Friday 31 May 2019

Marxist or Monarchist?

How can you be a Marxist and a Monarchist asks one of my favourite posters?  Good question, and not one to which I have a logical answer.  
I’m not sure I’m a Marxist these days or if I ever was, though I did once go along to a meeting of Militant Tendency in Deptford High Street. It was one of the best nights out I ever had, though a tad bizarre because I had come straight from the office and
was wearing a suit, my ‘look’ in those days was Sue Ellen from Dallas, tory woman eeek! Regardless, within moments I was drinking pints and singing ‘The Red Flag’ alongside my comrades in arms. To be fair I didn’t know the words to the Red Flag at that time, and was pretty clueless all round.    
I don’t think I’d label myself as anything these days, there doesn’t seem to be any clique I would fit into even if I wanted to.  I am far left in most things, but surprisingly conservative in others.  In the interests of self preservation, enough people hate me already, I think it best to unravel my clash with mainstream beliefs bit by bit.
Royalty.  Hmm. As an amateur historian I am obsessed with the lives of the monarchs through the ages, and of course every age is defined by it's monarch, Elizabethan, Georgian, Victorian etc.  Basically because nobody ever wrote about poor people because they are boring. Sadly it is as it is, but in its favour it has given us fascinating glimpses of times gone by and usually with beautiful costumes and in opulent surroundings.  I'm being a tad flippant, apologies, but I'm still luxuriating in Versailles, I've watched series 1,2 and 3, but have gone back and am watching it again! One of the advantages of being as nutty as a fruitcake is the ability to drift away to another time and place.
I am fascinated by the monarchy, but I'm not sure I'm a monarchist. In my younger days I was captivated by the French Revolution, the spirit rather than the bloodthirsty outcome, stirred me up to fight for equality, mostly in wine bars in a loud voice.  Usually in reply to 'how can someone like you support Arthur Scargill'.   I have actually written dramas based on real people who lived through the reign of terror that I really must submit somewhere. One of my heroines is the bare breasted ‘Liberty’ leading the people, a painting by Eugene Delaroix that I use as my background on twitter. I have called her Adele and brought her to life.
But I digress, I have mellowed over the years.  I am still far left, but brave enough now to say I am captivated by the lives of the Royals.   Studying history is my guilty pleasure, it is the equivalent of being handed a tray of delicious canapes or watching Seinfeld.  Is it possible to be an historian without being fascinated by the lives of the monarchy, past and present? 
As I have grown older I find myself looking on our own monarchy more kindly than I ever have. I was genuinely moved for example, when the very elderly Queen turned up to visit the youngsters in hospital who had survived the bomb at the Manchester pop concert.  I can’t say I have ever watched the Queen in any depth, but for me that one kind gesture from this fragile old lady changed my opinion on her entirely.  Of course, as a left winger, there is much I could disagree with or even ridicule, but I don’t feel that way inclined.
The truth is I love the pomp, splendour and ceremony, the gold carriages, even the flag waving.  I love that royal weddings and royal babies lift the nation’s spirits.  I love that these events are recorded by history and that our descendants in hundreds of years to come will be able to see and hear the faces and voices of those who made it into the history books.
I’m looking forward to the Trump visit.  Even his gold toilets cannot compare to the grandeur and history of Buckingham Palace. The only palace Trump ever owned was a casino in Atlantic City and it went bankrupt.  The dim witted Donald however, will probably try to persuade the Queen to knock it down and turn all that prime real estate into condos.  I’m trying to imagine how that meeting will go and I cannot get beyond farcical.
I really hope the Queen wears a crown and her most spectacular Crown Jewels for the Royal Banquet. How will the Melania and Ivanka jewelry ranges compare? Duchess Kate, a natural beauty, simply sparkles but in a Diana tiara she will outdazzle them all. Duchess Meghan sadly will not attend, a shame really, because her presence would unsettle Trump more than her absence.  And on the dazzling front, the ladies of the House of Windsor already outshine and outclass the ladies from the House of Trump.    
The new young batch of Royals I adore.  As a mum of two boys, my heart broke for William and Harry as they walked behind their mother's coffin. I have since then felt maternal and protective over them and I genuinely like the men they have grown up to be.  I am sure their mother would have been so proud.
I agree the monarchy in the UK was getting very close to extinction, particularly after the death of Diana. The 'old guard', the last generation, Prince Charles and his siblings truly believed they owed their position to the divine right of Kings.  They demanded strict protocol and deference. There is nothing likeable or endearing about Anne, Andrew and Edward.  By contrast, Wills and Harry are their mother's sons.  They have stepped down from their royal pedestals (not all the time I know)and have become actively involved in the causes they represent, they don't just, shake a few hands and go back to the palace. They have even shared their own mental health issues.  This new generation of royals I believe are 'shock horror' becoming more like their liberal, bicycling, crown wearing cousins in Europe. Happily though, they have been able to preserve the pomp and ceremony, and I hope they continue to do so.   
To those who would abolish the monarchy I would say be careful what you wish for. What state announcements (for the sake of history) will take the place of the births, marriages and deaths of Monarchs? History is probably recorded more now with events (and videos) preserving these times for future generations, than the lives of royalty.  But don’t think historians will ever define an era by the politicians or personalities who have their moment in the limelight, they will begin with ‘who was the reigning monarch at the time?’.  
The young royals I think will rescue the monarchy because they are using their privileged positions to help people in need.  Both William and Harry are kind, decent young men who seem to understand the need for the monarchy to be updated to the 21st century.  But as I said above, I hope they continue with the pomp, ceremony and traditions and I hope to see the House of Windsor in all it’s finery.  If a banquet with a US president, even if it is Trump, is not reason enough to get out the Crown Jewels, I don’t know what is.


