chat

I always get a kick out of describing Norway as "everyone's favorite oil monarchy" and watching Liberals hem and haw about how that's an unfair comparison

Closest thing I think was SoyViking following such format

AYOYOYU

I have never understood how people could mourn a person who they have never met and who has never done anything for them

They feel the same way about monarchs as you do about Palestinian children. They delusionally see themselves in the royalty, in the obsolete vestiges of their feudal heritage, instead of as the descendants of peasants who faced oppression by the same boots oppressing the world today. To grasp that the monarchy is a part of the system keeping them poor is a revolutionary act and requires a systemic (marxist) analysis most people have never heard before

The only good monarch is a dead one! (Or, y'know, the butterfly. Those are cute.)

ⓘ This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.

Contrary to popular belief, the blood of royals is not actually blue.

It's purple due to the hemerythrin content, since all royals are descended from priapulid worms.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs on October 7 told King Harald V to keep his mouth shut, because it's the ministry's responsibility to handle condolences for other countries, not the king's. And so the king kept his mouth shut, as he was basically obligated to do, and indeed the Norwegian state condemned Operation al-Aqsa Flood on his behalf. Harald did however go to the Oslo synagogue for the one year anniversary of Operation al-Aqsa Flood, along with his heir apparent, the current king Haakon VIII. If Harald hadn't been advised to keep quiet by the very big and expensive PR firm that is the Norwegian state, we can only assume he would've personally said everything that the state said on his behalf in 2023, and everything he said for the one-year anniversary, which wasn't exactly based anti-Zionism.

I'm assuming you might be referring to this post with a screencap of some Xitter Zionazi accusing Harald of "only expressing sympathy for the Palestinians" with a quote rexeet saying that Harald "may be the greatest king of all time rest in peace". I reckon the average Xitter Zionazi does not know much of anything about the inner workings of Norway's political system, and has been seeing red ever since Norway recognized Palestine, so I think this Zionazi's subtextual attempt to characterize Harald as some sort of rabid anti-Semite who hates Our Good State of Israel™, comes partially from trying to make sense of how Norway could end up recognizing Palestine based on the Zionazis' twisted and fundamentally idealist worldview, and partially from wanting to do a petty jab at the object of Norway's ""national mourning"" as a tit-for-tat for the ""slight against Israel"" that was Norway's recognition of Palestine.

The average Xitter anti-Zionist also does not know much of anything about the inner workings of Norway's political system, and is quick to posture and dunk on Zionazis at any opportunity; which explains why the anti-Zionist user in the screencap apparently unquestioningly bought into the Zionazi's inaccurate narrative just for an easy opportunity for a one-liner.

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

• yewtu.be
• inv.nadeko.net
• yt.artemislena.eu
• piped.video

I mean... Even the br*t*sh monarchy would probably lose its power pretty quick if it actually tried to use it tbh

Pretty much every European monarchy except Vatican City is portrayed as a quaint "tourist novelty" that's more profitable to maintain than to abolish,^[The Norwegian state and royal family have always had a keen interest in pushing an image of the monarchy as an inexpensive, folksy institution, but this is just propaganda largely built on secrecy, clever labeling of assets, and simply not drawing attention to the royal family's actual cost and wealth.] but frankly this is just "our quaint constitutional monarchies" versus "their barbarous absolute monarchies": not to say that there are no differences between constitutional vs absolute monarchies — as I understand it it's basically the difference between liberalism and fascism — I just want to emphasize that the monarch is in any modern monarchy the head of a bourgeois dictatorship, beholden to the interests of the ruling class as a whole, and able to act as a member of that same ruling class, regardless of whether they have a hypothetical legal right to act on their whims as head of state. I think it's especially important to keep in mind how every liberal democracy is designed to be able to turn fascist when necessary and vice versa.

Consider ending all of your speeches or conversations with "{ceterum|furthermore} {censeo|I think} {regem|the king} {esse delendum|must be destroyed}" regardless of their relevance to monarchism from now on; I already end all of my speeches and conversations with "{ceterum|furthermore} {censeo|I think} {ius auctoris|copyright} {esse delendum|must be destroyed}" and would prefer not to switch.

…Ceterum censeo ius auctoris esse delendum.