Queen’s Speech May 2021

Yesterday’s (May 11th 2021) “queen’s speech” was a glib arrogant display of blatant unashamed disdain for democracy, for freedom and for humanity.

The future desired by the Tories in Britain is extreme exploitation and absolute division between an elite and everyone else.  It is a future where the entire economy is based on methods of exploitation, of theft and of fraud.  It is a future where education, housing and healthcare are not guaranteed and where employment is insecure and underpaid.  Meanwhile, for the elite, the wealthiest, it is a future of endless unearned income, no taxation, multitudinous avenues of exploitation, and lawlessness.

Tories need to prepare the scene for their aims.  The queen’s speech included a mixed-bag of policies that will aid their preparation for destruction of society. 

Removal of means of opposition

With little opposition in parliament and even less offered by newspapers and broadcasters, Tories’ targets for suppression are elsewhere. 

Judicial Review Bill will severely restrict the capability of legal challenges to government decisions.  Free from EU’s legal commitments, Tory government will stop all legal checks and balances on its behaviour.  Organisations that exist to protect freedoms and liberties and to prevent authoritarianism will no longer be able to take legal action whenever Tories operate outside the law or outside conventions of human rights.

Electoral Integrity Bill will demand photo identification in order to vote.  It is straightforward, unambiguous voter suppression and will affect disproportionately non-Tory voters.  Removal of the right-to-vote is an extreme tactic; its use reveals both how determined and how fearful the Tories are.

Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill, already partially through parliament, will add further attacks on the right to protest.  Its intent is to criminalise all in-person protests.  This will not only remove physical protests but also remove visibility of protests on TV, in newspapers and online.  Severe sentencing in the bill will jail vanguard activists for years and many others will be hampered by criminal records.

Online Safety Bill, presented fraudulently as if its intent is to protect people from harm, will censor social media use.  Socialist and progressive politics benefit from successful use of social media platforms to share information, educate and organise; exposure of wrongdoing and promotion of solutions are broadcast in real time around the world leading to international solidarity.  Tories know how much of a threat that is to international capitalist exploitation.

Control of education

Last year Education Secretary Gavin Williamson interfered in teaching with instructions that anti-capitalist literature should not be used in schools.  Control of education, via both omission and imposition, is standard practice for authoritarian governments.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is based on the modus operandi of eugenicist Toby Young’s Free Speech Union (FSU).  FSU exists to enable imposition of far-right ideology on students and uses legal action to achieve its aim.  The bill will remove the rights of students to decide who they invite to speak.

The bills above are designed to erect barriers to opposition and to challenges to the government.  The bills below are designed to remove barriers to wealth generation for the wealthiest.

Reduction of costs for businesses

Profits are nice but even nicer when pesky taxes are avoided and when public funds are handed over.

Procurement Bill will legalise recent practices whereby Tories handed billions of pounds of public money to private businesses to help allegedly with supply of products and services related to management of Covid-19 pandemic.  Bypassing tender regulations and delayed or refused publication of contracts were normal practice.  Businesses, many with direct connections to Tory MPs and their friends, and some of which were invented solely to receive government contracts, were paid way beyond the cost of what they supplied, and some never supplied the products.  The Covid-19 contract scandal is one of the most corrupt events in the history of British democracy and has lead to several court cases.  The bill will ease the award of such contracts and stop legal challenges.

National Insurance Contributions Bill includes the creation of eight “free ports” or charter cities.  Charter cities are internal tax havens created entirely for the benefit of large businesses by enabling them to dodge corporation tax, national insurance contributions, import tariffs, customs charges and VAT for all their activities therein.  Residents and workers in the charter cities do not benefit.  Charter cities are the ultimate objective for the ailing capitalist system.  The wealthiest elite want to exploit society while, effectively, existing apart from it.

The Tories are free from EU laws, last week’s elections were generally good for them, the three amigos – Davie, Sharp and Gibb – are planted in BBC, and Labour is fighting itself.  If the effects of Covid-19 continue to recede then the real work can begin.  It will be worse than imagined.  There is no limit to how far Tories will go.

