Labour’s 2022 party conference began today (25th September). The first group act was a rendition of ‘God Save The King’ in front of a large backdrop featuring a photograph of recently deceased queen. In the conference hall there was near universal adherence to the order to sing the UK national anthem and to stand throughout its performance.
That act, a very rare event in the history of Labour Party conferences, was the epilogue of the party. It signalled the end of its existence as political representation opposite to conservatism. It reaffirmed the party’s intent to be an alternative conservative party, to be alternative representatives in parliament for establishment, for the corporate machine, for the wealthy, for the elite.
Royalty is incompatible with societal advancement. It acts as a reminder of knowing your place; it demands division between rulers and ruled. Politically and financially, it obstructs equality and enables exploitation. Keir Hardie understood the obstructive role of the monarchy:
“Despotism and monarchy are compatible; democracy and monarchy are an unthinkable connection. If we are for the queen we are not for her subjects. The throne represents the power of caste – class rule. In this country loyalty to the queen is used by the profit-mongers to blind the eyes of the people. We can have but one feeling in the matter – contempt for thrones and for all who bolster them up.”
To reach its current state the Labour Party systematically, with no regard to rules or justice, erased socialists from its ranks including its former leader, elected NEC members, elected councillors and members. Lies, intimidation and legal threats were exercised to force people out. Thousand of members chose to leave having realised that the party no longer acts as opposition to conservatism.
Large financial donations to Labour from disreputable wealthy individuals and from corporate entities come attached with directions that the party is eager to follow.
Labour has no alternative to conservative support for capitalist exploitation and does not pretend that it does. Its meek complaints and suggestions of different policies in response to Tory government’s extreme libertarianism are complaints and suggestions that quibble over minor points of financial probity. It has no intent to overturn Tories’ constructed cost of living crisis (particularly for food and for electricity and gas). Labour’s ideas to help people with exponentially rising bills are as useless and as dishonest as those from previous and current Chancellors Rishi Sunak and Kwasi Kwarteng.
Persistent conservative ideological positions on public services, NHS, welfare provision, workers’ rights, access to justice, right to protest, etc., all of which are being destroyed by rampant libertarianism forged in grotesque think-tanks like Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Centre For Policy Studies and Institute Of Economic Affairs, are not opposed by Labour; they are supported.
Labour Party is the new Conservative Party. It is the Conservative Party if Theresa May or David Cameron was still the leader. It is entirely consistent that some Tory MPs are considering a switch to Labour.
Labour’s conference this week is of no importance. Hollow speeches adorned with platitudes and declarations of being more “grown-up” than Tories, of being more “responsible.” In other words, of being more conservative.
Electoral democracy in UK is dead. We need something else.
Today, 23rd September 2022, Etonian Kwasi Kwarteng announced some changes to tax and national insurance to benefit highest earners. Added to earlier comments by him on removal of caps on executive bonuses and Tory government’s decision to hand billions of pounds to fuel supply industry, there is clarity about the aim of fleecing everybody to ensure greater wealth concentration.
Some observers responded with two, supposedly negative for the Tories, points: 1) UK’s economy will be damaged, internationally and long-term, including a severe drop in the international value of the pound relative to other currencies, and 2) the attack on living standards will lose the next general election for the Tories. Both points are accurate assessments but Tory government does not care about consequences of its actions.
Disaster capitalists, gamblers, ransack-and-run racketeers are the drivers of government policy via their highly-paid enablers in a series of extremist think-tanks and lobby groups whose members are in government and in advisory positions to ministers, and those racketeers are beneficiaries of chaos, breakdown and destruction. Enormous sums of money can be extracted from the public very quickly and very easily if there exists a criminally-minded government that has no intention to govern and, crucially, that couldn’t care less about its own future. Pandemic-related payments in the Covid contracts scandal and recent billions handed to fuel suppliers are examples of how swiftly and effectively the transfer of wealth from the public to thieves can be attained.
Rapid and huge wealth concentration is the only reason the current Tory government exists. It has no other purpose. It has not thought at all about wreckage left behind from its rampage. A falling value of the pound is just an opportunity for gamblers to make money by either selling the pound or by betting on its demise. There are no frets about usual concerns of capitalists governments – deficit, government debt, interest rates, inflation – because the plan is not a long-term strategy, not economically and not politically.
Losing the next general election (to a very conservative Labour party) does not perturb Tories. Take the money and scarper is a philosophy that doesn’t need a residual presence in government.
The process of destruction in UK was planned for decades. All of the key protagonists in the Tory government worked toward it for many years. They knew their aims, or were taught them by think-tanks and lobby groups (accompanied by generous donations), they developed their policies, often expressed in books (e.g. Britain Unchained), papers and speeches, they helped to formulate and enact the plan (Brexit) for the foundations needed to exercise their policies and, now, they execute their attack.
Tory government does not care about consequences of its actions. It is happy with pseudo opponents braying about the value of the pound or about government borrowing because it keeps those supposed opponents busy. Tory government doesn’t give a damn about expert analyses that show how the richest benefit and the poorest suffer the most from its decisions because the government doesn’t care about the next general election.
This is not just another conservative government. It is not just another capitalist government, It is not just another free-racketeering government. This is not a government. It is not an administration. It is employees of an international crime syndicate. It is a mob of thieves. It is the embodiment of sociopathy.
Yesterday, 19th September 2022, British monarch Elizabeth II was buried, eventually. Preceding her burial was a grotesque demonstration of elitism, militarism, power, privilege and wealth. It was a sickening festival of everything that stinks about the political and economic structure of the UK.
Elitism strutted unashamedly via closure of roads and pedestrian access to the public in the district around the funeral’s location and absence of working people present at any part of the show. Nothing in the performance referenced the people of Britain or the Commonwealth.
Militarism dominated the agenda. There were hoardes of soldiers marching, standing to attention, carrying the coffin and standing guard and many militarised police officers. A connection was displayed between royalty and conquest, with echoes from many previous centuries of bloody wars. (The pall bearers were recently stationed in Iraq. Iraq is not at war, with or against UK. Is their role in Iraq to protect oil companies’ racketeering?)