  1. ''How can you be a Marxist and a Monarchist asks one of my favourite posters? Good question, and not one to which I have a logical answer. ''

    Here's one : You can't.

  2. Interesting reply Rosalinda and I apologize for making you explain your whole private psyche about the British royal family.
    It's true, they mostly try their best and the poor chumps we have never elected are stuck with our love, our curses or our indifference. The children of the monarchy had no choice (except, remember a man called Edward V111 who was under pressure enough to resign because he could not take it anymore). All these tiny tots were born into the system.
    It must be like finding out in later years your parents were the winners of the Euro lottery - not once, but every year for ever.
    True, I was moved by Meryl Streep's performance in "The Queen" and later on watched "The Iron lady" which was a stunner.
    But entertainment aside I cannot see us supporting the descendants of a man born in Falaise Normandy 10 centuries ago, William Duke of Normandy and his descendants rulers of England for the next ten centuries.
    True, a lot of the mindset is in the names Elizabethan, Victorian, Edwardian etc, there is no getting away from the terminology. But think about it, numerous countries became republics and still refer to their past without getting hysterical, think of United States of America or Republics of Germany, Ireland, Portugal, - the list goes on.
    It's the manipulation of the monarchy in everyday life that has always got to me.
    Turning a page of the "Daily Mail" can be a true act of heroism if you do not happen to favour the British royal family.
    Oh well, there's always the National Enquirer but even then the Royals come to the top of the heap.
    Think I'll go back to reading the "Dandy" or the "Beano" (if those two comics are still around).
    "Radio fun" and "The Eagle" were good too. Anyone know what happened to Dan Dare.

    1. "Radio fun" and "The Eagle" were good too. Anyone know what happened to Dan Dare.

      Yes, he married Meghan Markle because he thought she was related to the German chancellor.Ginger fool.

  3. Hello Rosalinda,
    Nice to see you that you’re back in good shape.

    Here are a few words regarding the topic of discussion. Perhaps NL, living in the Monarchy of the Netherlands, may have a similar view as I have on the subject in question

    Our monarchies embody and preserve our historical heritage and our collective memory, whether we’re proud of our history or not. So being a monarchist today in a country with a symbolic monarchy, like that in the UK, in Sweden or in the Netherlands, just means that you keep the memory of your nation's history and its traditions in your heart, hopefully to be passed on to future generations, but no sane monarchist wants to reinstate the ”Pouvoir Absolu” of the past at the expense of democracy.

    Having said that, I see no contradiction between being a modern monarchist and an advocate of any political ideology, be it Marxism, socialism, liberalism, populism or brutal capitalism.

    Our royal house in Sweden is constitutionally unpolitical, therefore anyone who so wish can define him/herself as a royalist regardless of political affiliation, without being questioned by anybody. Even though our King has the right to express his personal political views, he then does not speak on behalf of the monarchy. Nor on behalf of the Swedish people. Supporting or defying the King is not a political position. So it’s not at all illogical Rosalinda to be monarchist and Marxist, but perhaps not so common. As for myself I’m a liberal and a monarchist, which is very common I’d say.

    1. You set me off on a search of Royal Houses of Europe Bjorn, and I have to agree your own and the Netherlands seem more in tune with the 21st century than our own. having said that they do seem to have maintained the pomp and ceremony - the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria was spectacular and the guest list of Kings Queens, Princes, European nobility etc was mind blowing. I note too that one of your early kings Gustav 1 also broke with the Catholic Church at around the same time as Henry VIII.

      It is amazing to see how many European royals are related to each other. I would lay it at the feet of Queen Victoria, but the inter marrying had been going on for centuries to preserve the royal bloodlines. Not a healthy thing to do and arguably it finished off the House of Hapsburg. Modern royals are now marrying outside 'the family' which is probably a good thing.

      Your own royal family and that of the Netherlands seem to be much more hands on with their philanthropic works. And that is something that seems to have been picked up by Princes William and Harry and it is being well received.

      Turning briefly to the Netherlands, it is very disconcerting to see 'William of Orange' dressed as a 21st century business man! Not how I pictured him at all, lol. I always believed his ancestor came and took the Crown of England, it's all very confusing.