Queen’s Speech May 2021

Flaws in Democracy: Elections

Democracy is usually misrepresented as equivalent to access to elections.

The key problem with deceptive equivalence of democracy and elections is it causes the latter to be an obsession for politicians.  Everything government and opposition parties say and do is an attempt to please or appease an assumed swing section of the electorate.  Decisions, statements of intent and changes to law, regulations and practices are presented as if part of an election campaign.

Constant election campaign mode, characterised by reactive thinking, creates weak government where emphasis is opposite to good competent administration and productive policies.  Instead, governance is erratic and inconsistent.

For politicians outside of government, obsession with elections obstructs development of cohesive ideology, of solutions to problems and of workable strategies to attain improvements.  Expositions by opposition politicians of what they intend to do in government, how they will do it and, crucially, why it is the right route to take are stifled by constant electioneering that diverts attention away from progress toward fretting over opinion polls and fear of doing or saying anything that upsets anyone.

Supporters of Scottish independence had eighteen months to prepare for 2014 referendum.  Rather than spend that time describing what independence would look like and explaining how a clear detailed vision of independent Scotland would be beneficial and preferable to remaining in the union, the campaigners focussed on trying to win a vote.  It was combat between two competitors.  Time was wasted in pointless “debates” with opposition.  Independence supporters were so distracted by the contest that they forgot to prepare basic components of an independent nation including choice of currency, membership (or not) of European Union, ownership of fossil fuel reserves in North Sea, and whether a British monarch would be head of state.

Elections in UK in May 2021 were unsuccessful for Labour.  Many potential Labour voters chose not vote.  Their absence was motivated by lack of policy and ideology in Labour since April 2020.  Keir Starmer and his shadow front bench colleagues were occupied with worrying about public opinion of any policy.  Consequently, Labour chose to abandon the concept of being a political party.  There were no policies, no opinions, no criticisms of Tory behaviour, and determination to not indicate what Labour was or where it was on the political spectrum.  Fear of upsetting the electorate backfired and discouraged the electorate.  Labour’s response to election results was to reaffirm its commitment to vacuity.

Fear of public opinion stops political parties from possessing boldness to recognise changes that are needed, to develop workable methods to attain and maintain those changes, and to explain concisely why the changes are necessary and how the methodology will succeed. 

“I will change the things that need changing and that is the change that I will bring about.”

A second problem with elections is that they can remove democracy.  The public can elect opponents of democracy and often do, though not always knowingly.  Parties, or individuals (as president, mayor, etc.), can be elected who have no intention of exercising the key component of democracy: Working on behalf of the public.  Donald Trump and Republican party, Scott Morrison and Liberal party, Boris Johnson and Tory party and Jair Bolsonaro were elected but none works for the people of their respective countries.  All work assiduously for a small wealthy elite and, thus, are profoundly anti-democratic. 

The purpose of many political parties is to help the wealthiest people and owners of large businesses.  In most current democratic structures the choice for voters is limited between two or more such parties.  This corruption of electoral process is a deliberate original feature of permitted democracy.  Without the inclusion of this feature democracy would not have been allowed.

Elections are a legacy obstacle to democracy. 

  • Time and energy is wasted worrying about elections, and fear of election loss restricts vision and courage
  • Opponents of functioning democracy are elected easily

False reduction of democracy to mere existence of elections removes its greater part.  Access to electability for opponents of democracy removes any democratic aspect of elections.

True democracy is not dependent on elections.  If elections determine government in a democracy then they should exclude anti-democratic participants.  The right-to-vote is not only not equivalent to democracy but it can (and does) work against democracy. 

Scott Morrison and Donald Trump

Flaws in Democracy: Elections

Internet censorship post-Trump

As a reaction to the invasion of The Capitol building in Washington social media platforms and application hosts banned Donald Trump, some of his family and political associates, and many of his supporters.  The recipients of the bans lost access to social media accounts and extreme-right platform Parler lost its host and went offline.