The funeral was an orgy of power and control. By diktat and by coercion, nothing was allowed to be available to the public other than the funeral. Almost all UK TV and radio channels showed hours and hours of exactly the same footage with nauseating voiceovers and commentary. All entertainment and sports venues, many shops and most public buildings were closed. Cancelled events included other funerals, vital hospital appointments and academic or vocational examinations. Some public spaces were taken over by screens showing the funeral. The intent was to force people to watch and consume the spectacle, but, simultaneously, to be excluded.
Privilege was layered. Elected politicians were put in their place by anonymous jobsworths; there were so many royal lackeys, attired in a variety of bizarre outfits, prancing about stiff-backed and vacant, performing a series of silly acts, mannerisms and gesticulations. Among “royal” guests were deceptively named “non-reigning” royals. These characters are ex-royals or descendants of ex-royals who had been kicked out of their countries by the citizens who chose democracy instead but UK royal family, as an insult to the people in those countries, continues to assign the fake fraudulent “royals” the privilege that had been wrested from them.
Wealth oozed like pus from an infected wound. Gold, diamonds and other precious stones, mostly pilfered from all over the world during the brutal history of the British Empire, adorned crowns, jewelry and carriages. No expense was spared, from vehicles to ostentatious uniforms and even the coffin. Police and military were drafted in from all over the UK. Of course, the public are footing the bill. It was an exhibition of wealth that was entirely at odds with the current state of the cost of living in UK which will be exacerbated by the cost of this circus.
The queen’s funeral and its pathetic coverage were a kick in the teeth of the public followed by a face full of diarrhea.
A definition of drama is “emotional effect characteristic of a play [in a theatre].” That is, an action or speech that is prepared in advance to create an emotional response.
Dramatic responses to the death of the British monarch were expected and were planned to be so. Some drama is written into official protocol as an anachronism from an earlier epoch and is adorned with archaic phraseology and pompous nomenclature. Absurdly-titled and bizarrely-attired characters read garbled texts beneath impractical headgear.
An audience at the theatre will be drawn in and immerse themselves in a well-written play infused with surrealism and set in a scenario wherein basic rules and norms of logic and reason are eschewed. The members of the audience suspend their usual adherence to directing their criticism to be led by intelligence; they accept boundaries, limitations and blinkers of the story’s rules and they are not perturbed by flights of fanciful imagination. For many theatre-goers, film buffs and avid readers of novels, the otherness of the world presented to them is the main attraction.
The writer creates drama within the context of the world she or he built. There are strong echoes in such drama of emotional responses that exist in the real world. Superimposing real natural emotions on a surreal context helps to draw the audience into the false world.
Comments from professional politicians, analysis from professional journalists and reports from professional broadcasters are not supposed to be located in a fantasy world. They should not express themselves subject to concocted rules and warped logic of a surrealist’s imagination. The political opinions and observations they impart, or the news they convey, is not part of a playwright’s, novelist’s or poet’s world. Drama in their reports is an intrusion.
As soon as the queen died a disease of the brain travelled instantaneously through the commentariat community infecting all newspaper journalists, TV and radio broadcasters, freelance columnists and online news outlets. It spread beyond newsrooms to entertainment and sport journalists and broadcasters. It trapped them in a surrealist play, beholden cognitively to unseen writers and directors and unable to diverge from a set path. Stringent bindings prevent them from even the merest divergence.
Symptoms are the same for each infected victim.
Erasure of analytical abilities
Suppression of knowledge
Extreme aversion to objectivity
Unthinking repetition of subservient mantras
Preponderance of tautological phrases full of gibberish and unctuousness
Nauseous cod-reverential tone
Bad poetical flavour to banal prose
The disease resembles the effects of ophiocordyceps on ants but acts much more quickly.
A few examples (click the name for the source):
Journalists and broadcasters Ben Okri (Guardian, 10th September): “People lose their faith and their beliefs daily. This perhaps makes us porous. And into that inner porousness, that vacuum between two periods, a transition from an old world to a new world, the figure of Queen Elizabeth was just what was needed.” Okri erased the capabilities and fortitude of people in the years just after WWII and ascribed both personal and societal advancements as a consequence of one person’s existence. Factually, historically and morally his hypothesis is garbage. Okri’s article is one of the worst ever in The Guardian’s 201 years of publication. Don’t eat before reading it.
Andrew Rawnsley (Guardian, 11th September): “The virtues most widely associated with her – duty, service, constancy, self-restraint and modesty – were the more prized as they became increasingly rare in so many other areas of public life.” In his article Rawnsley elucidated enthusiastically the con of the monarch being above politicking and presented her reign in false contrast to some disreputable behaviour by politicians.
Sky News’ Beth Rigby (Social media (twitter), various dates): “An address so carefully prepared, so carefully written, so carefully delivered,” she commented on King Charles’ first spoken public statement after the queen’s death. Rigby’s penchant for flattery toward dull empty speeches extended to politicians’ obsequious comments on the queen or king: “Starmer’s statesmanlike speech. An incredibly moving, eloquent & evocative speech from Sir Keir Starmer” and “Theresa May also meeting the moment.” Starmer and May had nothing to say but invented descriptions of an illusion. Rigby on Etonian criminal Boris Johnson: “And this is lovely, Johnson describes her as “Elizabeth the Great”.” Her daft observations are incompatible with how an adult operates.
ITV’s Robert Peston (Social media (twitter), various dates): “The proclamation and meeting of accession council was stirring, as a symbol of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.” That nonsensical statement referred to an absurd relic of antiquity that is fully at odds with democracy. The accession council is a gang of unelected detached courtiers. Juxtaposition of it with democracy belongs in a tale by Lewis Carroll. Peston was amazed by handshakes: “Amazing to see King Charles shaking everyone’s hand outside Buckingham Palace. Moving. Unifying.” Who is being unified with whom?
BBC’s Nick Robinson (Social media (twitter), various dates): “The Queen is dead. Long live the King. We remember a life of duty, dedication & service.” That exclamation was not an introduction to an article or TV clip; it was a standalone snatch of propaganda infused with bizarre deference to non-existent qualities.
