas last year, and left office in January 2025 after Twelfth Night. He resigned very quickly after IIRC the Bishop of Newcastle called him out over some old ‘safeguarding’ issue of a perverted priest. There is no great haste to find a successor, but there is a process underway. In the interim, a new Pope has come, in around 2 weeks, for a much larger organisation. One conspiracy theory is that the previous Archbishop knew of the King’s faith and could stomach it no more, (I know that sounds odd), and the resignation was contrived as cover to save blushes all round.
But so odd is this country now, I cannot say that I could criticise someone for believing that.
Mr Ed,
I would. Charles is stupid enough to really believe the whole touchy-feely “Defender of Faiths” bollocks. I mean he’s into homeopathy, talking to plants and desiring to be a tampon (and we all know where they end up). We don’t have our first Muslim King – we have our first Hippy on the throne. I do think you have a point though about Charles having lived a “curated” life.
Now NickM, you have given me an idea, homeopathic government and government spending, the less of it you have and the more you dilute it, the better it works.
I don’t see this getting much traction with Charlie.
Mr Ed,
Well, we already have a sort of homeopathic NHS.The waiting lists for some things are so long that the problem will either go away of it’s own accord or you’ll die. Bizarrely, whilst in principle, this should cost next to nothing to run it, instead, costs squillions…
From the articled in the OP…
The total lack of self-awareness this betrays is phenomenal. It’s bloody easy to decry the gross materialistic impulse of the proles from one of your several palaces isn’t it? And Muslim societies rejecting having nice things… Well, yeah, maybe in Somalia but that is hardly through choice or theology. Charles has entertained (and been entertained by) enough Gulf sheikhs and princes that he ought to know this.
Whilst Liz and Phil were genuine National Treasures their sons are bloody awful and whilst the details of their bloody awfulness vary there is one common strand which is a complete lack of self-awareness of how they are perceived.
Charles is a retarded hippie who thinks he is some sort of second-coming of the Arts and Crafts Movement.
Andrew is a vile sexual predator and grifter who thinks because he fought in the Falklands he is immune from criticism.
Edward is just Really Useless – even at musical theatre. And yes, I know what that connotes.
Then there is Anne. Now she really is a sour-faced misery-puss of the first water but she knows this and revels in it. So fair play. I actually think I might quite enjoy her company.
The next batch… William seems OK and it was great seeing him with the Lionesses because he genuinely seems to love his footie*. His brother is a tosser who thinks we ought to care that he married a sort of Poundland Gwyneth Paltrow. Beatrice and Eugenie are just unforgiveably ugly. I swear it was an image of Bea in a “fascinator” that caused my last TV to join the digital Choir Eternal.
*OK, he’s a Villan but I guess Wills has enough silverware of his own anyway and as a Newcastle fan I’m in no real place to cast nasturtiums…
Technically, to maintain the Protestant faith in Scotland. It strikes me that the greatest threat to that right now is the Church of Scotland.
I’m not sure it matters all that much. In one sense I don’t see a problem with him being the patron of an organization that represents the belief system of a huge number of people in Britain. I mean sure it might be a bit of conflict of interest with being head of the CoE, but let’s face it, the CoE is the homeopathy of Christianity — so watered down there is nothing left. It isn’t really a religion, more a social organization and pillar of the state than anything — which, I suppose is what you get when your church is “established”, its priests are civil servants, and, as David Starkey once said, is based on the family values of Henry VIII.
Charles III has no power at all, even less than his mother. So, for all his blundering, bumbling buffoonery, is vastly preferable to the tyrannical reign of Oliver Cromwell. Holy crap, do you really want to go back to a time when they put you in jail for celebrating Christmas?
You’ll just have to wait it out for the ascendency of William V, who isn’t great but is a great improvement on his father, and is supported by Catherine who seems about as perfect a person as one could imagine to fit into the role of Queen Consort.
Holy crap, do you really want to go back to a time when they put you in jail for celebrating Christmas?
A few years from now the The Islamic Repuplic of Britistan might do just that…
Looking to the UK’s recent sociological and governmental trends, this may be that moment when we discover that England really IS ruled by its king. It would explain a lot.
As well as Islam I suspect HRH identifies strongly with middle-aged middle to upper class ladies who consider it their sacred duty to block motorways.
As and when the next Archbishop of Canterbury is enthroned, she or he (you read it here first) should accept this ‘dare’ (a unilateral obligation freely accepted to save face, usually in schoolboys under 14) from me:
On being enthroned/consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury in Canterbury Cathedral, and having finished the ritual words, call out in symbolic revenge for Thomas à Becket
“One conspiracy theory is that the previous Archbishop knew of the King’s faith”
They’re not Muslims but they’re not Christians either.
