Ding Dong the Welfare Queen is Dead
What kind of life did Elizabeth II lead?
For nearly a century, Queen Elizabeth II mooched off the people of the UK and dozens of territories around the globe. She worked no jobs, she produced no enterprises, scientific or literary discoveries; she did not practice medicine. The idea of a monarchy is such an affront to liberty and freedom that America somehow still embraces, ironically. Whenever a woman attains a great stature, we are quick to reach for the crowning title of “queen.” Why is this? Why do we say that the lady who puts in the work is a queen when in fact she earned her distinction. Yes, it’s fine to use in art but for actual people, we should embrace the idea that in 1776, the United States of America vociferously rejected George III.
It is time that we throw down the gauntlet and engage in the ideas of reason, individualism, and capitalism instead of mysticism, collectivism, and altruism as espoused mainly by monarchs.
Elizabeth was a figure who managed to live through existence without exporting the fact that the US attained its position as the sole superpower in the twentieth century not just because of military might. It earned it through thought and action.
In fact, before then, George III decided to focus on the Spanish and the French and directed his attention away from the “third rate colony” at the time.
During World War II, Elizabeth II was a mechanic but how many jubilee celebrations are held for other grease monkeys?
Not a single thing can anyone say that the achievements of America far outshine the hollow husk (in many respects) that the UK has become. And for all of the ways that America has advanced, the monarch’s failure to recognize that it is an outdated system that robs its subjects of their funds still stands.
And to speak of Britain’s abysmal past when it came to Nazis is to say how Queen Elizabeth gave a salute to Adolf Hitler during his rise to infamy. With his horrific concern for eugenics, the same can be said about Elizabeth II and her Windsor bloodline. Her role as the apparent preserver of the family tree never fully sprouted.
In her seventy year “reign,” she postured as a person of substance. The welfare queen took on the role as an influencer based on nothingness. With her, there was no “there, there.” She brought to the fore no ideas, no challenges, no principles or morals that will last throughout the ages. Her ability to gain fame stood as a result of winning the womb lottery. Had she been born in other circumstances, it’s possible that she could have made a significant contribution in her life.
Instead, she just filled a position of no real power. The monarchistic system provided her a platform to look like a humanitarian and philantrhopist. While most nations have dialed back or are dialing back on worshiping the throne, she enveloped in the role as a highly visible person.
The best proof of this has been the reactions to her. There are no books, or inventions, or policies, or anything to declare who she was. If a “man or woman is her work,” who was she? It’s almost laughable to hear the responses spouted by news anchors and reporters. They reach for words and mouth that she was this great leader of a nation in transition. Hardly can they point to any significant contributions to better herself and the world.
What’s even worse is that her son, now to be named King Charles III, will further drive home the notion that the subjects of the UK are to give up their money, their lives for the Crown. The globalist perspective that he may perpetuate and his position on climate change might be related to his ties to groups and individuals who want to promote a one world government.
Never mind her son, there is no reason for anyone to mourn this woman as she offered little and took everything. Her selflessness and altruism should be extremely criticized and condemned for not living a life worth living.
About the Creator
Skyler Saunders
I will be publishing a story every Tuesday. Make sure you read the exclusive content each week to further understand the stories.
In order to read these exclusive stories, become a paid subscriber of mine today! Thanks….
S.S.
Keep reading
More stories from Skyler Saunders and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Smartystan
Chanda sent home money every two weeks. In a small village in India, she deposited money into the bank account of her aunt and uncle who sent her to live in America. The place seemed so remote, almost cut off from the rest of the country. There, a festival took place where participants hurled cow eliminations at each other. The muddy, mucky sense of it had been known for centuries. Locals tied it to an ancient god who they believed restored people’s health with the cow plops. During the festival, thick patties passed through the air and smushed into the bodies and faces of those rollicking around in the filth.
