I'll try to be charitable here. I agree that Jesus definitely is the founder and perfecter of liberty for all people. But I don't think Farage was intending to draw into conflict with Christ. It helps to remember history when interpreting statements like this.
Think about it in terms of classical British patriotism. He's exuding a wistfulness about the positive side of his nation's history. For Brits, the Monarchy is kind of a symbol their cultural paradigm and history. He's using that as a synecdoche for the English role in promoting early abolitionism and the cultural standards which guided the Industrial Revolution that ultimately improved everyone's economic conditions.
More importantly for our topic of discussion, the monarchy was originally cast as being established "by the grace of God" during the Middle Ages. So his sentiment kind of incorporates a deference to Christ inherent in viewing his Monarch as a steward in His service.
Of course, for most of us Americans that sentiment isn't one we think with naturally. So we kind of miss the point with it. But it does bear analyzing because we can't always make the same historical assumption that the English did anymore when interpreting these cases. Especially since the Monarchy doesn't always seem to live up to Christ's teachings which the pedophilic scandals of some of its recent members now seem to demonstrate.
But from what I can tell, Farage doesn't seem to be anti-Christian. So I doubt he incorporates any intent of usurpation to the liege of his liege.
That's a good observation, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
A lot of Brits have rose tinted spectacles on wrt the Queen, the rest of them are a open to a lot more criticism, a lot of people wish that Anne had been Queen and not Elizabeth.
I don't think they are racist as such, I don't think they think of people very highly at all regardless of their skin colour.
Some of us accept that it's hard to just get rid of them, even though they cost us a boat-load of money because a lot of idiots in the UK think she is just a figurehead with no real power (even though the PM has to grovel to her every week).
However, in essence, the Royals provide consistency for a lot of small minded people who hate change, and we're often too focussed on our shambles of a government to worry about the monarchy unless they screw up spectacularly like Harry is doing right now.
Good point regarding the English role in the abolitionist movement. For all their royal worship, we must remember that the United States was uniquely English. Our forefathers were inspired by enlightenment English philosophers like Locke who inspired them to create the most beautiful constitution ever written. We took their language, their common law, their love of the free market and capitalism, their Protestant religion. The English role in the industrial revolution was foremost and led to the higher standards of living for everyone alive today (although it had its rough patches, especially early on). They have a lot to be proud of, and it’s a shame they’ve been brainwashed into destroying that heritage by the globalist, Marxist, cabal in charge of the EU. Its on our shores now.
Acktchually, Lincoln had his secretary try to find somewhere to send them to, the slaves. Including islands. He did not believe in slavery, but he also knew blacks and whites were not compatible. He didn't free them with the ides for them to stay here. And he was right. To this day, they are a parallel society, refusing to assimilate.
Edit : and it wasn't an afterthought. They were Integral to the south's war effort and withoit them, the south couldn't fight. It was a strategic military decision made during a war for the purposes of it
The Royal African Company (RAC) was an English mercantile (trading) company set up in 1660 by the royal Stuart family and City of London merchants to trade along the west coast of Africa.[1] It was led by the Duke of York, who was the brother of Charles II and later took the throne as James II. It shipped more African slaves to the Americas than any other institution in the history of the Atlantic slave trade.enter text
I've had doubts about Nigel for a while now. He seems to have slipped into the establishment fold, pretty sure he is a Freemason - most of the people in UKIP were. Now he is promoting vax and the royals? His patriotims misplaced, clearly does not know what the royals were up to or is pretending not to. Don't trust him.
I'll try to be charitable here. I agree that Jesus definitely is the founder and perfecter of liberty for all people. But I don't think Farage was intending to draw into conflict with Christ. It helps to remember history when interpreting statements like this.
Think about it in terms of classical British patriotism. He's exuding a wistfulness about the positive side of his nation's history. For Brits, the Monarchy is kind of a symbol their cultural paradigm and history. He's using that as a synecdoche for the English role in promoting early abolitionism and the cultural standards which guided the Industrial Revolution that ultimately improved everyone's economic conditions.
More importantly for our topic of discussion, the monarchy was originally cast as being established "by the grace of God" during the Middle Ages. So his sentiment kind of incorporates a deference to Christ inherent in viewing his Monarch as a steward in His service.
Of course, for most of us Americans that sentiment isn't one we think with naturally. So we kind of miss the point with it. But it does bear analyzing because we can't always make the same historical assumption that the English did anymore when interpreting these cases. Especially since the Monarchy doesn't always seem to live up to Christ's teachings which the pedophilic scandals of some of its recent members now seem to demonstrate.
But from what I can tell, Farage doesn't seem to be anti-Christian. So I doubt he incorporates any intent of usurpation to the liege of his liege.
That's a good observation, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
A lot of Brits have rose tinted spectacles on wrt the Queen, the rest of them are a open to a lot more criticism, a lot of people wish that Anne had been Queen and not Elizabeth.
I don't think they are racist as such, I don't think they think of people very highly at all regardless of their skin colour.
Some of us accept that it's hard to just get rid of them, even though they cost us a boat-load of money because a lot of idiots in the UK think she is just a figurehead with no real power (even though the PM has to grovel to her every week).
However, in essence, the Royals provide consistency for a lot of small minded people who hate change, and we're often too focussed on our shambles of a government to worry about the monarchy unless they screw up spectacularly like Harry is doing right now.
Good point regarding the English role in the abolitionist movement. For all their royal worship, we must remember that the United States was uniquely English. Our forefathers were inspired by enlightenment English philosophers like Locke who inspired them to create the most beautiful constitution ever written. We took their language, their common law, their love of the free market and capitalism, their Protestant religion. The English role in the industrial revolution was foremost and led to the higher standards of living for everyone alive today (although it had its rough patches, especially early on). They have a lot to be proud of, and it’s a shame they’ve been brainwashed into destroying that heritage by the globalist, Marxist, cabal in charge of the EU. Its on our shores now.
?
sorry but abe lincolns "freeing" of the blacks was an afterthought and also happened to ensloave the rest of us
well done lincoln
dont yo understand what the PROCLOMATION of EMANCIPATION actually means
oh war is peace and we all bought it!
Acktchually, Lincoln had his secretary try to find somewhere to send them to, the slaves. Including islands. He did not believe in slavery, but he also knew blacks and whites were not compatible. He didn't free them with the ides for them to stay here. And he was right. To this day, they are a parallel society, refusing to assimilate.
Edit : and it wasn't an afterthought. They were Integral to the south's war effort and withoit them, the south couldn't fight. It was a strategic military decision made during a war for the purposes of it
my only point being it wasnt the all touchy feely version they sap out in schools
and secondly if you read the poe it does enslave all the rest of us
I completely agree.
The Royal African Company (RAC) was an English mercantile (trading) company set up in 1660 by the royal Stuart family and City of London merchants to trade along the west coast of Africa.[1] It was led by the Duke of York, who was the brother of Charles II and later took the throne as James II. It shipped more African slaves to the Americas than any other institution in the history of the Atlantic slave trade.enter text
He meant to say "more with" not "more for" ... lol
I've had doubts about Nigel for a while now. He seems to have slipped into the establishment fold, pretty sure he is a Freemason - most of the people in UKIP were. Now he is promoting vax and the royals? His patriotims misplaced, clearly does not know what the royals were up to or is pretending not to. Don't trust him.
Well to be fair. There's more diversity in the United Kingdom than the Heavenly Kingdom.