      Our royal family, like your own, are not supposed to be political. However, it's not hard to see the House of Windsor have more in common with the aristocracy and billionaires than they do with the common people.

      This is where my opinions become completely contradictory. The 'class' system is still very much alive and well in the UK. It is not so obvious, as in the doffing of caps, but the rich are getting considerably richer whilst the poor are getting considerably poorer. The ruling party, the tories, like the divide, with mass unemployment they have the workforce under the thumb.

      And those who hold the masses under their thumbs were born into privileged positions. They are not there through merit, they are there through inheritance and marriage. They are destined to rule the country by birth. Eton for example has produced this country's leaders for centuries including Bullingdon Boys Cameron and Osborn. Would those two have made it to the top of the class in a rough inner city comp? I doubt it.

      But I have wondered. A liberal and a monarchist sounds just about right Bjorn, and I'm too old to care what people think! :)

    2. Don't blame Eton, it's just a school. It's more progressive than you might imagine. The privilege and entitled attitude comes from the families themselves, which you strangely defend through your odd championing of the royal family. They are the absolute keystone of the system and have a vice like grip on it, thank you very much. You can't have it every which way, or you are surely being played for a fool and a 'little person'. At least know the score.

      Parent of an old Etonian

    3. Eton is the school that produces the UK's leaders, be it in politics, industry, commerce, finance, and the top of every corporate ladder. No doubt that is why you chose it for your offspring.

      You are right that I am a little person, that's why I accept that I alone cannot change the dominant ideology. My hating the Royal family won't matter to them or keep old Etonians off the front tory benches.

    4. Björn (1 June at 15:03) and Rosalinda (1 June at 18:14)

      Your view of the monarchy sounds familiar Björn, although the role of our king is not purely ceremonial as in the Swedish model.

      Broadly speaking, the Dutch monarchy is/was a symbol of unity in the fight for independence from Spanish and French domination and Nazi occupation. Nowadays, it is tolerated as long as the royals act as normal as possible, are working, pay attention to social issues and are representative of national feeling in joyful and sad events. In view of their popularity, they do well. And last but not least, the king's birthday is a national holiday.

      Rosalinda, “Marxist or Monarchist”? Whilst Marxism seems to be incompatible with monarchism, both are culturally relevant. So, perhaps you are a culturist or a culture lover?


    5. Hi Rosalinda

      Your assumption is not at all the reason I chose Eton for my son, how the British judge each other.

      You have a say in keeping old Etonians from government, just don't vote for them. I have never voted Tory in my life and never will. This is because I do not agree with the ideology, and it has nothing to do with the school that anyone did, or didn't, attend.

      You have no say whatsoever in keeping an old Etonian from becoming our future head of state.

      Of course, I never called you a little person. I very much hope that you do not really think you are, though this is the necessary downside of the bargain of subjugation to the superiority of monarchy that you feel pulled towards. You have to downgrade yourself, that was my point. You don't have to bow down and accept this, it's a very high price to pay for cooing over carefully orchestrated royal weddings or births, or visits to the sick and injured, that are meant to manipulate your emotions.

      Where did the H word spring from? Support for republicanism has nothing at all to do with 'hating' anyone. It isn't an emotional argument either. The monarchy has majority support whilst the queen is alive, which is bound to change rapidly when she dies. This does not make unelected, unnaccountable, hereditry power any less of an aberration. But it means most of us give it very little thought at the moment as it is not a live issue.

      Does a royal birth really 'warm the heart of the nation', or just a few diehards who give a damn? But on the day Meghan gave birth many other mothers gave birth too, and to grace one baby with specialness over all the others is just obscene in my opinion.

  4. Hello Rosalinda

    Contradictions make people interesting but this seems a vast blind spot.

    Eras stopped being called after monarchs after the first world war. Think about why.

    Inherited power is not compatible with a modern democratic state, no matter how one wishes to sanitise or sentimentalise the institution or make erroneous appeals to tradition. Being a subject not a citizen is not mere semantics, it infantilises; it denies equality.

    Versailles is a fairy story, revel in the Baroque beauty, but be aware it is make believe. It is well known that the peasants who built the palace were regarded as expendable and huge numbers died in the construction. The court itself stands as one of the most cynically manipulated abuses of hierarchal power ever devised. The monarchy, and therefore, France itself was near bankrupted by the excess, and set directly on course for the Revolution only seven decades after Louis xiv's death.

    No monarchy has ever been benign, inherited power and privelege can never be justified.

    Are you really not aware of the massive and sophisticated PR operation attempting to keep the show on the road? And manipulating you. Successfully it seems.

    Outclassing the Trumps is a low bar.

  5. I am not disagreeing with you on the blind spot 16:31 (why no name?), see my reply to Bjorn above.

    Not sure I agree with you on Eras..... I doubt the Victorians called it the Victorian Age while they were living it just as we don't call ourselves Elizabethans (the next lot). This is the era of the House of Windsor, has been since 1917 when the Royal family ditched the German surname for obvious reasons. Same obvious reasons as you refer to but don't state?

