Tag Archives: United Kingdom

Stockholm Syndrome becomes Glasgow Syndrome as Scots vote no to self-rule

By now “Stockholm Syndrome” is accepted to be a misnomer, not the behavior but the geographical attribution. But the term fits the Scotish people who have just rejected independence in favor of continued vassalage to the United Kingdom. If Scotland had elected autonomy, Wales might have followed, then Northern Ireland and even England, to pull the rug from under monarchic London, the feudal center of the vampiric British empire. Scotland’s “Glasgow Syndrome” proves London is in charge of the UK no doubt about it.

Another criminal sociopath evades the hangman. Maggie Thatcher goes to hell


Was Margaret Thatcher religious? We might take solace that her final breaths were complicated by abject horror of the fate she knew awaited her. She might have been iron willed and resolute, are we going to pretend she was clueless? But justice delayed is justice denied. Thatcher’s karma is pie in the sky, while her destructive legacy was concrete as the sarcophagus that will protect her.

Ordinary Britons are jubilant and now officials and talking heads are admonishing celebrants to respect her deadness. — Did we learn nothing from Reagan’s funeral? We eulogized the senile man, and the unintelligencia used our lapse to lionize the cretin! Are we now going show the same clueless deference to Margaret Thatcher and add to the false history supporting her enduring world dynasty of greedy-bastards?! Thatcher was a wicked sociopath and those who praise her expose their ignorance or lack of conscience.

My takeaway from the spontaneous celebrations of Margaret Thatcher’s death is that we’ve got to hold good-riddance parties BEFORE these mofos pass on! On a related note, what pretext does President Obama have for attending the inauguration of George Dubya’s presidential library if he isn’t bringing handcuffs? The World Court should arrest the lot at Thatcher’s funeral.

Royal Wedding: time to tie the knot!

Prince William weds stuck-up 'commoner' Kate MiddletonI LOVE IT! What role should monarchs play in an aspiring-to-egalitarian age? While public demonstrations across North Africa and the Middle East herald an Arab Spring, similar masses in Britain protest bank imposed austerity cuts, each met with repressive force fully sanctioned by their clueless rulers. Democracy is in the air, courtesy of not elections nor representative legislation, but anarchic uprisings. 2011 should commemorate the people’s now clear potential for self-determination, not a celebration of family privilege. It’s time the anti-democratic, unsympathetic, habitually ignoble “royals,” even if mere figureheads, buggered off.

Freedom & duress NOT the same thing

A gentleman wrote earlier that Ireland signed a paper partitioning the Nation, and likewise, Scotland and Ireland had signed papers joining their people to the United Kingdom. And that therefore Scots and Irish Separatists are breaking a treaty and how very dare they do so, it’s dishonorable etc.
 
He was too busy reviling me personally to revile them but that is the gist of his words.

What wasn’t mentioned was that in either treaty the People of Ireland and the People of Scotland weren’t consulted. The “Lords” whose ancestors were in turn appointed and ennobled by the British Crown during prior invasions and occupations, signed the papers, and that at the point of gun and sword. Not by the people nor by their elected officials.

This was in comparison, by the way, to the Conquest and Occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s like an armed robbery on a massive scale.

I mean, IF I were ever to want to control people, I’d not last very long at the enterprise mostly because anybody I could get to assist me in doing so would be under coercion. I could, theoretically, walk into a 7-Eleven or a Liquor store with an Uzi, and demand that the proprietor surrender to my will, do as I say, and that he promise to cooperate with my Armed Might, my one-man “Army of One” submachine gun, and provide me with as much of the goods and money in his store as I could carry away.

In an enterprise using an Army of MANY the logistics of the actions are more complex but the concept, the germ, the Basic Foundation of those actions would be Exactly The Same.

To go back to the Store Owner v. Probably Deranged Person w/Submachine Gun parable, if the person with the gun leaves the store, would the Store Owner be breaking some sort of Treaty to immediately call for help? If the gunman were, in the middle of the “treaty” to turn his attention and the Shopkeeper took the opportunity to disarm the gunman and perhaps kill the gunman, would the Shopkeeper be a “terrorist” or an “insurgent” or “unlawful combatant”?