The banning spree was not informed by moral considerations or by integrity, it was motivated by concern about the new USA (Democrat) government’s possible changes to law affecting large online platforms and businesses.  Apple, Twitter and Facebook share a single objective: Profit.  Every decision they make is calculated carefully to maximise their future incomes. 

For the entirety of his presidency Donald Trump and his political associates used social media platforms, particularly Twitter, to misinform the public and rouse a rabble.  None of the major online communication platforms restricted the misuse.  They waited until Joe Biden won the presidential election in November 2020 before taking any action. 

Prior to the assault on the Capitol building on January 6th 2021 there were no online restrictions on the organisation of and the promotion of the assault.  Bans on organisers and promoters were imposed immediately afterward.  Restrictions imposed by the largest online communication platforms after the assault on the Capitol were driven by fear of regulatory retaliation and were consistent with other restrictions inspired by fear of state suspension of service including self-censorship by platforms in, for example, China and India. 

During Trump presidency Twitter, Facebook and Youtube closed social media accounts and video channels of socialist activists and governments in Venezuela, Bolivia and Palestine.  Those closures remain during Biden’s presidency and similar accounts were shut down on Biden’s first day as president.  Profit is the platforms’ sole objective and political expediency is a tactic to maintain that objective.

Under the guise of responding to organised promulgation of far-right philosophy, self-appointed liberal arbiters of ethics intend to increase control of communication.  Their disdain for far-right politics is partly theatrical and partly driven by desire to avoid electoral competition but, even if some of their concern is sincere, censoring extremism neither removes it nor restrains it as Caitlin Johnstone explained in Caitlin Johnstone on countering Trumpism.  

Removal of extreme-right views from the web is done reluctantly by platforms and hosts but they know when it is pragmatic to do it.  They know also when it is unwise to restrict access.  If Trump had won the 2020 election there would have been no online restrictions of extreme-right opinions including those that called for violence.  Communication platforms allow different degrees of freedom of speech in different countries.  The differences match different political stances of respective governments.  Business pragmatism, the surest route to profit, is the only ethic.

Pre-Biden, when interrogated by various governments’ representatives the responses of owners of platforms or platform hosts – Zuckerberg (Facebook), Cook (Apple), Dorsey (Twitter), etc. –  were inconsistent, contradictory and evasive; they could not commit themselves to censoring extremism nor to allowing it.  They waffled unconvincingly as they struggled inwardly about the balance between high user numbers and threats of government regulations and the balance between liberal complaints about extremism and the fact that an extremist was in power in the most lucrative country in the world for internet businesses.  Post-Trump, those struggles concluded with a lean toward the demands of authoritarian liberalism.  Now, in the world of conservative liberalism, social media platforms are hypersensitive to criticisms of their apparent lack of responsibility toward offensive, abusive and threatening content.

The post-Trump purge erased (temporarily) tens of thousands of hateful extremist far-right voices, both real and automated, from social media platforms and removed some extreme-right sites entirely.  The clean-up was swift and extensive.  As a by-product of an online purge of extremism, censorship of left-wing politics is not accidental.  That should be obvious to all socialists and communists.  Another analysis by Caitlin Johnstone in The Pendulum Of Internet Censorship Swings Leftward Again:

That purge [of extreme-right] was broadly supported by shitlibs and a surprisingly large percentage of the true left, despite the overwhelming and growing pile of evidence that it is impossible to consent to internet censorship for other ideologies without consenting to censorship for your own.” 

You use it [social media] to bring consciousness and understanding to your ideas and your causes.  Consenting to the institutionalization of the censorship of political speech is consenting to your own silence on this front, which will mean the only people who will be able to quickly share ideas and information online with the mainstream population will be those who support the very power structures you oppose.”

Left-wing accounts that were removed recently were, predominantly, organisational accounts for socialist activism and knowledge sharing.  Success of online socialist action is the reason why some governments are worried. 