    Versailles is certainly not a fairy story. Louis XIV was real, so too the palace he built at Versailles 'imprisoning' all his nobles. Everything is documented, in certain cases, personal letters circulated in the Court and sent to recipients and crowned heads of Europe.

    The BBC series entitled Versailles is beautiful to behold and probably about as near to truth as they could get. Court rules dictated that the Lords and Ladies had to dress in the finest cloth and out dazzle each other with their jewels.

    The series did not ignore the human cost of Versailles, referencing the number of deaths each week and the rebellion of the workers. But essentially the production about is about Louis' mad dream. Louis was nuts - he called himself the 'Sun King', his actions were tyrannical, but he believed himself to be divine. Nothing and no-one would stand in his way.

    You are absolutely right his vanity and excess paved the way for the Revolution and the execution of his great grandson Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette decades later. I think Versailles and the Winter Palace in Russia became hated symbols of greed and excess, an insult to those who toiled each day and didn't even have enough to eat. That they were never likely to curb themselves, probably proves your point that monarchy are ultimately benign. Except on this side of the channel, the rather dour, duty bound Queen Victoria kept her family and the aristocracy in check. No splashing the cash and frivolity for them. Arguably her 'family values' saved her own family from a similar fate to their Romanov cousins.

    I am aware of all sorts of massive and sophisticated PR operations out to manipulate me. And I have to say I almost always fall for it, doh! I love watching Royal weddings, I positively cooh when I see pictures of Royal babies and I admire them for the way in which they brighten up the lives of those who meet them.

    I agree outclassing the Tumps is a low bar, but it is fun to point out and I am having a very rare proud to be a brit moment, so don't spoil it.

    1. You shouldn't misread the pride you have in generations of Germans that took the British Throne and continued to expand that same bloodline as pride in bring a Brit.Brit's are not Germanic.

      Will( not THAT Will)

    2. If we are going to be pedantic 22:02, I am actually a Celt, Scottish father and Irish mother, so neither Germanic or a Brit. But I have no truck with Nationalism, except perhaps when drunk and singing Oh Danny Boy.

      I have had the privilege of an English education and an English upbringing and I have a great fondness for most things quintessentially British from afternoon tea to the divine P.G. Wodehouse.

      I dislike nationalism and patriotism when it is used propagate hate. And I especially hate morons like Tommy Robinson who thinks he is superior to ethnic minorities because he went to an English comp.

      I was very fortunate as a small child because I grew up in a small community of immigrants from all over the world. Holloway Sanitorium in Virginia Water dominated our landscape and all our parents worked there. My first best friends were a small German boy called Heina and 2 small Indian girls called Connie and Ivy. Nationality meant m=nothing to us, though I did like the shock value of introducing Heina with a defiant, 'he's German' with a face that said 'and I like him so there'.

      I think his parents were impressed at how well I had integrated Heina into the community they invited for a sleepover. I think they later regretted it, because Heina and I spent the whole night giggling, I think in exasperation his father made us each stand in opposite corners in the hallway facing the wall. I don't think it worked, I had never been punished before and thought it was game. I think we dragged out pillows out and carried on giggling til we fell asleep. I feel awful now for how much I bossed dear Heina around, speaking on his behalf and acting as his unofficial and not really needed interpreter. I'm hoping his memories are similarly fond, we had a lot of fun together.

      But I have wandered. The Germanness of the current royal family matters not in the whole scheme of things. No more than the Scottishnew or Irishness of my ancestors matter to me. Well they do matter to me personally, but not to anyone else. Do you think your own ancestry has any bearing on your citizenship or right to call yourself English?

      Ultimately, it is all semantics, everything is.

  6. I went to Anfield Comprehensive. I could run the country far better than those Eton boys and girls.I'd bring back hanging for all crimes and make sausage sandwiches freely available to the working classes by prescription. Easy.

  7. ''I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets.

    The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.''

    - Nathan Rothschild

    England is a financial oligrachy run by the 'Crown'. That 'crown' is the 'City Of London'.It isn't the Queen.The City Of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation.The square mile is located at the heart of London.The city is not subject to British Law.

    Let's forget the pomp and ceremony.The 'hard working' Windsors and all that weak propaganda we wave little union flags at when they play her tune.Let's consider, instead, the Club of the Isles; it's inception, it's roots, it's function and it's real place in world affairs.

    We're looking at a major slick operation that was devised by the same subtle magicians that are moving all the pieces with their invisible hand to this day.

    Of interest.


  8. Amazing Ros - your pet hate Trump is on a Royal Visit and you don't have a blog about it?


    1. The Marxist on a visit to see the Monarch. Plenty of common ground I'm sure.But we'll never be told what, we'll just have to eat cake.


