Posts
[AFTER you read this, check out my Tribute video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWxmPO8RZBs]
Finally they're going to bury her. After a mere TEN DAYS of dragging things out.
I don't have to pretend to be sad because some head of state I didn't know personally died. Let all the "world leaders" (country bosses) put on a show of feigned grief. They're all in the same racket, and birds of a feather flock together.
As for the ignorant masses lining up for a glimpse at her corpse, all I can say is- pathetic people laboring under false consciousness induced by a lifetime of imbibing propaganda.
I turned on the radio this morning to get some news. Instead I got British monarchy propaganda. From all "news" stations in New York City, self-proclaimed "Media Capital Of The World." NPR, the U.S.-Government created national radio network, started their morning broadcast at 5 am with these words: "Good morning, Britain is saying Goodbye to Queen Elizabeth The Second..." then I turned it off. They've been "saying Goodbye" for ten days. Indeed, the death of U.S. presidents don't get this grossly distended "coverage" from U.S. media! [1]
From the way U.S. media has been carrying on about the inevitable death of the 96-year-old "Queen" of Britain, you'd think she WAS the Queen of America! U.S. media have made the death of this "Queen" the top story, and are giving it saturation coverage. Since there really isn't much to say, every trivial detail is breathlessly conveyed, such as the new titles for her grandkids. We are being told such nonsense as that the entire world is affected by this. (Ron Elving, a senior NPR "commentator," compared the "queen" to the rock of Gibraltar. I kid you not. Saturday morning, Sept. 10.) U.S. (and of course British) media are pretending that every single person in Britain feels exactly the same way about this "Queen" and the British monarchy. Obviously a lie, as there are millions of republicans in Britain. Indeed, probably the majority of people in Scotland do not want to be under the aegis of the British "crown." In the U.S., overt censorship is enforcing a totalitarian image of all citizens being of like mind. This is the essence of totalitarianism, the imposition of one mind on everybody. One example: Twitter has been busy deleting dissent from the "universal" adulation of the now dead career "Queen."
The incredible amount of gushing guff, of fawning admiration based on no actual accomplishments except that Elizabeth lasted in the post for so long, is not only cloying, and taxing to one's patience, as well as crowding out important news, but more importantly it reveals the true, anti-democratic nature of the bourgeois class dictatorships that "Western" countries are ruled by. Monarchies, which are systems of inherited power and privilege, and that originally claimed for centuries to be based on divine diktat, are completely anti-democratic. Yet the bourgeoisie promote aristocracy-worship, in both "news" media and "entertainment" media, which functions as an even more powerful indoctrination tool than "news." Think of Disney "princesses," to cite one ubiquitous and vastly influential example.
That's why I put "Queen" in quotes. I do not recognize the legitimacy of aristocracy! Nor should any normal human being. The idea that anyone is innately superior because their parents are innately superior and their parents were innately superior and their parents were and their parents were designated by a "god" to rule, and are entitled to special privileges, status, and wealth, by dint of this bogus designation, is a massive con game and the antithesis of democracy. Which doesn't stop the bourgeoisie from simultaneously claiming that democracy is one of their core values, and that all the wars they start and provoke, both hot and cold, are done to "defend democracy" or are "fighting for democracy," including the current Western proxy war between Ukraine and Russia, intended to bleed Russia white, or to "permanently weaken" it, as U.S. war secretary General Austin publicly revealed a few months ago.
Given the cravenness with which the UK government obeys every command of its U.S. masters, perhaps we could chalk up the U.S. power establishment's over-the-top treatment of yet another succession in the British monarchy, that barbaric, seemingly immortal medieval relic, as an imperialist courtesy. God knows the U.S. cares little for actual British interests. The only exception to that that I can think of was during the Falklands war, when the U.S. military provided support to the British war effort that was critical to Britain successfully defeating the Argentine invaders of those islands. [2]
Some facts obliterated by Western propagandists in their current campaign of aristocracy worship: The "Windsors" were a German monarchical family, but during the slaughter of World War I, that fact became a bit too awkward, so they conveniently changed their family name to something more appropriate to the country they were reigning over. (How does that affect their "divine" license to rule, I wonder? Never mind.)
Here's another one: Elizabeth was the richest woman in Britain. And her and her family are subsidized by the government- meaning by the people of Britain, who pay for the government- to the tune of millions of pounds sterling a year.
Also totally whitewashed are the vicious crimes of the British empire during "Her Majesty's" reign, which began in 1953. These include the savage "counterinsurgency" campaigns Britain waged in several of its colonies to crush attempts to break free of oppressive British rule and the economic exploitation that enriched British elites. "Counterinsurgency" consists of torture and murder, mostly. In Kenya the British felt it necessary to castrate many of their prisoners. Who knows why. Was it to compensate for feelings of sexual inferiority that white racists commonly feel towards black men? Who knows. None of these savage beasts was ever put on a psychiatrist's couch to be asked. But there's an entire counterinsurgency literature explaining the theory and practice of oppressing the oppressed when they rebel, written by practitioners of the criminal arts and imperialist theorists.
Defenders of this barbaric medieval relic, "the monarchy," sometimes pretend that it's just for show, and doesn't actually have any power. This is nonsense. The current prime minister, Liz Truss, had to be appointed pm by the "Queen." The previous pm, Boris "Bojo the Clown" Johnson had to go to the "Queen" to submit his resignation.