Major platforms have been under pressure to censor socialist organisation for several years.  In UK Theresa May commissioned Lord Paul Bew to concoct a report in 2017 on ‘Intimidation in Public Life.’  Bew concluded that censorship of social media was needed and that alleged perpetrators should be barred from voting in elections.  In 2018 May asked the then Minister For The Constitution Chloe Smith to follow-up Bew’s recommendations for restricting access to voting.  Later that year Tory chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport parliamentary committee Damian Collins created The Declaration that declared ‘Principles of the Law Governing the Internet.’  None of these proposals and statements had any worth.  All were expressions of fear of the capability of social media to enable organisation, solidarity and sharing of information.  The targets of the censorship were left-wing activists.

Whether enacted by governments or by media (news media or social media) censorship of extremists on the right is pragmatism, a publicity stunt and requires persuasion to combat deceptive cries of “free speech” but censorship of socialists is always a political decision.  Censorship of socialists is aimed at effective opposition; it is deliberate.

Zuckerberg, Dorsey and Cook will do what is best for their respective businesses profits.  Neoliberals will censor some far-right activists but their focus will be on censoring and neutering socialist activism.

Recommended reading
Ben Burgis for Jacobin

Internet censorship post-Trump

Keir Starmer dug forensically his political grave

The elections of May 6th 2021 were disastrous for the Labour party.  Huge swings to other parties, predominantly Tories, prevailed in many places with over a hundred council seats and one parliamentary seat lost.

The successes for the Tory party were despite cumulative negative effects of the near no-deal Brexit concocted by Boris Johnson and his colleagues, despite over a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths due to Tory incompetence and indifference when managing Covid-19 pandemic, and despite continuous extreme corruption by the government and ministers therein.

As soon as he was elected Labour leader Starmer chose a determined strategy of political abstinence, and he has not wavered from that strategy.  He is anti-policy and anti-opinion.  He supports nothing, he criticises nothing and he offers nothing.  This vacuum is the strategy. 

When he presented his Bystander strategy it seemed obvious that it would fail and that its failure would be voluminous.  It is a daft idea, developed by people – MPs and their advisers – whose absence of political certainty and ideology is compounded by general witlessness.  Inert remnants of Blairism, they are dregs without vision and without any concept of what it means to be interested in politics and to be committed to a political perspective.

Starmer’s Labour cannot compete electorally with the Tories as a Tory-lite party because that discourages votes from non-conservatives.  It abhors socialism and, consequently, its focus is on eradicating socialism from itself.  It exists in a fantasy world where “the centre” has substance rather than in the real world where centrism is intangible. 

Starmer’s Labour tried to evoke Biden’s victory in USA as proof that voters can make a non-conservative decision in an election.  Biden’s success was helped considerably by left-of-centre activists who wanted to be rid of Trump; in Labour, similarly inclined activists were suspended, expelled and defamed.   

Labour is sticking to a single excuse for this week’s awful election results.  Its MPs and professional supporters are spouting the same line:

We have to recover from a very difficult position in 2019 [December general election].”

What they fail to add is

  • Between 2017 general election and 2019 general election the same characters’ primary objective was to undermine their party leader Jeremy Corbyn and the policies he proposed
  • This week’s results, as percentage loss of votes, are worse than 2019 general election
  • Since that election Tory recklessness toward Covid-19, direct effects of Brexit and rampant Tory corruption should have helped a competent useful opposition

There will be no improvement from Labour.  Starmer is not the only problem.  Many senior MPs, many councillors and some NEC members (whose passage to NEC was dubious) are as wilfully catatonic as he is.  Democracy within the party’s structure has been removed and/or ignored. 

The aim of Labour now is to sit as a placeholder in case the Tories collapse and, if that happens, to ensure that nothing changes if Labour are elected.  That aim is fruitless.  It is not, and never has been, how elections are won. 