    2. Apologies Dave and thank you for the kick up the arse! Much needed.

      I did set out to write a blog mid Trump visit, but my keyboard stopped working :(Mostly because I pound the keys like one of the proverbial chimps let loose with a typewriter). I actually learned, at school, how to 'touchtype' on a manual typewriter! Even writing it makes me sound like a character from Dickens! I am sure those in my generation will remember how much pressure was needed to push those keys down - especially the worn ones! As a legal secretary we had to type documents without any mistakes! If you did it wrong, it was start again, it was quite a skill! One old guy in our office even had the skill to write a legal document in manuscript - again without any errors, ahh those were the days.

      As a 'typist', I learned over the years how to drift away to another world whilst typing, especially when working in the Reinsurance Department of a major city firm. What is 'reinsurance' people would ask me, and I would reply 'you know that boring stuff on the back of contracts, that no-one reads, that's reinsurance. To combat boredom I would imagine myself conducting a symphony with sweeping gestures when I reached the end of each line.

      Anyway, returning to my absence, a combination of lethargy (my feelings have been badly hurt)and I fear another bout of depression. I know the symptoms all too well, an inability to focus. Whatever thoughts I have in my head that are waiting to launch an invasion, are being held off by looking at sparkly things, Versailles, the State Banquet. I spent D-Day evening watching 'Darkest Hour', a breath taking account of Churchill's 'calling' to take control of WWII.

      I said in earlier post, cometh the hour, cometh the man. Churchill was born for his role in history. He was a war time Prime Minister, his party were voted out as soon as the war was over.

      His speeches, some of which were written decades before, became relevant to the time and place. He captured the Zeitgeist. All the stars aligned, it was almost prophetic.

      Our state of mind has much to do with what we accomplish. As Confucius said 'the man who thinks he can and the man who thinks he can't are both right'. Churchill's peers had already accepted defeat and were looking for ways to appear Herr Hitler. Churchill knew Hitler could never be appeased as did the public when they asked the audience.

      Darkest Hour showed Churchill as a vulnerable man who drank so much alcohol it was hard to imagine how he functioned. It was strange to see how vulnerable he was, particularly as he sat in lavatory virtually begging Eisenhower for help.

      I used to argue with my beloved old dad over the US contribution to the War. My dad defended them passionately. As a young teen during the war, he remembers how grateful they were when the US stepped in. He was raised on a diet of Dream Factory Westerns, where the Cavalry always come to the rescue. He would not have a word said against the Americans and he has passed that admiration onto me too.

      Even now as they are in turmoil (as are we), we can see the Good Guys fighting. And the truth is, Trump has lived his life as a Crime Lord, if this were a monopoly board and Trump was the top hat, every path leads to jail. The Democrats are literally lined up to slice and dice him. Every decent investigate journalist is out to nail him for every crime he has ever committed. US News is saturated with Trump's wrongdoings.

    3. ''Even now as they are in turmoil (as are we), we can see the Good Guys fighting. And the truth is, Trump has lived his life as a Crime Lord, if this were a monopoly board and Trump was the top hat, every path leads to jail. The Democrats are literally lined up to slice and dice him. Every decent investigate journalist is out to nail him for every crime he has ever committed. US News is saturated with Trump's wrongdoings.''

      I'm not trying to dampen your spirit of optimism, but, Trump is coated double in Teflon. Whoever decided that he was the man for the job had reason.And it wasn't to put him in a jail.Trump got the gig because too many people hated Clinton, not loved him.So the US shot itself in the foot.But that tends to happen in the UK too.So we end up with an X rated Laurel and Hardy screwing up their respective economy and inventing reasons to declare war on nations they shouldn't have any real argument with.

      Consider how much the vile Clinton got away with.The Monica Lewinski BS was a distraction from his real evil doing.It ensured that when we mention Clinton and corruption we only think of him persuading his secretary to get on her knees.She could have said no of course.Oh, hang on.She couldn't could she.....:)

      Hilary was heading for a shit storm had she have won that election.She is very much in the mould of her weirdo husband but far more focused, far less polished, and allergic to diplomacy.Trump, believe it or not-and I know it's hard- was a safer option for the US and probably the world.She is psychotic enough to poke the wrong bear in the eye.

      Obama ? Smooth, black soul brother.Slick, smiling and possessed the comic timing of any top stand up act when delivering the lines penned for him.But he'd cut your throat for a dollar.He'd just use somebody else's hands.We have him to thank for lying about Bin Laden, and Assange.For water boarding( sorry, to use his expression ''enhanced interrogation''). He had a huge army of IT hackers and a 'death squad'. What a pacifist...

      Bush ? 'Pappy' was once heard to usher the words'' and if they knew the truth of what we did, they'd lynch us all''. The only man who can't remember where he was when JFK was shot.Strange, considering he'd flown to Dallas to be there that day as part of the CIA security brief.