But what about the basic thesis that the West has pursued science, technology, and material well being–to astounding good fortune (infant mortality reduced orders of magnitude, food for the world, medicines for the world, etc., etc., etc.)–but have not similarly advanced in spiritual or psychological/personal development?
Imagine if the emotional/spiritual maturity of the average 14 year old was on par with their advancement in scientific/technological awareness?
Or am I wrong?
And I certainly don’t wish to align myself with HRH The Twit, Islam, or sympathizers of either.
I do like Mr. Ed’s homeopathic-gov idea. I think we might already be there vis-a-vis government climate policy.
They give us trace amounts of replacement energy, and extract huge fees for doing so, which strikes me as the essence of homeopathy.
I would posit that we HAVE done this, but we do it individually, whereas other cultures do it collectively. Doing it collectively leads to better and more organized formal rulemaking, but little of the personal improvement that comes from individual contemplation.
I would rate my own muddled-but-personal working-though of philosophy and the numinous as better and more incisive than your average participant in mass systems.
Weak men make hard times.
Batten down the hatches.
It is an awful situation – I am filled with despair and do not know what to do.
Both Parliament and His Majesty seem to have gone down a deeply mistaken path.
For those who do not know – the primary function of the Monarch-in-Parliament is to lead the British people in defense against their foes.
However, far from doing this – the Monarch-in-Parliament denounces the British people as “racists” and “Islamophobes” – and holds their foes to be “the community”.
There will not be a General Election for another four years, will there even be an England (for it is England that is most in danger) in four years time? Hopefully yes there will – but there will be a great deal of suffering over the next four years.
Samuel (First Book of Samuel, Chapter Eight) warns people against seeking a person to “fight our battles for us” – people need to be able and willing to defend themselves and others, creating an all powerful government is likely to create a monster that will turn on the people themselves – as the First Book of Samuel, Chapter Eight, explains.
“Put not your trust in Princes” – said a man about to be murdered almost four centuries ago, he had been found guilty of no crime (there had not even been a trial) – he was to be murdered on the whim of Parliament, rubber stamped by a weak King.
“Put not your trust in Princes” is from the Bible – and we should remember it means all Earthly government, councils and Parliaments (Dr Starkey please note) as well as Kings.
As Perry rightly says – “the state is not your friend”.
Nor, sometimes, are the majority of people – for example, in 1933 Franklin Roosevelt stole, by threat of violence, all monetary gold (although some was hidden – sometimes gold hoards, from the 1930s, are still found) he also ordered the violation of all contracts (back then contracts had gold clauses) – public and private.
Was Mr Roosevelt “impeached” as Black Tom Strafford was?
No, he was reelected by 60% of the vote in 1936.
Never confuse majority consent with liberty or justice – John Locke deliberately (and it is deliberate – as Gough showed more than 70 years ago) conflated the two things.
Two men voting to eat a third man is not justice.
Even before Mr Franklin Roosevelt became President, the top rate of the Federal Income Tax was over 60% – 20 years before it had been zero (there was no Federal Income Tax till 1913 – and the paper money of the Civil War had largely gone out of circulation by 1913, before the curse of the Federal Reserve system arrived – supposedly to discipline the banks, in reality to make the banks vastly worse – to lead them to even more insane credit-money expansion), and, far from being lower, the tariff was higher than ever.
So before Franklin Roosevelt, the American government was already deeply unjust – although he (or rather those who influenced him – the “Brains Trust” and other totalitarians) made it much worse.
bobby b
August 17, 2025 at 2:57 am
“I would rate my own muddled-but-personal working-though of philosophy and the numinous as better and more incisive than your average participant in mass systems.”
I wish I could say the same for myself. And I suspect most people are closer to my dismal performance in this arena of life (spirituality) than they are to you. Unfortunately.
But I’m getting old, and I’m often too pessimistic.
So, how might we get an objective answer, that covers a larger swath of humanity, to the question, “how have we done advancing our spiritual lives compared to our material lives?”
People who read a LOT more than I do, and talk to others, a LOT more than I do, likely have better insight than me. And I suspect that many people commenting on this blog are in that category. So, a poll of commenters here would go some ways toward answering my question…I think?
GregWA – Gladstone was correct that it is not from the state, or any external violence, that moral improvement can be made, it has to be from within. People have to really want to be better to have any chance to be better – they must make that free choice, and keep making the effort.
And this is true regardless of whether God exists or not – although I hope He does exist, for the fight against evil, especially the evil within myself (a fight I have been losing in recent years), is a grim one without Him.
Princess Anne miserable?
Wouldn’t you be with those brothers?
Having met her once (as many thousand of people have) I would say she had a mordant wit and a great sense of duty.
Sounds pretty good to me.