Starmer’s Labour is not in opposition.  It is opposed ideologically to opposition.  Its philosophy is imbued with cowardice and stagnancy.  Starmer is happy with that stance.  

Keir Starmer dug forensically his political grave

Expensive private schools: Machines to maintain wealth concentration

Expensive British private schools are machines that build cogs and wheels to maintain the industry of wealth concentration.

The machines produce a variety of products for the wealth industry, each with a clearly defined role. 

I: Politicians

There needs to be a steady supply of conservative politicians (not just for the Conservative party) who must possess an abject lack of social responsibility and who are relentless in their promotion and enactment of policies that favour the wealthiest. 

Intelligence and knowledge hinder these politicians’ aims.  Skills they need include obfuscation, evasion, misdirection, venality and acute sociopathy.  The most important talent the politicians learn is complete lack of self-awareness.  They must have the ability to fail to be aware of effects of government policies, they must never think that they are to blame for anything, and lying should be interchangeable with stating facts with no preference for the latter.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, Eton College

High fees private schools have constructed sprockets with the above skills for several centuries. 

II: Political journalists and broadcasters

Contracted political journalists, and freelance political journalists who want regular income, are directed by media proprietors but their adherence to that direction would waver if they had not been prepared by the private education machine.

Political journalism and lobby journalism are pantomimes wherein journalists present themselves as if they challenge power but fail to do so.  Deft acting is a requisite skill: Mock interest in political criticism of conservatives; overblown ham-acted criticism of non-conservative politicians for imaginary reasons; excitable and voluminous commentary on distractions; prepared Q&A encounters with conservatives; amateurish exaggerated gesticulations, facial expressions, tone of voice and choice of adjectives.

Nick Robinson, Cheadle Hulme School

Absence of self-awareness is as important for conservative political journalists as it is for conservative politicians.  It is vital journalists stick to the program regardless of facts. 

But, they and their employers, particularly broadcasters, have legal, professional and ethical commitments to balance and impartiality, and they must pretend to comply with those obligations.  Acting skills are used by conservative journalists and reporters to convince viewers, listeners and readers that news, reports, debates and interviews are without bias and omission.  A good actor must immerse in a role, shamelessly.  Elite private schools focus on developing strong acting skills. 

III: Think-tankers

Conservative think-tanks work with governments and they direct government policy.  MPs and peers contribute to think-tanks; some think-tanks, (e.g. Centre For Policy Studies and Centre For Social Justice), were created by MPs.  Other contributors include business people and conservative writers and journalists. 

Alongside the above are professional think-tankers.  They are conservative activists who are too lazy to be an MP, and who are not disciplined enough to continually regurgitate the same simplified disinformation as a conservative journalist needs to. 

Think-tankers devise policy that suits wealth concentration and, more importantly, guide governments on how to con the public into believing such policies have different aims and objectives.  Working with conservative journalists and broadcasters, think-tankers promote both the policies and the false motivation for them.  They appear on TV and radio as spurious “independent” voices; broadcasters enable that deception.

They present their mendacity in greater volume than politicians or journalists and do so via faux academic papers, conferences and lectures.  Their performances are less repetitive and less restrained than that of journalists or politicians but need longer scripts and must have the appearance of didactic narrative.

Douglas Murray
Douglas Murray, Eton College

Think-tankers are fantasy novelists who recite their own work.  To elucidate at length a thoroughly constructed deception, written and spoken, requires honed arrogant confidence and disdain for logic, inspection and proof.   Private school machines know how to teach con artists’ confidence tricks, verbosity and social blindness. 

IV: Barristers

Law is a enormously lucrative source of income for conservative barristers representing wealthy individuals and businesses. 

British courts are used by disreputable people and cartels to impose their political preferences and financial desires on governments, councils, schools, trades’ unions, political parties and other public bodies.  Arrogant very wealthy exploiters indulge routinely in challenges to law and to how law is interpreted, particularly regarding tax demands, property and land ownership, health and safety regulations, and workers’ rights. 