      Bush Jr ? The brains of a chocolate mouse and a recovering unstable alcoholic with more sexual skeletons in his cupboard than a pink ghost train.He used pages of lies to convince his partner in grime Blair to invade Iraq, rob them blind, wreck their Governmental structure and use it all to destroy our freedom( '' the terrorists we invented are watching you but we're looking out for you, honest'').

      Bottom line.They don't get done.The laws don't apply to them.Every one of them has leverage.The CIA are divided in an internal war; the FBI is too.And they don't get along with each other.So, everyone has leverage on everyone.It's a 'you take me down, i'm taking others with me' situation.


  9. Omega/Anonymous at 03.01, says it all.

    "England is a financial oligarchy run by the crown". The quote by Nathan Rothschild also sums up the contempt the controllers of the money system still have for the people of England.

    I realize at this time we all should be jolly and happy, celebrating our glorious past with the President of the United States and listening to the script-approved homilies of the Queen as British "subjects" about our eternal friendship with our greatest ally. Luckily they were our greatest ally at the critical time of Pearl Harbor when without them to the great relief of the people of England we would all be speaking German or Japanese by now.

    But it's not so bad you say - we can settle for second best, after all, who wants to deny the option of "citizen", especially when citizen is for the rabble, certainly not for the banking class and the royal family of England.

    You have no choice, my friend you are a "subject of the Queen.

    Turn this argument around a hundred times and dissect it and the result still turns out - Winners: the Windsors, losers their 60 million "subjects".

    What can you do - take it up with your MP when he or she is in line for a knighthood or an OBE?
    No chance.

    To advocate revolution would not be the best option although when the Queen of England shakes hands with a descendant of a revolutionary nation it must give food for thought at the banquet table.

    1. Yes, what uncanny timing. The heads of state of the great allies getting together for high tea and to emote for the cameras on the anniversary of the D-day landings.WW2, the greatest scam in human history...

      I know the official line from conventional records of History, and those who like to rework it from Hollywood, is that big Uncle Sam came hurtling from nowhere to rescue the desperate then stroll off into the sunset, but It's debatable as to who won that war.Churchill, behind his skilfully crafted speeches( why doesn't his writer eve get the plaudits?), had far more in common from mental case Hitler than the Brits like to admit.They shared a love of eugenics and all forms of social engineering for one(war's a pretty effective tool in that cause).And Churchill had no concept of the sanctity of life.He knew an anthrax bomb or two could unleash Hell and made it known that he was quite prepared to use them if we received no beefing up of our number.

      The US citizens had been asked, via a poll, if they thought they should get involved and it was a resounding 'no'. Their president scored points by telling them they wouldn't, therefore, get involved in any bother that might provoke an enemy to actually bomb their mainland( like in a real war).So he was in a bit of a quandary once he was told he had to.How could he throw the US troops into the war after that promise ?An attack on Pearl Harbour might change the minds of the people, that's close to the mainland.And guess what happened, right on cue....

      The 'big daddies' of the Kennedy and Bush dynasties had already been exposed and punished under the 'Trading with the Enemy' law for the amounts of business interests they had in Germany.Have a little search for them, the Nazis and banks.They disqualified themselves from ever running for office but it didn't disqualify their offspring from taking power...

      1933 was a key year prior to the war.A new man in Washington, a new man In Germany.Americans were told-not asked, told- to hand over all their gold, be it in the form of rings, earrings, medals etc- no later than May 1st 1933.The ship was sinking and needed to be held afloat.Germany did that.There's the real reason the US was reluctant to trade bombs with Germany.They were solid allies economically.How could they attack the hands that not only fed but saved them ?Calling Japan...calling Japan....

      Revolution might be the answer in Britain.But I don't know what change it would make.OK it would certainly save a few billion a year in unearned salaries( ''oh they work so hard and bring so much to our country'' lol).Millions of people arrive in London each year for the Royals.But 99% don't see one.They enjoy the pomp, ceremony and colours and buildings.We can keep those items.

      Charles 1st was good.He was for the people and against anyone gaining a stranglehold over them or their country via the banks.But, unfortunately,his head fell off.I dare say the history books were considering blaming Lee Harvey Oswald until they remembered that The tree that he holed up in wasn't on a grassy knoll.....

      Go home Trumpf.Take Lizzie with you if you like.You can leave Phil.He's mad. He'll probably lock himself in the tower with a few slaves to hurl abuse at and his X-box.


    2. Hi JC and thank you for your post. I think maybe 20 or 30 years ago I would have been alongside you holding the scarlett banner high, but I have mellowed and become less idealistic over the years.

      I too am a history buff but I view things from a different perspective to yourself. Those countries who fully embraced Marxism and Communism, like those countries that fully embraced fascism and dictatorship became nightmare dystopias. If you imagine a clockface with the Left on one side and the Right on the other, the extremes eventually meet and become the same.

      Arguably civilisation has yet to create utopia, a perfect society, El Dorado is as distant as it was in the 17th century. The real battles in recent history are between Capitalism and Communism, and I'd say Capitalism is winning. We are a throwaway, quick fix society, brainwashed daily by global corporations intent on keeping the masses tame.