If the gunman has a Gang of similar thugs with him, and the shopkeeper captures and disarms one or more of them, and holds a gun to their heads and demands the other Gunmen cease their robbery and threats of further violence, would that be a Terrorist Insurgent taking hostages, a Despicable act of Cowardice?

But that’s what the British and American Warmongers insist the “shopkeeper” of Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the Irish PEOPLE and Scots PEOPLE do or should have done.

Negotiate only with the Representatives of the people who were appointed to that position by the Conquering Invaders?

What kind of a Farce is that?

The Conquerors of Iraq and Afghanistan have no more right to demand the abject surrender of the people of those nations than the British Crown did with Scotland and Ireland, indeed, the “Nobles” with whom the English Crown negotiated the treaties, would have no more a legitimate enforceable authority to make such a treaty, for generations to come, than the Vichy Government did for the people of France, nor for all the French colonials.

To put it in a way the Right Wing would understand, their NEW conquests of Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, are no more legitimate because the Puppet Governments empowered by the Conquerors signed treaties, at the point of gun, sword, machine gun, the Mother Of All Bombs and the assembled armies of the Coalition. than the “Conquest” of Poland, East Germany, the Czech and Yugoslav and Armenian etc Republics were validated by the signing, under duress, of any treaties by their respective Puppet Dictators appointed by the conquering Armies of Britain, The U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Nor were the Irish under any such obligation to honor the partitioning of ireland, under duress, by the British. They were not in any way obligated to allow the British to keep Ulster.

To say that they were, or that the Iraqi and Afghan people are obligated to Obey The American and British Coalition in every thing that’s commanded… Is not just a Lie, it’s an Arrogant Lie.

And all the “PROOF” I need to say that those invasions were based on greed, and nothing more.

Certainly not any “fears of WMDs” and MOST CERTAINLY not any concern for Freedom for the Iraqi or Afghan people, any more than the British had concern for the Irish peoples freedom.

They show themselves to be the REAL terrorists.

Swiss refuse to hand over Polanski, US upset, still haven’t handed over Bush

Not trying to minimalize or trivialize date-rape or child molesting, but that’s ONE count against Mr Polanski and (at least) Hundreds of Thousands of counts of Murder, including and especially children, against Messieurs Bush, Cheney, Rove, Petraeus, McChrystal, Rumsfeld, Prince, McCain, Kristol, “scooter” Libby, Murdoch, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Dobbs, Mesdames Rice, Malkin, Palin, Bachmann, Coulter and any other Accomplices in the Wars started with, enabled by and continued under the auspices of, blatant acts of Perjury.
The charges of War Crimes against these “leaders” and propagandists are consistent with United States policies as expressed during the Nunrberg Trials against officials of the nation of Deutschland and the Vichy Government of France (which had been diplomatically recognized by the U.S.) and “collaborators” including and especially Propagandists, such as Axis Annie, Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw.

Also recognized precedent, in U.S. RECENT history, every single person detained under the vague charge of “unlawful combatant” including those “arrested” in nations with which the United States has no formal extradition treaties nor, indeed, official recognition of their governments as being legitimate. Messieurs Bush and Cheney identified (vaguely) 60 foreign governments who they felt obliged to subject to the same levels of “regime change” imposed on the People of Iraq and Afghanistan. Tit for Tat.

What goes around comes back around. When the U.S. “justice” department extradites War Criminals to the Hague, which unlike the Guantanamo Military Kangaroo Tribunals, does NOT have the Death Penalty, then and only then would they even begin to have a legitimate cause for their Crybaby-ass Whining about those bad ol’ Europeans not extraditing to the U.S. Concentration Camp/Slave Labor “justice” System.

Nationalism explicitly grants sovereignty equally to ALL nations, excluding ANY other nation from that right is not Nationalism, but Imperialism.