Conservative barristers feed on court costs.  The wealth of their clients coupled with public funding of opponents in a case combine to provide a bottomless source of revenue.  Cases brought to court by enemies of democracy to protect their income and wealth generate seven-figure costs per case. 

Jonathan Sumption, Eton College

To pursue a case against a politician, journalist, public body or political activists, on behalf of “ultra high net worth” individuals or large international businesses, for an enormous fee via court costs, is possible only if there is detachment from morality and ethics.  The necessary perspective is indoctrinated into pupils at the most expensive private schools.

V: Royalty

The British royal family’s members are educated precisely from a very early age so they can assume their specific roles.  For them the key factor in their education is implant of baseless superiority. 

Successive royal generations attend the same schools to ensure correct standpoints are inculcated fully.

Prince Charles, Gordonstoun

Related blogs
Eton College
Boris Johnson: Etonian conman
Posh kids at the BBC
UK right-wing con-tanks

Expensive private schools: Machines to maintain wealth concentration

Very wealthy conservatives will not retire

Conservative bastards have enough money to retire.  For each, a lifetime of exploitation, of theft, of corruption, of accessory to murder and of arrogant, charmless, ugly contempt for humanity brought wealth that exceeds hugely all comfort requirements.  On a tax haven island or in the arsehole of Oxfordshire they could spend their time getting drunk, reading Tatler and brushing horses. 

Rupert Murdoch (90), Norman Tebbit (90), Andrew Neil (71), Frederick Barclay (86), Donald Trump (74), Charles Koch (85) and Maurice Saatchi (74) are among old conservative filth whose maleficent actions and words continue to destroy livelihoods and lives worldwide.    

If the less aged bastards consider themselves too young to retire they do not need to grab more wealth.  David Cameron, Ivanka Trump, Chris Odey, Grover Norquist, Duke Of Westminster, Jeff Bezos, Denise Coates, John Malone and all ultra-exploitation business people and many ex-politicians, the latter trousering decades of “donations” and “consultancy fees” for services rendered, do not want to step away from rampant exploitation, corruption and greed.

In the inverted philosophy of conservative bastardry it is a question of honour to never pause or cease.  Hatred is their deity.  Cruelty is their nectar.  Suffering is their adrenalin.  Their anti-souls would wither if they terminated their destruction because cessation would be a nod to the existence of other lives and they will not admit that anyone else deserves a life.  Their persistence is a psychosis, a disease, a manifestation of anti-humanity.  It is impossible for them to belay their atrocities; it would be out of character.

Leaving the world of destroyers is difficult.  It is tricky to extricate from intertwined business relationships, shared “ownership” of property and land and multi-layered, intersected leverage and indebtedness.  Favours are owed to associates.  Banks need constant income from “investments” and credit.  Protagonists distrust each other; if any stopped, however much apparent “wealth” they had, they would be viewed immediately as potential enemies and could be wiped out. 

The bastards’ key motivation to keep at it is that they enjoy it.  They are hooked on the addictive pleasure of winning, of beating others down and of celebrating success for themselves.  Emancipated hungry people, evictions, exhausted workers and badly beaten protesters are fixes for the addicts as are piles of dead bodies in deserts and drowned souls in the sea. 

Market gambling, currency gambling, buying and selling businesses carelessly, venture and vulture capitalism, and endless availability of credit are thrilling climaxes in the hedonistic orgy of free market racketeering.  Attendees at the orgy are never satiated.  They always want more highs and more ejaculations.  Risk and recklessness are domineering features of their strategy because it is never their livelihoods or wealth that are risked: If they win, they keep the rewards; if they lose, others pay.  They experience the ecstacy of gambling without the fear of losing. 

Power is a exhilarating drug for the bastards: Power to control and destroy lives, power to manipulate elected politicians, power to direct propaganda in the media.  They are pretend gods playing out fantasies learnt at expensive private schools.  The power they were educated to gorge upon is so intoxicating that all human sensibilities are stifled to the point at which the bastards fail to remember they are part of the same species as those whose lives they crush.