By Skyler SaundersExclusive • 5 days ago
Defence Dreams: How Nations, Innovation, and Ambition Shape the Future of Security
Defence dreams are more than visions of powerful armies or cutting-edge weapons. They are reflections of how nations imagine their future security, sovereignty, and place in the world. From advanced fighter jets and autonomous drones to cyber shields and space surveillance, defence dreams reveal a blend of fear, ambition, technology, and national identity. In an era marked by shifting alliances and unpredictable threats, these dreams are shaping global politics and redefining what it means to be secure. At their core, defence dreams begin with a simple desire: survival. Every nation, regardless of size or wealth, seeks to protect its people, borders, and values. Historically, this meant fortresses, standing armies, and naval fleets. Today, it includes satellites orbiting Earth, algorithms detecting cyberattacks, and unmanned systems patrolling skies and seas. The dream has evolved from physical strength to technological superiority. For major powers, defence dreams often revolve around dominance and deterrence. Countries like the United States, China, and Russia invest billions in next-generation systems to ensure that no rival can challenge them. Hypersonic missiles, stealth aircraft, and artificial intelligence are not just tools of war; they are symbols of prestige. Possessing them signals power, innovation, and influence. In this sense, defence dreams are as much about psychology as they are about military capability. Smaller and developing nations have different defence dreams, but they are no less significant. For them, the focus is often on self-reliance. Building indigenous defence industries reduces dependence on foreign suppliers and strengthens national pride. India’s push for domestically produced fighter jets, Turkey’s rise as a drone exporter, and Pakistan’s development of the JF-17 are all examples of countries striving to turn defence dreams into reality. These efforts are driven not only by security needs but also by economic and technological aspirations. Technology lies at the heart of modern defence dreams. Artificial intelligence is transforming how militaries plan, decide, and fight. Autonomous drones can conduct surveillance or strike targets without risking pilots’ lives. Cyber capabilities allow states to disrupt enemies without firing a single shot. Space, once the realm of science fiction, has become a contested military domain. Satellites are now essential for communication, navigation, and intelligence, making them both valuable assets and potential targets. Yet defence dreams are not without controversy. As military budgets grow, critics question whether resources could be better spent on healthcare, education, or climate resilience. The pursuit of advanced weapons also raises ethical concerns. Autonomous systems challenge traditional ideas of accountability in warfare, while cyber tools blur the line between war and peace. When does a cyberattack become an act of war? Defence dreams force societies to confront these difficult questions. There is also the risk that defence dreams can become defence illusions. History shows that overconfidence in military strength can lead to miscalculation. Believing that technology alone guarantees victory ignores the human, political, and social dimensions of conflict. Wars are rarely won by hardware alone; morale, leadership, and legitimacy matter just as much. A nation obsessed with weapons may neglect diplomacy, which remains one of the most effective tools for preventing conflict. Interestingly, defence dreams are increasingly tied to collaboration rather than confrontation. Alliances such as NATO are investing in shared capabilities, joint exercises, and interoperability. Even rivals sometimes cooperate on issues like arms control or maritime safety. These efforts suggest that some defence dreams are about stability rather than supremacy. The dream, in this case, is not to fight wars but to prevent them. Public perception also plays a powerful role. Defence dreams are often shaped by popular culture, media, and national narratives. Films, parades, and military showcases create images of strength that resonate with citizens. While this can build unity and confidence, it can also simplify complex realities. True security is not just about military might; it includes economic stability, social cohesion, and trust in institutions. Looking ahead, defence dreams will continue to evolve as the world changes. Climate change, pandemics, and resource scarcity are emerging as security challenges alongside traditional military threats. Armed forces are being asked to respond to natural disasters, humanitarian crises, and hybrid warfare. The defence dream of the future may be less about conquering enemies and more about resilience and adaptability. Ultimately, defence dreams reflect how societies view themselves and their future. They can inspire innovation, strengthen sovereignty, and deter aggression. But they also demand responsibility, restraint, and wisdom. When guided by realism and cooperation, defence dreams can contribute to a safer world. When driven by fear or ambition alone, they risk becoming nightmares. The challenge for nations today is to dream wisely—and to remember that the strongest defence is often peace itself.
By Fiaz Ahmed Brohi6 days ago in The Swamp
The Path to Salvation
The late autumn evening air filled the monk's lungs, but it wasn't the season that chilled his bones. The heavy-handed presence of evil he had sensed upon entering the woods surrounding this mountain village had not bothered to conceal itself from him.
By Made in DNA4 days ago in Fiction
Comments (1)
Your point of view is challenging. Elizabeth was a child during Hitler's rise and was only 25 at her coronation. Perhaps you can explain what you meant by "she gave a salute to Hitler." Hitler was gone by then. Without Churchill, England would have surrendered when the blitz began. And, of course, the monarchy is outmoded. The Germans had to fail. Their plan was monstrous, but I wouldn't blame her for being born into a family of wealth and power. Her uncle gave up the throne. Being king during the war may have shortened her father's life. Just because we see only the pomp and circumstance doesn't prove that there is nothing of substance to her role. The large number of countries that gained independence during her reign speaks to the fact that some of what she did was good. Neither the Boers nor the French welcomed self-rule by their colonies. That's a big difference worth thinking about, in my opinion.