Under quite a few treaties signed and ratified by the United States Congress and several Presidents, including the U.N. Charter, the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions,

THIS IS ESPECIALLY AIMED TOWARD THE REPUBLICAN, TEABAG, DOMINIONIST, STATE’S RIGHTS AND OTHER DOUCHEBAG PARTIES who believe they and they alone can interpret the Constitution of the United States, or impose their so-called authority onto other Citizens of the United States or especially onto citizens in Other Nations

Article 6 of the Constitution states in the second sentence:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Bet Glenn Beck University never told you punks THAT, did he? Or Limbaugh or Michael “the savage” Weiner or Hannity… Did they?
Pat Robertson, maybe? No?

Last veteran of the War to End All Wars

UK veteran harry patch
IS THAT RICH? UK’s oldest living veteran of the Great War died this weekend at age 111. Machine-gunner Harry Patch who survived Ypres and nearly not Passchendaele, was eulogized by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles who explained “The Great War is a chapter in our history we must never forget.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown added: “The noblest of all the generations has left us, but they will never be forgotten.” What did Soldier Patch think of the war for which he was held in patriotic regard? “It wasn’t worth it.”

Patch had been adamant that the senseless slaughter of WWI was not justified, for neither Queen nor Country. The joke is on us hopeful pacifists however, because the old soldier WAITED UNTIL HE WAS 100 TO SAY IT.

Do antiwar activists ask too much of our soldiers, to bear the brutalization of war, and return to be strong enough to speak against it? The state portrays their shell-shocked silence as stoic heroism, the veterans are far too broken to object. And the recruiting cycle repeats itself. The swiftboaters outnumber the conscientious objectors.

We will probably wait forever for the veteran to end all veterans.

The high regard we hold for nobility

Prince Edward Earl of WessexThe British royal family has shot Argentines, Iraqis and Afghans. Prince Harry is sneaking back to Afghanistan to kill more. You think they won’t beat a dog?

His Royal Highness The Prince, Edward Antony Richard Louis, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn, Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Honorary Member of the Saskatchewan Order of Merit, Aide-de-Camp to Her Majesty, was hunting pheasant this weekend and was inadvertently photographed hitting his hunting companions with a stick.

Running with the pedigreed dogs of war

Prince Harry returns with triumphant retinuePrince Harry was ordered home to England after his cover was blown playing soldier in Afghanistan. Unmasked, it was decided the prince would be a bullet magnet for enemy fire. Here he is returning to a hero’s welcome, wearing a flak-jacket he might have done better to leave with the compatriots he left behind. Although -wot’s this- Harry Homebound appears to be accompanied by his compatriots! Were they all recalled too? Special forces assigned to bodyguard the prince would have been redeployed elsewhere. Was Heroic Harry soldiering with a royal retinue of school chums? Other spoiled upper-crust kids spoiling for hands-on Half Life blood?

Harry did serve his country’s propaganda machine by perpetuating the normalcy of Britain’s traditional militaristic adventurer. Said the prince of his soldiering:

“At the end of the day I like to sort of be a normal person, and for once I think this is about as normal as I’m ever going to get.”

Princess Diana and the end of civility

Princess Diana on Dodi Fayed's yacht a week before her deathThe Queen is the first film to be made about the woman who has presided over England for half a century. The story deals with the days following Princess Di’s fatal crash in 1997 and the personal challenge her death might have posed for the monarchy’s public relations. The same period saw Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ascendancy to power. The story gives Blair credit, where the queen appeared to faulter, for recognizing Diana as being the “People’s Princess.” And then some.

Asked about his fawning depiction of Tony Blair as man of the hour, director Stephen Frears thought it “a mark of my incredible maturity” to cast Blair in the light of his glory days, this at a time when Blair and his government have fallen irrecoverably, adding that “it’s preposterous that he’s not in jail.” In the interview Frears also makes light of whether Queen Elizabeth II is possibly really as bright as her character portrayed by Hellen Mirren. The Queen celebrates the resolve of royal blood facing a crisis. Elizabeth is both humanized and lionized, by sticking to the stiff upper lip “the world expects of us.” Frears interweaves real news footage of celebrities and the flowers flooding the Buckingham Palace gates, counting the days from Lady Di’s death to the climax when the queen finally makes her long delayed statement.