Evening Standard’s Ayesha Hazarika (Social media (twitter), various dates): “Excellent speech from Charles. Thought he looked comfortable and ready for this moment through his grief. An inclusive message about modern Britain. Classy confident start” was her fanciful assessment of the new king’s bland dishonest speech. Starmer’s speech received similar absurd praise: “This is one of Starmer’s best moments. Beautiful, poignant words. He genuinely rose to the occasion.” On ITV news Hazarika said “I think she’s [the queen] a real feminist icon.”
A cold observer reading comments such as those quoted above would assume the writers’ and speakers’ minds are captured in a manipulative playwright’s dystopia. They are zombiefied thespians.
Libertarians’ commentary on royal death and accession is predictably ridiculous and entirely consistent with their fascistic political philosophy. One far-right grifter is quoted here; there is no need to list examples from others whose tone and content is unvaried and unremittingly stupid. Goodwin is quoted because aforementioned Hazarika choose to promote (retweet) supportively one of his comments.
Free Speech Union and Chatham House’s Matt Goodwin (Social media (twitter), various dates): “There have been some magnificent tributes today –from the right, the left, the centre. And therein lies the power of constitutional monarchy — its incomparable ability to rally us all around the myths & memories of the nation, the full splendour of our collective inheritance.” Goodwin’s Overton Window is skewed considerably from truth; when he calls a political opinion “the centre” he means not quite as far-right as he is and his “the left” means centre-right. He roused dangerous nationalism: “The Queen embodied the values that have come to define these islands and our people. A sense of duty, dignity, humility, gratitude, faith, and belief in the nation. We feel such loss because Her Majesty was us.” (Fact check: Queen’s first language was German.)
Politicians were infected as immediately as journalists and broadcasters, with similar symptoms and similar imprisonment in a surreal drama.
Lead actors in the surrealist’s play, they delivered their words with relentless hammery. Shame and self-awareness were absent; intelligence and facts were banished.
Current Labour leader Keir Starmer in a speech in parliament on 9th September: “The attributes that defined her reign: her total commitment to service and duty, and her deep devotion to the country, the Commonwealth and the people she loved. In return for that, we loved her.” His words were so divorced from reality and so distant from democracy. Starmer seemed under the control of an invasive organism: “Our Queen was at the heart of this nation’s life. She did not simply reign over us; she lived alongside us.” He exclaimed untruths: “Covid closed the front doors of every home in the country. It made our lives smaller and more remote, but she was able to reach beyond that, to reassure us and to steel us. At the time we were most alone, at a time when we had been driven apart, she held the nation close in a way no one else could have done. For that, we say “Thank you”.” The monarch did nothing of the sort. Further invention by Starmer was a political comment that “we” should look at what we agree on: “We must always remember one of the great lessons of our Queen’s reign: that we are always better when we rise above the petty, the trivial and the day-to-day to focus on the things that really matter—the things that unite us—rather than those which divide us.” He and the Tories are almost “united” and both are committed to supporting the wealthy few (including royals) over the majority of people. His speech was the worst ever by a Labour leader on any issue.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi in a statement published on 8th September: “Her Majesty was – and always will be – a beacon of light in every corner of the globe.” Throughout her reign the UK occupied and brutalised countries “in every corner of the globe.” Former colonies of British Empire are removing the British monarch as head of state. Reaction in some countries, most notably Kenya, has not been one of disappointment at her death. Zahawi is a liar.
Tory MP Grant Shapps (a.k.a. Michael Green and Sebastian Fox) in a statement published on 9th September: “Her love of this nation was inspiration.” The extent of the queen’s “love of this nation” can be measured by the millions of pounds she stashed in offshore (tax-avoiding) accounts; it can be measured by income from “crown” estates; it can be measured by a deal she struck with corrupt Tories to dodge inheritance tax.
Current Prime Minister Liz Truss in a statement read outside 10 Downing Street on 8th September: “Our country has grown and flourished under her reign. Britain is the great country it is today because of her.” Any positive developments in UK since 1952 are not due to the monarch. Truss and the Tory government are actively destroying anything that is useful in UK. “Queen Elizabeth II provided us with the stability and the strength that we needed. She was the very spirit of Great Britain,” was another nonsense statement that displayed definite proof of contagion.
Current leader of Liberal Democrats Ed Davey in a social media (twitter) message on 8th September: “The Queen represented duty and courage, warmth and compassion.” It is difficult to believe that an adult could write the words quoted. They might make sense if spoken by Brian Cant to an audience of two-tear-olds.
Political support for monarchy is expected from most politicians in UK because most support a system that needs the existence of royalty as a demonstration of unmerited superiority. It acts as a dampener on the public to resist the temptation to seek a better system and a better society. Almost all UK politicians act in favour of wealth concentration. They fear if royalty is removed then what or who is next? A domino effect could lead to collapse of the whole of the exploitative system and wealth would be spread around.
Keenness to support continuation of monarchy is expressed via bizarre exultations of its alleged importance and benefits because any sensible argument for the same objective does not exist. It is impossible within bounds of logic and reason and via adult conversation to justify royalty. So, defenders of the system can communicate only in a constricted space that resembles the creation of fantasist writer and makes them appear riven with a mind-controlling disorder.
It is not clear when this will stop. The queen’s funeral is not the end; a coronation of the king will follow later this year.
Institutions and administrative bodies including broadcasters (particularly BBC), sports, theatres and other entertainment venues chose to postpone or cancel events scheduled soon after the death of the queen, and more on the day of her funeral (19th September). Their decisions were accompanied by a shared phrase as faux justification: “As a mark of respect to the queen.” They imposed the act of mourning upon people.
Imposition of how people should react or respond (or not) to the death of a monarch is not compatible with functioning democracy or with basic liberty and freedom. There are no laws that demand people mourn but, via administration of facets of normal life, the obligation to do so is enforced.
Cancellations were imposed on the public after administrative bodies had “consultations” with the government via Department For Digital, Culture, Media And Sport. Political censorship executed remotely.
