You cannot unilaterally achieve bipartisanship only surrender. You'd think this would be more obvious than it appears to be in the world of the real.

But it might work for me!

That's because Democratic voters like bipartisanship more than Republican voters. And yeah at this point in time that raises a lotta questions about Democratic voters.

I mean those parts still probably didn't happen in any particularly solid sense given that the sources for them significantly post date the period where such an Arthur could have lived.

Yeah, but there's a lot of the modern version of Arthurian legend that's from much later periods ( eg jousting) so I dunno how much you can fault that, a potentially historical Welsh Arthur is effectively the bit that fits least well.

I think she's another one that's kinda offensive to them because she's deeply incompetent.

Yeah, I know I meant to add another skeet about how this probably feeds into more organised movements not really doing assassinations but I got distracted by a phone call.

Killing a king who's 5 sons and 4 generals will immediately have a war is way more effective than killing a CEO who already has a known temporary substitute and will be replaced in months.

Singular Assassinations just aren't really very effective in a lot of modern structures, you need centralised authority and planning and poor succession structures for things to get "fun".

I guess if you go chasing enlightenment it's not like there's not a whole lotta flavours of Reactionary Esoteric Mysticism out there for you.