Deaths of individual bastards change little.  Recent departures of, for example, David Barclay and David Koch caused a few ripples of uncertainty but did not disrupt the machine of exploitation.  New recruits emerge regularly, fully formed and ready to go.  Networks of facilitating high fees schools, most notably Eton College, and selected university departments funded by existing bastards, including at Harvard, LSE and UCL, create members of various branches required to enact and/or support the system of concentration of wealth.

Conservative bastardry will not cease.  It perpetuates itself and cannot be regulated.  Its elements cannot be reasoned with and they are incapable of being reformed.  Like any disease, worldwide vaccination is needed alongside destruction of the sources, followed by constant vigilance to ensure there will be no re-emergence.

Very wealthy conservatives will not retire

Good mourning

The death of British head of state’s ninety-nine year old spouse was not a shock given his age and poor health. 

A reasonable media response would have been reports on TV, radio and in newspapers, a TV programme or two on his long life, followed later by TV and radio coverage of his funeral.  What the public were subjected to was the above multiplied a hundred-fold in volume and in tone with absence of substance and of balance.

On the day of the announcement of the royal death repeated reports and reaction were reasonable on Sky News and BBC News channels.  A few extended news reports may have been acceptable on ITV1 but not cancellation of all programming for hours; ITV1 is not a ‘news channel.’ 

BBC went further than ridiculous volume: It cancelled the entirety of its programming on TV and radio.  BBC1 and BBC2 were replaced by exactly the same output as BBC News, BBC4 was suspended, and all music radio stations were replaced by news channels that focussed on looped reports, faux documentaries and banal commentary.

Endless ultra-lightweight tone of presentation on TV, riddled with bizarre claims about the dead royal as if he was almost a superhuman or a deity, sought to induce catatonia in the intellect of the public.  Broadcasters decided to treat viewers and listeners like three-year-olds; the latter receive more highly-developed cerebral challenge from Pengu and Teletubbies.

The broadcasters’ tone enforced an assumption that all viewers and listeners were in a stupor of grief mixed eclectically with giddiness.  It did not match the identity of the deceased who was someone born into undeserved privilege, who lived within privilege and who never said or did anything not banal.  The was a huge chasm between how he was depicted and what he actually was.  Presenters, reporters and guests appeared to have removed the parts of their brains that operated normal adult analyses, communication and reason.

Propaganda, PR and marketing are designed to (mis)direct, distract, obfuscate and to fool their targets.  Governments and their supportive bodies use those tools relentlessly without pause.  The royal’s death gave broadcasters and newspapers a spurious opportunity to eschew any pretence of offering balance and totality of information and to focus maniacally on the severely blinkered sell. 

The dead royal was known for “casual” racism.  Rather than remind the public of his racist comments there was constant use in the media of the word “gaffe” accompanied by laughter.

BBC presenter laughs at anecdote of royal racism

Normalisation of racism was endemic on the day of his death.

One of the dictionary definitions of ‘cult’ is

Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

There is no such cult in Britain devoted to the royal family but government, other politicians and media behaved as if everyone in the country was a member of such a cult.  Every component of coverage of the royal deceased was constricted by assumption of unanimous veneration.  Imposed ultra-childlike wonder infected exhaustively every conversation.  It was extremely weird.


Stream of piss before the deluge
Suffocating weirdness of politicians’ and commentators’ eulogies of the deceased royal were a mere stream of piss compared to the torrential deluge that will rage when his wife passes on.  The thought of that is horrifying: A concoction of Orwell’s ‘1984,’ Cronenberg’s ‘Shivers,’ Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ and Butlins.

The establishment response to a dead royal was a massive malodorous dump in the faces of the British people and on democracy.  Reason, intelligence and adulthood were rejected and suppressed.  Contempt for the public gushed everywhere.