Denial of fun in public during a period of enforced mourning is authoritarian suppression. It is the other butt cheek to “celebration” of the queen’s seventy-year jubilee earlier this year. The suppression acts upon an individual – denying access to enjoyment – but its main objective is suppression of the visibility of fun. Cheering football fans on a live Premier League match on TV (all professional football suspended in UK on weekend after queen’s death and some matches the following weekend), or live audience laughter at a comedy show on radio (new comedy broadcasts postponed at BBC) lessens effectiveness of the inculcated mantra of “a nation in mourning” as do people having a fun day out at an concert (last night of the proms cancelled) or a festival (Hackney Council cancelled Hackney Carnival). People mustn’t be seen to be having fun or be seen to be indifferent to the queen’s death.
Alongside the invisibility of fun and of indifference there are blatant political cancellations (suspension of petitions on government website; a current petition relates to payments for people with disabilities) and bizarre cancellations (Meteorological Office limited its weather reports). The latter example is typical of cult-like deference that infests establishment public communications post monarch-death wherein normal adult cognizance is abandoned in favour of squashed childlike behaviour as if a disease of the brain caused erasure of intellect, logic and reason.
There were cancellations that stemmed from a lack of political nous or courage. Communication Workers Union and Railway And Maritime Union cancelled strikes due to take place in the week after the monarch’s death, and environmental activist organisation Extinction Rebellion cancelled a conference. These cancellations were poor decisions that revealed political naivety. Employers are not cancelling their plans that led to the strikes and alternative days for strikes cannot be set due to highly restrictive anti-worker laws set by Tories. Climate destroyers are not cancelling their activities.
Reality in UK is that most people are unaffected by the queen’s demise. The cancellation of visible normal enjoyment is suppression of that reality. “A nation in mourning” is a created perception as a tool to entrench the political philosophy of entitlement and unmerited betterment. It is also an extremely anti-intellect strategy.
It should be possible to avoid the continuous fantasy of imposed collective mourning for a death of a queen and celebration of a new king but cancellations extend beyond removal of visible fun. On the day of the funeral (19th September) food banks are closed, hospital appointments are postponed and even other funerals are delayed.
We are extras in a play for which we didn’t audition, written by a surrealist, and we are surrounded by proclamations from politicians, broadcasters and other platformed voices riddled with a brain disease, but we are not allowed any fun.
Right now, fun and enjoyment are revolutionary acts.
The death of British monarch Queen Elizabeth II was announced today (8th September 2022).
Her eldest son Charles becomes king immediately. There is no vote in parliament by elected MPs to confirm his promotion. There is no parliamentary debate. Westminster MPs “swear allegiance” to the new monarch as do members of Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly.
A new head of state takes office without even a thumbs up as confirmation; there will be bows of the head.
Procedure in UK from one head of state to the next is not dissimilar to procedure in North Korea.
Democracy is absent.
The British royal family is not a benign ceremonial collection of celebs existing as a relic of an antiquated epoch. It is not a funny tourist attraction in silly hats. It is a fleecing machine that gorges on wealth generated by hard work of British people and of people in former British empire.
Directly via taxes and from rent from land “ownership” and indirectly via a network of offshore investment scams utilising the most despicable facets of exploitative capitalism, the royal family rakes in it at the public’s expense.
Their ancestors acquired land via pillage, theft, corruption and murder, and acquired their royalty via the same means. What exist today are descendants of thugs and recipients of proceeds of organised crime.
Ridding ourselves of royalty is a step toward removal of both a system and a perception thereof that perpetuates elevation, financially and legally, of people and institutions above us. They are elevated to positions that are generally (or perceived to be) unattainable for most people and their responsibilities to society are less obligatory than ours.
Among the falsely elevated are royals, politicians, senior armed forces personnel, senior police officers and police commissioners, bankers, brokers, wealthy business owners and judges, and institutions like Bank Of England, Stock Exchange, GCHQ and Supreme Court.
Most of those who we are supposed to admire and to trust and whose instructions we are supposed to follow achieved their loftiness via wealth begetting wealth, or via exploitation begetting wealth, or via the right alma meter, or via mutual back-scratching promotions, or via obedient bag-carrying and saying the right thing to the right people at the right time.
Elevated coteries of swindlers, thieves, fraudsters, lickspittles and liars occupy the houses of parliament, royal palaces, Bank Of England, Board Of Trade, government quangos and commissions, court benches, BBC governance and management, CBI, and senior posts in civil service, armed forces, police and intelligence services.
The key difference between false elevation and deserved elevation is that recipients of the former lack merit. Britain is the antithesis of a meritocracy.
What should happen to the British monarchy?
Weak methods of proposed change include
α) A vote in each parliament or assembly to confirm (or not) continuation of a monarch as head of state β) A public vote – a plebiscite – to accept or deny continuation of a monarch as head of state γ) Reduction in the constitutional influence of the monarchy alongside reduction in royal wealth
The first would not succeed because most MPs, MSPs and assembly members are not supportive of advances in democracy and many are fearful of doing anything radical or forward-thinking. They know how important the existence of royalty is in maintaining elite control; their reasoning is “if royals fall, what’s next to go?”
The second suggestion would fail due to politicians, media, think-tanks and professional influencers ensuring that campaigning on a referendum on continuation of the monarchy becomes an absurd “culturewar” about “patriotism” and Britishness that descends rapidly into binary clipped slogans, abuse and division. Any attempt at meaningful presentation of reasoned arguments would be overwhelmed.
The third option is weak because royalty’s direct political influence is small and further reductions there would make little difference. The problem of royal wealth is a problem of wealth concentration and is part of a general problem. Constitutional and wealth reductions would not diminish usefulness of royalty as a false depiction of elite superiority and as a hook on which to attach simplistic pseudo-patriotism. Recovery of stolen wealth should occur as part of abolition of the monarchy, not instead of.
End of the monarchy: How to prepare for it and what needs to be done
There is no point appealing to existing political parties to end the monarchy. Tories know royalty suits their constant need for distraction via the basest form of patriotism, and most Liberal Democrats and Labour are similarly bound. SNP, despite its aim for independence, has not declared its intent for a specifically republican independent Scotland; pragmatism is SNP’s informant on royalty. Green Party is a republican party but it is so obtusely wedded to adherence to legacy rules that it lacks the tools to make necessary changes.
What needs to happen is creation of a political party with abolition of the monarchy as a clear, unambiguous, non-nuanced intention in its ideology and in its manifesto and that has, when in power, the confidence, courage and persistence to act decisively without delay. It must place royal dissolution within context of destruction of all unearned elevation and within context of annulment of all false ownership of wealth.