That’s when Frears lies. He lays the behind the scenes personal anguish which might have explained the dishonor the royals paid to Diana, leading to the Queen’s famous address, but then rewrites the ending. As if Mighty Casey, his vainglorious ambitions thwarted in the minor leagues, stays true to his character that day in Mudville, and now because we can all feel a little sympathy for the self-centered fella, he swings and DOES NOT strike out!!

We all were there when Queen Elizabeth took to the microphone, and no close-ups of a fictional Tony Blair’s tearing eyes, proud of his stalwart sovereign, are going to recast the disgraceful blue-blooded reaction for what it was.

And what of lingering accusations of the royal family being behind Diana’s death? What of the rape tape which Diana posited with a servant for safe-keeping which tells, it’s conjectured because the British press are forbidden to tell us, of Prince Charles interrupted sodomizing a valet. What of Lady Diana being, not even arguably, by the power of her personality, the most powerful woman in the world? But unlike Oprah or Martha Stewart, Diana was a loose cannon championing the cause of AIDs in Africa, and the fight to ban land mines, both subjects the powers that be, certainly in America, did/do not want highlighted.

The Queen‘s smartest character, Tony Blair’s advisor who supposedly coins the term People’s Princess is let to murmur early on, “It wasn’t the press that killed her.” But the subject is dropped there. Instead Blair and his crew seize upon Diana’s death like Mayor Giuliani to 9/11, being seen offering bedside comfort to a traumatized populace, and reaping the accolades. Except director Frears offers nothing behind such scenes. Blair is shown as the earnest surrogate, standing in for his monarch until she can regrasp the helm.

With the ensuing years having shown us Blair’s true colors, what do you think was the more likely scenario? A self-effacing Danny Kaye Pauper Prince or a Rudy Giuliani? I find Frears’ characterization of Blair even more disingenuous, showing Tony living in a modest flat strewn with children’s messes, taking the dinner plates to do the “washing up,” and keeping watch on world events on a television with a Nintendo game atop it. This coming from a “labor” minister who was leading the conservative counter-revolution to restructure the British economy for the elites. Perhaps Frears’ adopted class.

The Queen owes its entire first act to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, the music, the build, the black out of the familiar awful moment, and the protracted montage we needed to absorb the tragedy and understand how it’s changed us.

The great disservice that Stephen Frears does to history, and to all of us because we are still living it, is amplified by the fact that he did get Diana’s death right. Princess Di’s sudden death did change the world, perhaps more than did 9/11. The World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a comeuppance. If the American people did not see it coming, the world did. That such a terrorist act was bound to happen was attested to the fact that the same people had already tried it and at the very same location.

But Diana’s death marked the end of civility, and people felt it. The third world may have been fit to burst under the weight of its post-colonial oppressors, but a great English civility had prevailed since the days of Ghandi. This was a sense that disagreement could be visceral, but apart from the brutality of the unwashed French or the uncouth Americans, a British sense of decency would rule out. Britain, not long ago the Empire, was where we got the rule of law, our rights, and everyone’s concept of a representational parliament.

The circumstances around Diana’s death would present an incredibly interesting lesson in power usurped from the people; Tony Blair’s arrangement with Rupert Murdoch for starters, instead of showing Blair reacting to the newspapers and coaxing his old queen along. The Queen is a marvelous story of two people facing adversity introspectively. Fine, except those personages were at the center of the unification of global corporate power and could not have been idle participants. As if Frears had made a film about the Titanic and chose to focus on the captain’s preoccupation with feng shui.

The 1990s saw a decline in every aspect of benevolent leadership, and I believe the premature death of Lady Diana was the curtain. It was hard those days after her death to imagine a world without her, and indeed events have proved that we were to face the worst. The turn of the century marked the ascendency of the Neocons, the political face of the globalization overlords. It meant corporate overseers with gloves off, Zionist zealotry unabashed, banks with no limits on their usury, and the world media watchdogs in the hands of the wolves.

The ruling few have their hands bloody in genocides the world over, endless wars, massacres, slavery, epidemics, poverty, famine and reckless abandonment. Before Diana’s death at least I believe they would have been concerned to wash the blood off.