Good mourning

Inspectorate Of Constabulary: Matt Parr

A quick investigation by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate Of Constabulary (HMIC) into police behaviour toward people attending a vigil on Clapham Common for Sarah Everard who was murdered (allegedly by a police officer), in which only police officers were interviewed for evidence – no protesters, no eye-witnesses, no legal observers and no independent media were spoken to, reached a verdict today (30th March 2021) that wholly absolved police officers of wrongdoing.

The HMIC investigation was led by Matt Parr, a Companion of Order of the Bath.  His PR comments sent to and parrotted by compliant media outlets presented a false description of his investigation’s depth – “after reviewing a huge body of evidence” – and took time to deride video evidence of police illegality that had been posted on social media platforms – “rather than a snapshot on social media.”  He called accurate analysis of the police actions “unwarranted condemnation” and partook of a well-worn trick of saying criticism of police “undermined public confidence in policing” rather than bad policing undermining such confidence.  He was upset that negative comments about policing displayed “a lack of respect for public servants.” [1]

Parr concocted a whitewash investigation publicised with snark, petulance and dishonesty. 

He has form.  In 2018, two years after being appointed Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, he began proceedings with the Employment Tribunal because his salary at HMIC was less than one of his predecessors, Wendy Williams.  Parr claimed that he was the victim of race and sex discrimination.  Two years later he sued Home Secretary Priti Patel on the same issue.

Matt Parr (left) and Wendy Williams

Parr’s discrimination claim was straight from the far-right playbook of turning logic on its head and mocking attempts to tackle sexism and racism.  He revealed who he is.

The report Parr produced for HMIC was intentionally contemptuous.

[1] Parr used the phrase “public servants” to describe police officers but Gloucestershire Police Federation Chair Steve James, in response to criticism of police behaviour at a protest in Bristol a few days ago, said “technically we’re crown servants not public servants.”

HMIC statementHMIC

Related blogPolice federations and politics

Inspectorate Of Constabulary: Matt Parr

Independence for The North: Alternative to revolution

Manacled to the city, manacled to the city
Those big big big wide streets
Those useless MPs
Those useless MPs
Hit the North

Mark E. Smith

Whenever a Tory government abuses the north of England, which is whenever a Tory government exists, support for separation from Westminster increases.  That is a reactive response to iniquities imposed on people in the north by the Tories and is an understandable and intelligent response.  

It is possible for a left-leaning party to be elected in UK general election but even a government with genuine intent to make radical changes would be hampered severely by constitutional structure (House of Lords, royalty, parliamentary procedure, etc.), by ingrained opposition in judiciary, by historical “ownership” of property and land, by mayhem of the stock exchange, by allegiance of police and armed forces to the head of state (or the “crown“), by GCHQ, by MI5, and by layered webs of financial and physical control that persist as malodorous residue of Britain’s long power-broker history of corruption, theft, violence and old school ties.

Necessary changes to law to rid the public of all “checks and balances” listed above, also known as legacy obstacles [1], would be absurdly time-consuming and would be challenged continuously via a court system peopled by opponents to the changes and those challenges would be funded without limit by extremely wealthy corporations and institutions determined to stop their gravy trains being derailed.

One option to create a quicker and more effective adjustment is revolution but generating sufficient popular support is highly unlikely in the current epoch and there would be little international support.  The absence of the latter would allow senior military personnel to direct resistance with impunity.

Independence could achieve similar objectives to revolution.  It could enable a break from all legacy obstacles immediately.  Potential opposition to removal of obstacles could be significantly reduced in capability via simple constitutional directions within a declaration of independence.  Any necessary or desired partial replacements could be constructed so that they serve the public rather than wealthy detached elite.

There would be some international support for independence.  Popular support in the north for independence would be greater than support for a nationwide revolution.  Independence is a path to revolutionary change that avoids some of the difficulties of a revolution.

Support independence for the north to rid ourselves of centuries-old embedded undemocratic power.

[1] legacy obstacles n. Features of the structure of a system of government that hamper revolutionary change

Independence for The North: Alternative to revolution