The monarchy exercises power in many ways semi-hidden from public view. The CIA-MI6 coup in Australia that overthrew a Labor government there needed the cooperation of the Queen's overseer in Australia to do that. . [Search "cia coup australia 1975" for details.]
Here's another example of power at work: At least 3 people are known to have been arrested for publicly voicing dissent from the Officially Required Monarchy Worship. One man was arrested for shouting a non-obscene rebuke to "Prince" Andrew referencing his sexual exploitation of the teenage girls in the harem of Jeffrey Epstein, the intelligence operative assassinated in a Federal jail in Manhattan to silence him.
The hereditary class of the Divinely Privileged are "Royal," and are high above mere humans, who are "Commoners," nobody special. Is British identity so insecure that only the glue of a monarchy can hold it together? That seems to be the hidden fear of British power elites. That certainly is one reason they have milked this death for all it's worth.
By modern convention, the monarch doesn't refuse to do what's expected. But this is a convention, not a law. What if the monarch refused? Then what? Would they call that a "Constitutional crisis"? This is a nation whose "Constitution" is unwritten. That is, it only exists as a mental construct. So what does it "say"? It is ideological vapor. It seems the power elite of Britain prefers not to be constrained by actual words that are written down. Very flexible, such a "system" with a notional, as opposed to an actual, Constitution. Having no fixed rules lets the powerful do as they wish.
One factor that partially accounts for some people's attraction to monarchy is political infantilism. They want a Big Mommy or a Big Daddy (the actual nickname for a number of African autocrats and dictators) to take care of them, to make all the decisions, to exercise power putatively on their behalf. (Then there is the periodic "shock" and "feeling of betrayal" when it turns out that people in power sre NOT the benevolent Parents Of The People but exercise power on their own behalf and for small elites.)
The silver lining in this absurd obsession with the death of a desiccated relic of the middle ages is a partial respite from the Ukrainian war propaganda campaign that began really in October 2021 and was cranked up to World War II levels with the very ill-advised- and ill-starred- Russian invasion of February 24. The British elites have decided that it requires ten days of wallowing in her death to properly mark the passing of their "Queen,," so probably at least in Britain the Ukraine war propaganda noise machine will be turned down during that time. Although its substitute is hardly less noxious and psychologically harmful in the warping of minds.
I will acknowledge that Elizabeth was good at her job. The problem is, the job shouldn't exist.
But Elizabeth's lifetime of "duty" and "service" to British imperialist power extends past her death. Now the woman's corpse is being used to shore up support for the British power establishment, both among its "subjects" (including in the Commonwealth nations, the Commonwealth being Empire Lite) and in allied and any other nations that can be mesmerized by the ritual display of "pomp and circumstance."
But the "royal" family is well paid for its "sacrifice," not just in status and privilege, but in filthy lucre. At root, imperialism is about economic exploitation, so it is fitting that the "royals" should be rich.
1] I try again to get some news at 5:22 AM, and STILL no news, just more "royalty" propaganda: "I'm Rachel Martin in London. And today we are remembering the life of England's [sic] longest serving monarch..." Haven't "we" been "remembering" for the past 9 days, now 10? In other words, more lionization of that woman. NPR flew a morning "news" anchor, Martin, over to London just to read bromides that could have been read from a studio in the U.S. The main NPR affiliate in NYC, WNYC, broadcasts BBC all night, which is easily 70% monarchy propaganda during this period. WNYC owns a classical music station, WQXR, which at 7 am treated its listeners to the following assertion masquerading as news, from the mouth of Kerry Nolan: "Britain and the world [sic!] are saying a final goodbye to Queen Elizabeth..." etc. The WHOLE WORLD is drafted into this compulsory mourning, according to UK and U.S. propagandists!
Among the most cravenly fawning "royalty" guff in U.S. media is aired courtesy of Michael Bloomberg Billionaire. He owns a network of radio stations, broadcasts on TV, and of course on youtube. He flew his morning economic chatter team over to London on his private jet to spew the same platitudes they'd already been spouting from their New York lair. No surprise that a billionaire would support monarchy. Monarchy teaches submission to "authority" in the form of ones "betters." And billionaires all think they're better than us.
2] It was only because Reagan's "Defense" Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, on his own initiative went to Britain's aid that the U.S. helped Britain. The fascist Jeane Kirkpatrick urged president Reagan to side with the fascist Argentine military junta, a criminal gang that tortured and murdered 30,000 defenseless Argentine civilians whose supposed political leanings were not to the fascist military dictators' liking. That regime was backed 100% by the U.S. government AND media, including the "liberal" New York Times, which for years lied about how many victims were murdered by the fascists the Sulzberger family was supporting. (The Sulzbergers have owned and controlled that rag for over a century.) The NYT hid the mass murders for years. Then they claimed the deaths were in the hundreds. Gradually they went into the thousands, but always well below the true figure. Finally, in only ONE ARTICLE, the true toll popped up. Then in subsequent articles the number was shrunk back down! Shades of George Orwell's "1984."
The NY Times, in this and many other instances, acted as an accomplice to state terrorism.
Reagan, acting to allow the fascist Argentine dictatorship to keep the now-occupied Falklands, telephoned British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and urged her to back down, but she refused. The Falklands had been colonized by Britain in a previous century and was inhabited by Anglo British citizens who had no desire to come under the boot heel of the fascist Argentine military dictatorship.
See my video: "Jeane Kirkpatrick urged Reagan To Back Argentina In Falklands War. "