The process of ending the monarchy must include the following
Terminate the position of head of state
Erase all laws that discriminate in favour of royalty including Treason Felony Act 1848
Cancel existing sentences applied for breach of any of the above laws and erase all convictions
Relabel crown land as public land
Convert royal residences and contents therein to public museums
Erase royal words (including the word ‘royal’) and insignia from police and armed forces uniforms, regiment names, and publicly owned vehicles, ships and buildings
Drop oaths of allegiance to the crown in parliaments, police, armed forces and elsewhere
Change national anthem
Assign royals’ ownership of land, shares and businesses in UK to public ownership
Assign royals’ ownership of land in, and shares and businesses registered in, British tax havens to public ownership
Assign royals’ ownership of land, shares and businesses in commonwealth countries to the people of each country
Assign royals’ ownership of land, shares and businesses in non-commonwealth countries to public ownership
Move royals’ savings, investments and gold to Treasury
Apply a tax (additional to income tax, VAT and corporation tax) to royals on future income attained due to their royal background including, but not restricted to, income from book deals, podcasts, TV and personal appearances, image rights, think-tank appointments and consultancy posts at businesses and charities
Return stolen property (jewels, diamonds, artwork, etc.) to the people of the countries from which it was taken
Return governors’ residences in countries that had a UK royal head of state to public ownership in those countries
Derecognise royal heads of state in other countries
Cancel knighthoods, damehoods and peerages awarded by royals
Remove royals from all publicly funded bodies, including Privy Council
Bar royals from candidature for elected representatives in UK parliaments, assemblies, councils and equivalent
Bar royals from employment in police forces, armed forces, military intelligence services and public services
Bar royals from administrative, teaching or governance roles in education
Bar royals from employment in banking and financial services, and at stock exchange and CBI
Bar royals from employment as judges, magistrates, barristers or lawyers
Bar royals from ownership or directorship of companies
Bar royals from ownership of land
Bar royals from ownership of property except for one home
Bar royals from employment or governance at BBC
The list of necessary actions above is not exhaustive of all that must be done. Any reluctance to act should be dismissed. There should be quick, effective and unrecoverable actions accompanied by clear, confident expositions.
The succession of Charles to the throne is neither here nor there for committed opponents of royalty. However, it is an opportunity to promote forcefully its termination.
Royalty is a con. It’s fraud. It’s a comfort blanket for the stupid. It is an impediment to progress. It needs to go.
How far down in a cesspit must British politics reside that in September (2022) one of Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak will be UK’s prime minister?
(Update, 5th September 2022: Liz Truss won the Tory leadership contest.)
Media and “opposition” politicians spout dead cattery about the contenders’ ineptitude, ignorance, dishonesty and hypocrisy. Those observations are accurate but they aid distraction from how far to the right they are, economically and in terms of freedoms and liberty.
Boris Johnson’s job was to enable a reckless Brexit. With that attained, he became a liability due to very visible ugliness of his morality and due to his inability to play the part of a responsible leader. The aspects of his personality that suited unthinking rabble-rousing for Brexit were problematic when occasions arose that required him to pretend to be an adult that cared about consequences, rules, laws and public image. He was jettisoned, as planned. Johnson suited attainment of Brexit but the destructive consequences of Brexit need a much more focussed, directable and extremely sociopathic bastard to lead the way. It matters not which of the two contenders wins the Tory party leadership contest.
The deciders are Tory party members who are in two overlapping categories: 1) Wealthy, selfish, divorced from reality, and 2) travellers from UKIP/Reform UK/EDL/BNP. In their campaigning both candidates make appeals to the two categories with greater emphasis on the second. The extent of how far they are willing to go to get votes was demonstrated when Sunak made a joke at the expense of the colour of his own skin in a speech to party members.
The real audience members for their declarations of policy intent and their general rhetoric during the leadership campaign are future beneficiaries of Tory libertarian extremism. Sunak and Truss are speaking to their handlers at think-tanks and to the donors of the think-tanks; they are speaking to the very wealthy, to huge corporations, to owners of swathes of land and multitudinous businesses; they are speaking to those to whom they intend to gift what remains of Britain.
Candidates’ statements at hustings, debates and interviews are a cacophony of far-right bigotry and othering, attacks on liberty, free speech, right to protest and access to justice, commitments to redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest, anti-trades’ union policy intent, bonfire of regulations that protect rights, health and safety, food safety, financial propriety and democracy, denial of climate change causes coupled with support for fossil fuel industry, and relentless lies and misrepresentation.
Every word they say is directly from the rancid bowels of extremist libertarian think-tanks, in the UK: Tax-Payers’ Alliance, Centre For Policy Studies, Legatum Institute, Bruges Group, Institute Of Economic Affairs, Centre For Social Justice, etc., and in USA: Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Atlas network, etc. Everything proposed, promoted and directed by these think-tanks is geared precisely to enable further concentration of wealth and control, to make ownership (land, property, public services) more and more exclusive and to destroy democratic accountability, liberty and access to justice.
Whoever wins, the ultimate intent of the Tory government is to destroy the UK by reducing it to charter territories wherein administration (creation, imposition and judgement of law; ownership of land and property; management of public services; setting of taxes, wages and rents) is controlled by “owners” of the territories, gifted their “ownership” by the government. Via mendacious nomenclature – “free ports,” “enterprise zones,” etc. – and via constructed misrepresentation – elucidated by, for example, charter territories protagonist Shanker Singham (see note below) – the government presents the territories positively (in an economic sense) but the reality is they are the end of what remains of a democratic system in UK.
Sunak and Truss have not suddenly been given the task of enabling charter territories; both have years of involvement as have most (if not all) of their likely cabinet colleagues.
Their statements of policy intent during the leadership campaign are attempts to normalise the pending effects on people’s lives of charter territories. Lack of regulations, removal of rights, destruction of public ownership of public services, denial of protest, manipulation of justice, erasure of opposition, reversal of any policy of seeking renewable energy sources are all promoted aims of both Sunak and Truss during their campaigns for leadership and all will be features of charter territories.