      I understand the way in which the system operates, the dominant ideology, but now I see change coming in ways other than a radical revolution. I believe we are in a new Age of Enlightenment, the 'masses' have never be4fore had access to information as we do now.

      And on a positive note, new, truly independent news sites are knocking the MSM channels off the top of the ratings. News can no longer be spun as it once was, within seconds, we can tap into our mobile phones and see exactly what is going on. Times they are a changing JC, but not as quickly as we would like :)

    3. You are very cynical Omega, and with much cause I'm sure. I think the McCann case opened my eyes to the bribery and corruption in high places, as rife in Western 'civilisations' as it is in tin pot dictatorships. But there are checks and balances. In the USA at least, as the good guys battle against the bad guys. Like all good Hollywood movies the good guys are losing right now, as they were in WWII, but we know they will prevail in the end. Trump has spent his entire life committing crimes, the only speculation is which one he will go to prison for. I predict the ending being more spectacular than the burning of Atlanta in Gone With the Wind.

      One thing I really must correct you on Omega. Churchill wrote his own speeches, he was a wordsmith, a man of letters. His words were intended to inspire, he chose them very carefully.

      Churchill as we know immediately lost the General Election when the war was over. True there is much that is questionable about his politics, but cometh the hour, cometh the man. Maybe it takes a psychopath to beat a psychopath? What cannot be disputed is the effect Churchill had on the nation, whilst his peers were talking negotiation and capitulation, Churchill came out fighting, with the full backing of the people. We shall never surrender, words that send a chill down the spine even today.

      As for the D-Day commemorations, it is good for a nation's morale (something Churchill knew a lot about) for heads of State to honour those working class kids who gave their lives for our freedom.

      On a personal note, my great, great, great grandmother had 6 sons on the front line in WW1. Only two of them survived. I was deeply touch therefore to see 95 year old Jock Hutton getting the tributes he deserved and for parachuting into Normandy once again. My own beloved Dad was known as Jock Hutton (most scotsmen in England were called Jock)so he may be a relative, bless him.

      You call for a revolution Omega, but as an historian you should know that there is no guarantee that a new system will be any better than the old. The French Revolution for example ended in a literal sea of blood, the Reign of Terror. How can you know that those waiting to depose our current rulers are any better?

    4. I admit I'm cynical.But I'm a realist too. How can i be anything but cynical when I see through the BS. The whole game was rigged.Once that's exposed you can read the BS as though your own private subtitles are scrolling across the bottom of the screen on a private strapline.

      It's true that corruption in high places is rife.When wasn't it.It was already old news by the time Caesar got the big job.America still use the Rome model. It's all there. Washington is a living monument to Rome.The same Rome that wanted nothing less than total control of the world and everyone who lived i it.By any means.The world's a smaller place now.And communication is easier among the masses.And the voices of dissent can be heard.Truth is the new terrorism.It must be destroyed, and so should those who want to spread such filthy honesty.

      The good guys have always been outnumbered.Truth is a great weapon.So too is honesty.But they can't destroy monsters or repel bullets and prison cells.The bad guys don't just have the money, influence and power, they have the weapons too.The best we can do is to learn how to roll with the punches in a fight we can't win.

      I take back what i suggested about Churchill.I knew he was an educated man- genuinely educated, not passed a degree for later use like most politicians of power.Because he could barely get through a day sober without his loyal secretary and spin doctor, I assumed he must have had help when slurring his dictation.He knew well the power of positive propaganda. He was very much of the Charge Of The Light Brigade school of thought.But he was a horrible elitist.He had no use for the common man beyond their use as cannon fodder.Striking dockers ? Shoot them. Nice.

      I don't commemorate D day.I think it's a good idea for the men who fought for us to do so.It's a personal crusade and a time to focus on what they went through and who they lost, and how and why.But i don't believe it reminds of us of anything to do with freedom.I'm disgusted by the lies our grandfathers were told.I see the 'wonderful free world' they live in.Old men in tiny council flats they can barely afford to keep warm if they want to eat every day.

      This democracy is fake.The people of 1939 had more freedom than today.One by one, piece by piece, our freedom is being taken apart and removed.That's why the US can't stop reminding us that it isn't happening.Tell it to Big Brother.Show us how free we are and stop following, stalking, questioning and surveilling what we talk about.

      I don't call for revolution.Like I said, I don't know what it would achieve. I believe it's a fatal flaw in human nature that will ensure any system will have a despot at it's head eventually.Driven by a need to dominate and exude power.An insatiable ego that feeds on itself.The human race is programmed to construct pyramids.Be they a business or social structure.The mass will always be the bottom floor with only horizontal movement an option.


  10. January 28, 2019

    "LISBON, Portugal — A Portuguese magistrate is deciding whether there is enough evidence to put a former prime minister and two dozen other once-powerful figures on trial for corruption, money laundering and other crimes.

