Monday, June 22, 2015

Lucky Guy

Unlike a lot of this segment of the blogosphere, I'm pretty ambivalent on the subject of a hereditary aristocracy or Royalty. It's a sort of backhanded tribute to Marx when one accepts the notion that those born into a life of privilege are actually morally better than those less fortunate.

I must admit that I have strong sympathies for this view of Jefferson in his letter to John Adams,

For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it’s ascendancy.
A cursory read of European history will show that princes have been corrupt, kings bad, dukes dissolute, Earls treacherous and Queens promiscuous. In England, we have the virtue of Elizabeth matched by the prolishness of his Son Andrew and former daughter-in-law Sarah. There have been exceptions of course, but hereditary aristocracy is no guarantee of virtue. I'd be far more accepting of it, if we could rid ourselves of the worst offenders without slipping into war.

Which brings me to Sweden. Nothing really surprises me about Sweden and those superior Aryans Nords anymore. It appears that they have had a Royal Wedding and whilst marrying commoners is not the breech of precedent it was before, I must admit, I'm a bit surprised with Sweden's newest princess, Sofia Kristina Hellqvist.  Her credentials are impressive (NSFW). Topless model, Reality TV show contestant,  admirer of  Jenna Jameson.  The picture in the Wiki link shows her just about to hit the wall.

Clearly, some commoners are more common than others. That prince, he sure is a lucky guy.

Welcome to our new overclass.


Julian O'Dea said...

I am often disappointed at the choices that wealthy men make. They seem to go straight for boobs. I am not sure this Swedish chap is to be envied his two meatballs. She has almost certainly been through the grinder and not all men like that thought.

If I were a different man, with a lot of money, I would try to combine beauty with charm and brains. I used to rather like Rupert Murdoch's choice of Chinese wife, although she turned out to be not so good. But at least she had more going for her than a large bust.

I have always thought I would do what cartoonist Patrick Cook did and go for this kind of thing. Jean Kittson (I would make her change her name, though). She is cute, has a nice voice and is funny and bright. She has aged quite well:

You wrote an interesting post recently on the need for women to overcome disgust in having sex. I meant to comment. But I think there is a lot in that. It is not hard to observe that the same woman can vary greatly in what she will be happy to do for her beloved depending on what mood she is in.

Anonymous said...

My husband did not go straight for boobs. He does not have tens of millions though, not quite that level of net worth just yet.

Julian O'Dea said...

I hasten to add that I am perfectly happy with the woman I married. She has a great combination of traits.

I was imaging myself as the kind of man who was rich and in search of a trophy wife.

The Social Pathologist said...

Got to admit Julian, I don't know why so many men don't value brains in a woman. I've always liked women of intelligence.

As for European "Royalty", day by day it resembles a more affluent version of Eurotrash.

was imaging myself as the kind of man who was rich and in search of a trophy wife.

That's what I thought.

I'm planning to do a follow up post on disgust. Very interesting topic.

Julian O'Dea said...

There were two famed bloggers. I can't remember the name of their blog. But they used to write good stuff and one of them said once that marrying a woman for intellectual companionship is likely to be disappointing. I tend to agree.

The kind of woman who will not go all domestic and feminine in her interests, despite a tertiary education, is actually quite rare; and probably has other disabling characteristics. One thing feminism has done is turn a lot of such women feminist, and some men don't mind that in a partner, but well ... good luck with that, as they.

Anonymous said...

Monarchy, like most things in this fallen world has its flaws, but even the worst monarchs generally refrained from inflicting on the people they ruled things that modern plutocracies, sorry "republics" find a matter of routine. The overthrow of the ancient monarchies is best explained by the following quotation:

"The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defence and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.

We appear on the scene as the alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces- Socialists, Anarchists, Communists- to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity)of our SOCIAL MASONRY. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labour of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite- in the diminution, the KILLING OUT OF THE GOYIM. (This word signifies "cattle") Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker (or in our day, abundant food that has had most of the nutrients removed and who knows how many chemicals added and is often genetically modified, the effect on health is very similar)because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way. WHEN THE HOUR STRIKES FOR OUR SOVEREIGN LORD OF ALL THE WORLD TO BE CROWNED IT IS THESE SAME HANDS WHICH WILL SWEEP AWAY EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT BE A HINDRANCE THERETO." This last pertains to the anti-Christ spoken of in the Apocalypse.

I'll leave it the readers to work out which book the above was taken from, suffice to say it a work one must read if one wishes to better understand the situation the world finds itself in today, it is over one hundred years old, but with modifications and refinements is still being followed today by those who have usurped power and now control most of the world.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous from 10.10 p.m. again, I forgot to add that the Swedish kings are better considered a sort of national mascot than as a real monarchs, therefore one could say he is doing a good job representing the character of the depraved neo-pagan Swedish people. The best example of what a king should be from modern times was oddly enough not a king, but a benevolent dictator, the Caudillo General Franco of Spain. His is an example of heroism and leadership that all rulers should aspire to, may he rest in Eternal Glory with Our Lord and His Most Holy Immaculate Mother Mary.

Anonymous said...

c'mon, don't use google to link to a search when duckduckgo exists... now google thinks I'm into that...

Folder Tunne said...

"As for European "Royalty", day by day it resembles a more affluent version of Eurotrash."

An unusually high percentage of European Royalty were invested with Madoff. Much higher than you would find with normal rich people.