Learn about the design, development, use and intent of charter territories atBaker Street Heraldwebsite where there is comprehensive information on how the concepts of charter territories were developed and by whom, on various examples of territories in operation around the world, on the identities of people involved in design, operation and promotion of territories, on the connections between wealthy donors, corporate beneficiaries, think-tanks and politicians, and on the direct connection between the aim of Brexit and charter territories.
A choice of reckless Brexit (abandonment of EU laws that restrict exploitation and protect democracy) allows the Tory government to proceed with its charter territories. This is not accidental and it is not opportunistic. It is planned.
Johnson the clown is gone and a blinkered, obedient, soulless annihilator will succeed him.
Ignore the analysis of Truss and Sunak as people, ignore the commentary on their alleged ineptitude or lack of knowledge, ignore their attempts to ramp up the Tories’ culture war. Soon, Tory government will take its next steps and, whether Truss or Sunak, it will be disastrous for all of us.
Note Links to a pair of interviews Shanker Singham gave to two pro-charter territories orgs:
Withdrawal of labour via industrial action is a key tenet of the relationship between worker and employer. It is a bargaining tool for workers to help them to receive adequate compensation for their labour and to maintain acceptable working conditions, hours of work, paid holidays, safety at work, etc. Without the strike option employers are considerably less hindered in their pursuit of unfettered exploitation of employees.
Strikes, historically, were important events that led to improved wages, job security, safety and workers’ entitlements. They help to shape society, aid democracy and raise quality of life. They are political acts: The population versus propertied elite. In a capitalist or authoritarian nation strikes are utterly necessary.
Hiring staff to work in place of striking workers was illegal in UK because it undermines the purpose of strikes. It hands more power to employers. It attacks workers directly. It hands an advantage to employers that is incompatible with democracy.
On 21st July (2022), as part of its policy of erasure of rights as an aid to strengthening wealth concentration, the Tory government made hiring of scabs legal and encouraged employers to take that option. The change to the law applies specifically to people not already employed by a business; current employees were able to continue work during a strike though they were, rightly, labelled as “scabs.”
In Scab law Etonian Kwasi Kwarteng (Tory Business Secretary) admitted that the sole purpose of allowing mass scabbing was to remove the effectiveness of strikes: “This will help to mitigate the disproportionate impact strike action.” His Tory colleague Grant Shapps (Tory Transport Secretary) added “this vital reform means any future strikes will cause less disruption.”
The point of strikes is to “impact” and to “cause disruption.” This year, in many different workplaces and professions, several strikes took place and there were (and are) many more threats of strikes. All were called as direct responses to exploitative behaviour by employers including low pay, wage rises far below inflation (and so, effectively, wage cuts), unsafe working conditions for employees and, in public services, for the public, lack of job security and understaffing. The strikes were necessary acts to fight against employers extending the boundaries of their exploitation.
The combatting of exploitation is not just for immediate rebalancing but also for historical precedence and advancement. Trades’ unions are having a strong year. This follows a period of genuine political opposition in UK from 2015 to December 2019 and is a reaction to the Tory government lurching rightwards toward extreme libertarian anti-society anti-democracy economic devastation. An additional reason for confidence and focus of unions is the knowledge that so-called Labour Party, led by donors’ puppet conservative Starmer, is not an alternative to the current regime and so workers and unions do not feel their actions need approval from Labour.
Tories’ Scab Law is a simple statement of their philosophy. Their single objective is concentration of wealth and to achieve that they need to dismantle democracy by removing rights and laws that help to rebalance society. They are removing the dampeners on the constant desire for exploitation by the propertied.
Kwarteng is deeply associated with libertarian assassins of democracy and has been so for many years. He co-wrote ‘Britannia Unchained,’ a guidebook for dismantlement of society, that included the assertion that “once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world. Too many people in Britain prefer a lie-in to hard work. [British people] work among the lowest hours, retire early and productivity is poor.” The vitriol in the book aimed at the public by an Etonian stank of vicious feudal exploitation and fascism.
Trades Unions, among others, are at the frontline of the war against the economic extremism of the Tory government. The latter’s plans, devised, designed and constructed over many years, have no limit to how destructive is the intent. Since 1980s Tory government the objective of conservatives in UK is to devolve the country into a charter territory owned by a wealthy elite where the rest of us rent our lives. Successive bills processing through parliament last year and this year enable wealth concentration directly, and indirectly by annihilations of rights, access to justice and democracy. Johnson the performing clown is gone; his successor (Truss, another co-writer of ‘Britain Unchained’) and her cabinet will be much worse.
Promotion to top ranks in British armed forces is dependent on being aware that the job’s main objective is enhancement of arms industry’s profits.
Last month (June 2022) General Sir Patrick Sanders was promoted to Chief Of The General Staff of the British army. His first act in his new job was a speech to the Royal United Services Institution (RUSI) on 28th June. RUSI, created by Arthur Wellesley in 1831, is a tool to promote military conflict and to support control of the world by ‘Western’ capitalists. It is intrinsically anti-democratic and xenophobic. Most of its funding is from arms industry and associated industries.
His speech was a simple three-step routine.
STEP 1: Describe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a threat to the whole of NATO
STEP 2: Explain why there exists a desperate need for immediate and huge mobilisation of British armed forces
STEP 3: State that such a mobilisation requires significant extra spending on expensive military hardware. (His audience at RUSI included representatives of arms industry.)
It was easy to progress to STEPS 2 and 3 once he established STEP 1.
STEP1: His knowledge of war was selective. He said “I stand here as the first Chief of the General Staff since 1941 to take up this position in the shadow of a major state on state land war in Europe.” He must have been on holiday with no access to news during the violent break-up of former Yugoslavia, and he was able to maintain ignorance throughout his life of USSR’s invasion of Hungary.
“In all my years in uniform, I haven’t known such a clear threat to the principles of sovereignty and democracy, and the freedom to live without fear of violence, as the brutal aggression of president Putin and his expansionist ambitions.”
Sanders’ military career began in 1984. In thirty-eight years since there were many “clear threats to the principles of sovereignty and democracy.” Sanders’ military action included service in Kosovo, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a huge discrepancy between his assertion above and his own experiences in military conflict.
