If you grow up living next to a petrochemical plant your awareness of associated fumes will be less acute than the norm. If you grow up under a monarchy you will be oblivious to a stench that, under other circumstances, would assault the senses. While police investigate the Prince of Wales's charity concern in relation to a cash for citizenship and "honours" scam, it emerges that the Chuckster has literally been receiving bags of cash. For three years from 2011 the Prince accepted (at least?) three million euros in cash. The source of the identified sum was the former prime minister of Qatar. So, is this best practice? If anyone else was observed doing this would it get red flagged? Of course the denials from the Prince's people are reassuring. We are content to hope for a trace of genuine honor in the pretence of honour. Britons: This is your next head of state. While we're on the subject, it's that time of year to watch TURN: Washington's Spies (again - five times now). This year the character of Robert Rogers is clearer than ever a deus ex machina, arriving to save one side to the Revolutionary War, then the other. The treachery he suffers is enough to awaken him to the stink. There are now many countries that can rid themselves of it without a shot being fired. Here we go!
Sun, 26 Jun 2022 14:08:10 GMT post menu
Is it difficult to imagine what the world looks like to those who grow up on the gravy train? Would the perspective they develop result in having great compassion and philanthropic intentions, or would they just be taught to fake those in public? At the pinnacle of British society, in the rarified atmosphere of the Palace, are a family who experience only luxury and plenty. What can they tell us about deprivation? One would think it both polite and wise for them to remain silent on issues of social justice, wouldn't one? However the Windsors are commenting with sufficient frequency for us to have a shot every time they do. Either Palace PR is in meltdown, deliberately engaged in sabotage, or the Princes are on a frolic of their own (possibly against advice). Walk across the border between Kensington and Shepherd's Bush in London and you will witness segregation. The two districts illustrate the contrast between poverty and hereditary privilege. All the social issues that royal personages want to weigh in on are unlikely to affect them. All they do is nag and point the finger. Do we need an expensive and embarrassing institution that serves to distract us from the real problems? One of those problems is them, and people like them. You only need royalty if you can take advantage of the example, and you only need monarchy if you are beneficiary of the system. That includes anyone who acquires wealth or influence through family connection. In reality, "royals" are the same as anyone else. They are just an example of ordinary people being treated as if they were preternaturally gifted. That has wide appeal because who wouldn't like that kind of gig? Do we enjoy it vicariously despite our circumstances? Is that how it slithers under the radar? If the people who describe themselves as royalty want to make a statement they can give away the nonsense titles. More significantly they can give away their inherited riches to the poor. They can open their many residences to genuine refugees, and the homeless. That, however, is neither their mission, nor their purpose. They must be an absolute and unequivocal example of the miserly greed that is threatening to once again steer Britain into a recession. Then again, why believe someone who by now is paralytic? Being drunk on greed is better because someone else gets the hangover.
Sat, 11 Jun 2022 11:17:59 GMT post menu
bonfires of inanity
To mark the Platinum Jubilee as many as 1400 beacons were set ablaze by local councils across the country. This is fitting for three reasons. Firstly it's insulting to anyone vaguely concerned with the environment. All those things you've done lately to try and reduce your carbon footprint have been wiped out. It typifies the royal attitude to global warming: Being careful is for others. They can take dozens of flights, ride in giant limousines, have multiple palatial residences, and at the same time tell us how everything we do is damaging their quality of life. Secondly it's a monumental waste of time, effort, and any fuel that went up in smoke. The fires are still an appropriately grandiose collective gesture to nonentities because waste is the royal signature. Lastly this hideous event stands for a massive burn on a minority of the British, who are once again being duped by hired cheerleaders to line up like Union Jack bedecked sleep-walkers. Anecdotally, if the local bunting deficit is anything to go by, this anniversary was only a CGI success. Images are either closely framed, or any crowds must have been frantically cloned in to photos and videos. Has Palace PR finally graduated to using Hollywood level smoke and mirrors? Seems possible, given how close the royals are to the Uncle Toms (Cruise and Hanks). Some will stoop to lending genuine talent and celebrity to talentless pseudo-celebrities; people famous for being famous. On that basis Adam McKay might as well direct Love Island, but royalty is the original and worst reality show. If you think all this is uncharitable, you are correct, but someone has to rain on the parade. Otherwise the parades dignify this reign, and the next, ad infinitum.
Sun, 05 Jun 2022 15:04:23 GMT post menu
Personal experience suggests there is a line with the British that, once crossed, allows no return. It takes a lot to pierce that boundary, so will royalty ever go One's step beyond? You'd think the episode with Epstein and Andrew would be enough to push the Brits over the border of their tolerance, apathy, conformity, hypnotic trance - or whatever it is that subdues them - but most remain inadvertent lickspittles. It might be that the British are just afraid of themselves, and what they might accomplish if ever they awoke from the royal spell. It is possible however that a statistically significant new group is emerging who don't support or follow the Royal family. They have better quality distractions than that. The British press report that the approaching weekend will witness millions of Britons escaping the Jubilee cringe-athon for breaks abroad. They ain't staying for the party, your magnificences. Aside from obdurate pockets in certain communities where it is inevitable, the tsunami of bunting anyone may have expected is more like a ripple on a pond. The festival of bootlicking the establishment was counting on isn't the sell-out hit they hoped for, but some press coverage is sure to try and make it seem like one.
Wed, 01 Jun 2022 16:25:41 GMT post menu
Who needs a holiday or a street party when a story is an early Jubilee gift? Tom Cruise has been credited with stating that the Queen's reign of 70 years is an "historic achievement." Could there be anyone better to endorse monarchy than a doyen of Scientology? Is he better dealing that crowd because their beliefs weren't irrational enough for him? Putting that aside for a moment, it is possible to feel the highest degree of empathy for the incumbent monarch. Did she have a reasonable chance to decline the role she was born to? She may have experienced consistent luxury in her life, but probably not the luxury to question the institution she represents. The actor's formula of words is a giant faux pas for the usually impeccable Palace PR machine, because it invites the question about what achievement is. Can it be an achievement to inherit? Those who call themselves royalty and aristocrats better hope it doesn't mean that, otherwise it requires that we ask whether it is an achievement to inherit disadvantage. If a child's parents can give their children very little advantage, does that mean the kids are not achievers? Would the answer be different if the children inherited obscene advantage? If someone inherits the deeds to a thousand acres of prime London property is that his or her achievement? By way of contrast, what will we call inventions, or works of art, or great scholarship? Ultimately you ask whether it means inheritance or whether it necessarily implies effort. As Albert Ellis cautioned, it's never just semantics, it is all semantics. Even British English cannot stretch to accommodate both those interpretations. Time serving in high-profile positions acquired through family connection might be admired in Britain, but most Americans would know better. Way to go, Maverick. We're all counting on you.
Mon, 16 May 2022 11:50:55 GMT post menu
select payment method
ten years an outcast
freak show tourism
anti-tax to anti-vax
reclaim the Internet
to conspiracy and beyond
a line in the sand
Hi, my name is...
meeting your heroes
freedom of speech - liberty to listen
why zombies eat brains