    Magistrate Ivo Rosa on Monday began hearing legal arguments from the public prosecutor and defence attorneys in one of the biggest cases in recent times in Portugal.

    Jose Socrates, who was the country’s Socialist prime minister from 2005 to 2011, is accused of pocketing 34 million euros ($39 million) through top-level corruption.

    Other suspects include a former government minister, the one-time head of Portugal’s largest listed bank, which went bankrupt, and Portugal Telecom’s former president and its former chairman of the board.

    A decision on whether to proceed to trial is expected before the end of the year."

    1. He's the proverbial 'nine bob note' old Socrates.He already has a 9 month stint in prison behind him.He should get a British passport.The Tories need men like him.He could move there and look up his old pal Barroso. he did quite well through his British 'friends' in high places.

      Between the many bent politicians, questionable detectives with criminal records or the fingers of suspicion pointing there way, it's quite the place.But let's not be too damning of them. It would be considered racist. We'd be insinuating that they're a third world country or some other nonsense..


  11. We all know (or we are taught to know) that D Day was the day for the beginning of freedom of Europe from Nazi oppression - but there is another side to the coin which has always intrigued me.

    How do the losers feel on June 6th at the annual celebrations.
    We are moving on now three quarters of a century from the event as if celebrating the Napoleonic wars should be eternally in our minds.
    Not saying bad things were not done in WW11.

    As a matter of interest from the other side's point of view more than one million volunteers joined the German forces in combat for various reasons. Liberation of their own countries from communism or imperialism and the like were among the reasons.
    They came from as far apart as Finland and Spain and France and Chechnya.
    There was even a Free India division stationed in Bordeaux responsible for protecting some of the Atlantic wall. An army gathered together by Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian nationalist party hoping to free India from British rule.
    As a point of interest the Free India Division was trained and given instruction in English by English speaking German officers, the only way they could make themselves understood.
    Their Punjabi troops understood only English

    It's all a long time ago. But I think there is always the other side's point of view we never hear about. Just a thought.

  12. As the adage says, nobody wins a war, they can only end it...

    The questions you raise are as important today as they ever were.The fighting in various wars to 'liberate' pockets of the middle east has been going on for twice as long as the two great wars combined.

    Somewhere in Afghanistan went to work one day and the shop he ran was no more.Soon after neither was he.Both cut down by an ordinary shop keeper from the US who had signed up for Uncle Sam to end oppression / promote freedom.The tale can be told a thousand times and even more when talking about the great wars.But the men in their suits in the offices are nowhere to be seen until it's time to sell more lies and take money from the population for their next crusade of raping and pillaging. Palestine is surrounded by an insurmountable army that has endless weapons of destruction and death and the world watches on and pretends it can't see the oppression, immorality or illegality of what's happening.Back home we remember the famous 'man's inhumanity to man' catchy line but never acknowledge that year after year of turning up to various memorial gatherings to remember D day that we've learned nothing.We commemorate the fallen out of respect for what they gave their lives for.But we never, in their memory, do anything effective enough to end war.They died so we could live freely.But we live in a world that is never a war-free one.Now we're a button-push away from oblivion and the fear is promoted by the war mongers so we never question their idea of defence.War has always been big business.The profit margin is obscene.Show me a post-war British PM or US President that retired as anything less than a millionaire.On their official salary ? They'd need to work for about 300 years and scrimp and save to even go close.They make it comfortably after about 10 years work.They somehow have some magic money tree that only ever grows recession- proof money.

    We don't need war.We need peace.We need the money to be invested into the recovery of a decent way of life for everyone.There's enough that nobody should go without food or a roof.More than enough.But those small handful of despots have a love of money and power. It's psychosis. Nobody matters enough to them in their quest. Collaterel damage is par for the course.Kissinger called us 'useless eaters' in one of his rare unguarded moments of honesty.What's happened since has pretty much confirmed hi opinion.

    The man who led the allies on D day was an ex five star general.President Eisenhower. he knew what war was like in the field as well as from behind a desk now that he was the President.He was right in '61 when he gave the people then and of future generations a dire warning about what he called the Military Industrial Complex. He said something even Churchill couldn't match.It bordered on prophesy :

    ''"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist''

    That's bang on the money.The speech is available to view freely.

    Germany had began their unhinged charge toward ruling the world at any cost a generation before Ike spoke..But the books say we stopped them just in time.The books failed to record that the Nuremberg trials were a sideshow.A few 'major' Nazis were hanged for the crowd.So many more were rescued by the states to carry on their quest but underneath the star spangled banner, not the flying swastika. Soon there would be NASA, built according to the specifications of brilliant German Nazi Rocket Scientist, Braun. Operation paperclip was complete.The Nazis who had worked tirelessly to enslave the west and destroy those who stood in their way were now working for the west and looking toward the east.Same old same old..


  13. sorry, that seemed to send twice