Armed with his invented speciality of the war in Ukraine he jumped to declaring that NATO countries must prepare for direct attack. He made this leap by invoking expansionism by Germany in 1930s.
“I believe we are living through a period in history as profound as the one that our forebears did over 80 years ago. Now, as then, our choices will have a disproportionate effect on our future. This is our 1937 moment. We are not at war – but we must act rapidly so that we aren’t drawn into one through a failure to contain territorial expansion.”
“1937 moment” referred to Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s attempts to appease German government despite the latter’s huge expansion of military capability and its threats to other countries; Chamberlain was wrong to have trusted Hitler.
Sanders’ comparison between 1930s Germany and 2020s Russia makes no sense and is offensive to the memory of people murdered in the Holocaust.
His lazy and disreputable equation of Russia today with Germany in 1937 echoed crass, uninformed and intellectually-challenged comments made by performing contrarians throughout the industry of screaming heads and professional trolls in media, at think-tanks and in online communities.
With STEP 1’s fallacious logic presented as a problem to solve Sanders moved to STEP 2 wherein he claimed there is an urgent necessity for mobilisation and military action.
STEP 2: He emphasised that
“the British Army is not mobilising to provoke war – it is mobilising to prevent war. From now the Army will have a singular focus – to mobilise to meet today’s threat and thereby prevent war in Europe. We are not at war – but we must act rapidly so that we aren’t drawn into one through a failure to contain territorial expansion. I will do everything in my power to ensure that the British Army plays its part in averting war.”
The best way to prevent war is to engage in conversation, negotiation and compromise but Sanders’ depiction of Russia’s intent as akin to Germany’s in 1930s meant he could not consider such options. He did not suggest that British troops should be fighting in Ukraine; his mobilisation was for British troops in NATO countries in Europe because that fitted his set-up in STEP 1 that Russian expansionism would extend to NATO territories. “We must act rapidly so that we aren’t drawn into [a war] through a failure to contain territorial expansion.”
Despite his assertions of avoiding war he proclaimed his intent to “win” a war. “We are mobilising the Army to help prevent war in Europe by being ready to fight and win alongside our NATO allies and partners.” Preventing war would be a “win” but it wasn’t clear that is what he meant.
He knows land, sea and air battles between NATO and Russia are extremely unlikely, other than isolated incidents that end as quickly as they begin and then only at sea or in the air. Neither Russia nor USSR invaded NATO territory. Although not old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, he knows the deterrent of nuclear exchanges lives up to its name: Deterrent. That is, he is aware with certainty that military battles involving NATO and Russian troops will not happen.
A general’s public statements should never specify a particular political stance and should not claim to speak on behalf of government. But, Sanders was keen to speak as if he is a politician.
“This is the moment to defend the democratic values that define us. Ceding more territory to Putin could prove a fatal blow to the principle of national sovereignty that has underpinned the international order since 1945.”
His deceptive soundbites above could have been spoken by any conservative politician. “Democratic values that define us” does not describe UK. “The principle of national sovereignty that has underpinned the international order since 1945″ is the opposite of historical fact, applied generally and also specifically to the UK in Kenya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Chagos Islands, etc. Sanders “served” in Iraq and in Afghanistan; did he not notice that “national sovereignty” was being crushed by the army he was in?
His political polemic went further than response to Russia.
“Defence cannot ignore the exponential rise and chronic challenge of China, not just within the South China Sea but through its sub-threshold activities across the globe. Beijing will be watching our response to Moscow’s actions carefully.”
Creation of a Chinese threat is a key facet of libertarian and of liberal propaganda. Sanders’ fear of China is fear of the exported success of China’s economy management and fear of China’s control of other countries around the world. As soon as NATO and its puppet government fled from Afghanistan, China sought trade deals with Afghanistan and sent aid, food and other assistance rather than well-armed military; Barbados’ transition to a republic, rejecting British monarch as head of state, was followed immediately with new trade deals with China; China’s economic partnerships with countries throughout Africa and South America are growing in number and in size at an increasing rate. Sanders meant his fear of China pushing aside exploitative ‘Western’ capitalist power.
When he said “Beijing will be watching” he did not mean that the Chinese government is ready to launch invasions of NATO countries if the latter is less than aggressive. He meant a message of aggression should be sent to the Chinese government that if it continues to help the economies of countries around the world to eschew exploitation by international businesses, banks, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, then NATO might use military force to protect that exploitation.
Sanders understands the role of NATO’s armed forces: Protection of hegemony of capitalist exploitation.
He gave a further reason for UK having a large military presence in Europe. “Taking up the burden in Europe means we can free more US resources to ensure that our values and interests are protected in the Indo-Pacific.” By “our interests” he meant those of the occidental world and he meant the capacity for profit for businesses from that world, profit at the expense of people who live elsewhere in the world.
He supported good old-fashioned imperialism. “We must be wary of Russia’s malign activities further afield. Our global hubs, including Kenya and Oman, will still play a vital role as we seek to mobilise to meet aggression in Europe allowing us to help our partners there secure strategic advantage elsewhere in the world.” Another phrase meaning financial control of: “strategic advantage elsewhere in the world.”
Satisfied that his late nineteenth century imperialist rhetoric had laid foundations for indulging in readiness for war, Sanders moved to STEP 3 which was the reason for his speech.
STEP 3: Barely pausing for breath, he listed various combat and mobilisation operations, and sectors of the army, followed by a list of extremely expensive military equipment that he was excited to know was purchased by, or being considered for purchase by, the British public rather than money being spent on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions, public transport, policing, welfare and mental health support for military veterans, unprivatisation of utilities, tackling climate crisis, fighting Covid-19, and all other necessities for ensuring well-being of the public and its financial security.
Tory government created Land Industrial Strategy(LIS) to intensify effectiveness of war as a tool to increase arms industry profits. Sanders knew LIS was his priority as Chief Of The General Staff.
“I will use the next few months to engage personally with you, our industry partners and encourage you to use the framework offered by the new Land Industrial Strategy to make the Army more lethal and more effective, with better equipment in the hands of our soldiers at best speed.”
It is easy to see for whom Sanders works.
He recognised the government’s objective behind recent arms transfers to Ukraine free of charge. “[We have] diminished stockpiles as a result of Gifting in Kind to the brave soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. We will re-build our stockpiles and review the deployability of our vehicle fleet.” The process of feeding the arms industry is not dependent on UK being at war. Free weapons for Ukraine means a “re-build” of UK’s “stockpiles.”
In full agreement with a government that is erasing accountability, Sanders said “we must be practical and cut through unnecessary bureaucracy.” By “bureaucracy” he meant rules, regulations, checks and balances, international human rights obligations, laws.
Sanders used a simple three step process, speaking like a politician with the intent of justifying the use of public money as gifts to the never satiated greed of the arms industry.
At £39,600 per annum Worth School he learnt that his professional life should focus on making wealth ever more concentrated. Via the elite conveyor belt from independent schools to military command his education and military training combined to reduce him to a promoter of the arms industry. He is, willingly, a cog in a machine.
The most malodorous product that Eton College presented to the world is no longer leader of Tories and will be replaced as Prime Minister when a new Tory leader is elected later this year. Hounded out by his party Boris Johnson accepted his termination with typical gracelessness in a speech of spitefulness and lack of contrition.
Johnson was elected leader of the Tories, by MPs and by party members, because of his cheerleader skillset for promotion of Brexit. His supporters knew Johnson’s persona, particularly his unjustified self-belief and his highly-developed aversion to a moral compass, would enable him to pursue a destructive Brexit for the benefit of disaster capitalists without ever pausing or reflecting on such a path’s consequences for the majority of British people.
The architects, designers and beneficiaries of hard-line Brexit needed an arrogant soulless bastard with the ability to play the fool. They needed a conman, a relentless and proud liar, a swindler, someone for whom integrity and morality are anathema. Johnson, whose entire professional life, as politician and journalist, was focussed on how to please wealthy employers, suited Brexiteers’ political requirements and his buffoonery and conmanship were precisely what was needed for misrepresentation of the Brexit heist.
Johnson knew his route to wealth was dependent on concentration of wealth by the wealthiest who employed him to do their bidding. The largest donors to the conservative party, the generous donors directly to Johnson and the tax-avoiding owners of the Telegraph got huge returns on their investments thanks to Johnson. First as mayor of London and later as Prime Minister, every decision, every policy and every political statement by him had the intent of either directly assisting wealth concentration of else providing a smokescreen via nonsense. Not a single minute of any day was used to govern as a responsible leader.
Wealth gatherers needed a grotesque frontman bereft of companionship with humanity. They needed someone who never differentiated between truth and fiction, who never accepted his personal culpability for devastating errors, who didn’t give a damn about consequences and who attained what he wanted via threats rather than compromise.
Critical analysis of Johnson, during and after his time as Prime Minister, depicted him as a “narcissist” and as always wanting to be in control and to be right, regardless of whether he was right, but Johnson knew who he worked for and he deferred to his real employers. He knew whose instructions he should follow. His advisers were chosen carefully. All his public statements and all his distraction tactics were him reading a script and playing a part, written and directed by his advisers. Johnson displayed arrogance toward political opponents, his fellow Tory MPs, ministers of state, senior civil servants, some broadcasters and newspapers, the public and even the monarch, but he was obedient toward the representatives of the wealthiest.
Election victory in 2019 was followed by hard-line chaotic destructive Brexit. Johnson’s employers were, and remain, delighted. As a bonus they received billions of extra cash via Tory manipulation of Covid-19 pandemic – corrupt awards of government contracts and furlough payments – and via arms giveaway to Ukrainian government accompanied by declarations of greater spending on “defence.”
Johnson completed the job for whom he works. That job, for him, is over. It is over because he is beyond his usefulness. His character and his methodology that suited his employers are now a hindrance. His demise was inevitable given his unbounded ineptitude, his acute laziness, his inculcated immorality, his ingrained preference for relentless lying and his utter ignorance of the role of a Prime Minister, despite all such characteristics being, previously, a benefit.
Ministers in the government, Tory MPs and newspaper proprietors, all of whom gave Johnson full support to become leader, to win the 2019 election and to proceed with Brexit, turned against him with vigour. The final act of poor behaviour from him – lying about what he knew of sexual assault accusations against an MP he promoted – was an example of the cliche about a piece of straw and a heavily-laden camel, but the volte-face of his former collaborators could have occurred at any time since Brexit was confirmed.
Johnson’s awful legacy as Prime Minister should be applied to his employers but it suits the latter if he carries the blame. To avoid him enjoying a wrecking spree, with names named and money flows identified, his employers will continue to pay him somehow. Dirty dark money will flow his way in exchange for keeping quiet and being the main recipient of ire.
No-one who spoke with integrity or honesty has ever had a positive or complimentary comment to use to describe Johnson as a person, work colleague or business associate. From his childhood onward he was and is an utterly contemptible person. Disdain is his guiding principle for relationships with people. He has no understanding of how to behave as an adult, of what respect for others means or of what self-reflection is. For most people, the earliest modes of behaviour taught us by parents or schools were that we should value honesty, temper selfishness, and know and accept when we were wrong. That passed by Johnson.
He is on his way out but Tories are still there. The new prime Minister and the new cabinet of monstrosities will continue to pursue the agenda of enabling wealth concentration. Brexit’s destruction will not be reduced. Tory cost of living crisis will not be reversed; food and fuel costs will continue to rise. Access to healthcare, quality education and decent affordable housing will diminish. The transformation of UK to a charter territory, owned by a wealthy few where everyone else rents their lives, will continue.
But, prominent public voices, in parliament and in media, who are supposed to oppose or at least offer informed criticism, pretend that Johnson’s departure can mean a reset of political thinking and ensuing policy. Constructed desperation of centrists and liberals promotes belief in “honour” and professionalism of conservative politics and politicians because the former are as committed to wealth concentration as are their Tory acquaintances, and because they fear public dissatisfaction with Britain’s alleged democracy will become demands for something different, something that seeks to erase the ability of wealthy exploiters to carry on robbing and exploiting.
Like Trump in USA, Johnson was not an aberration of capitalist governance. He was a necessary cog in the exploitation machine. The unedifying presentation styles of both of them were required to gain votes. Their departures change nothing.
Johnson was a nasty fart but the arsehole from where he was released is still in power.