The most immediate affect of our continued affection for hereditary "governance" is the perpetuation of the Vanguardist myth ("Vanguardism", quote; "As he surveyed the European milieu in the late 1890s, Lenin found several theoretic problems with the Marxism of the late 19th century. Contrary to what Karl Marx had predicted, capitalism had become stronger in the last third of the 19th century. In Western Europe, the working class had become poorer, rather than becoming politically progressive, thinking people; hence, the workers and their trade unions, although they had continued to militate for better wages and working conditions, had failed to develop a revolutionary class consciousness, as predicted by Marx. To explain that undeveloped political awareness, Lenin said that the division of labour in a bourgeois capitalist society prevented the emergence of a proletarian class consciousness, because of the ten-to-twelve-hour workdays that the workers laboured in factories, and so had no time to learn and apply the philosophic complexities of Marxist theory. Finally, in trying to effect a revolution in Tsarist Imperial Russia (1721–1917), Lenin faced the problem of an autocratic régime that had outlawed almost all political activity. Although the Tsarist autocracy could not enforce a ban on political ideas, until 1905—when Tsar Nicholas II (1894–1917) agreed to the formation of a national duma—the Okhrana, the Tsarist secret police, suppressed every political group seeking social and political changes, including those with a democratic program.
To counter such political conditions, Lenin said that a professional revolutionary organisation was necessary to organise and lead the most class-conscious workers into a politically coherent movement. About the Russian class struggle, in the book What Is to Be Done? (1902), against the “economist” trend of the socialist parties (who proposed that the working class would develop a revolutionary consciousness from demanding solely economic improvements), Lenin said that the “history of all countries bears out the fact that, through their own powers alone, the working class can develop only a trade-union consciousness”; and that under reformist, trade-union leadership, the working class could only engage spontaneous local rebellions to improve their political position within the capitalist system, and that revolutionary consciousness developed unevenly. Nonetheless, optimistic about the working class’s ability to develop a revolutionary class consciousness, Lenin said that the missing element for escalating the class struggle to revolution was a political organisation that could relate to the radicalism of political vanguard of the working class, who then would attract many workers from the middling policies of the reformist leaders of the trade unions.
It is often believed that Lenin thought the bearers of class consciousness were the common intellectuals who made it their vocation to conspire against the capitalist system, educate the public in revolutionary theory, and prepare the workers for the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat that would follow. Yet, unlike his Menshevik rivals, Lenin distinguished himself by his hostility towards the bourgeois intelligentsia, and was routinely criticised for placing too much trust in the intellectual ability of the working class to transform society through its own political struggles" Go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/, at least Lenin did not attempt this without first removing the monarchy -murder notwithstanding-). The reasons for this should be obvious..under the Tsar the people were deliberately denied educational resources and the continuance of the British monarchy well past its sell-by-date has had the same effect on our "under-classes" (both blue collar and working), however far from championing the "Class in Itself" to become "The Class for Itself", as any good Marxist-Leninist would, tradition within the British Labour Party dictates that our sweaty-armpitted Brahmo Samaj must attempt the process of "The Withering Away of the State" whilst under the rod of an un-constituted monarchy.
Why is this the case? The answer is Scotland (or "Balmoralisation" -"but poor old Goebbels had no b**ls at all!", ..."Mein Fuhrer! Und anozer! UND ANOZER!" "Himmel ve hav landed at ze Highgrove!"-),
...................................................................... ("There's a hole in my bucket dear Lizzy! Dear Lizzy!" The Medieval, Unaccountable Corporation of London is Ripe for Protest, go to: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval?CMP=share_btn_tw
), ...................... the socialist elite are prepared to grovel to the Scots and discount Irish independence for the same reason...
The IRA may turn away and mumble into their hands whenever the subject of the deaths at The Mull of Kintyre are mentioned but that merely exemplifies the maxim that "all terrorism is treason" ("yesterday's terrorist" may indeed be "tomorrow's freedom fighter" but not without an evolution in the consciousness of both State and Self). Is it such a strange irony that the republican movement in Ireland should be supported by U.S Democrats and the Loyalists by the Republican Party? What this also means is that the Labour Party perforce must perpetuate (and even proselytise for -quietly but whilst never doing "the other"-), the First Past the Post electoral system (so one can't blame it all on Mr.Patrick Ashdown). Clearly they do this because they feel that they must enforce the Balmoralisation of the British public in order to maintain (even the possibility now of), power, why they think this is the case is interesting for they obviously have no faith in the British public to come to similar conclusions concerning their own welfare on a significant enough basis to enable the Labour Party to come to power in England under a proportionately representative electoral system. "One" could perhaps ignore this (not "correctly" but at least such an oversight might at least be possible), if such a posture did not also have rather more obvious deleterious consequences.
David Cameron perpetrated on the British people one of the nastiest and cheapest bits of political slight-of-hand we've seen in these fair Islands for a while, something he could not have attempted without the support of? The Liberals, who (conveniently stuffing 200 years of "Liberalism" down the plug-hole), abandoned their principles to shake the hand of every neo-con nonentity in the Tory Party, their "respect" for our electoral and political system even extending to The House of Lords ("I had no idea so many Liberals were Papists Maam!"), where they are being encouraged and enabled (and funded too? Not officially of-course), to remove any lingering vestiges of democratic process from the patient. Funnily enough ("if my dear you have a native's taste for such humour"), the one person who does actually comprehend what's been going on is our monarch, however which one of you would or does expect their nonagenarian grandmother to do the washing-up during the festive season? The buck does indeed stop at the house but, ..
"Who's the little see-you-next-tuesday just out of shot with his hand in the air?"
"Maam with these European turds you are spoiling us!" Undoubtedly cher cousin...and she's been doing it for a while now..but do you know the real reason both "we" and her majesty have been clinging on so long? We don't want to end up like you....! It's true for the British people are well aware that if we are to salvage anything from the wreck of the anachronism ("whose?"), it will be 60 years of work trying to maintain the welfare of her people, for if ;"by their works shall ye know them" the great experiment that is American Independence has resulted only in social unrest, inequality and death.
"Phishing" in the European pond by the U.S State Dept. does highlight the problem though for it has thrown into sharp relief the 21st century's antagonisms between the Wider Europe and the self-determination of its peoples and it is these obvious contradictions which identify the effects of the British Labour Party's reliance on the creaking constitution of the realm. The fact is that the British Labour Movement does not now (neither ever has been able to), properly represent the electorates interest's in Europe, the truth is that they fear European democracy for her eyes are lead straight to the dichotomy between Labourite power and self-governance. Unfortunately Mr.Corbyn (who I otherwise support wholeheartedly in much of his campaigning), suffers from a touch of the Jehovah Complex to which Tony Blair succumbed so successfully (and many such well-intended social reformers do), that engenders in the sufferer a penchant for self-martyrdom far more painful to the witness than the patient, as Yoda might say; "realise that they are not the ones that suffer they must!"
Mr.Corbyn and his cabinet would like to lead us all to the heady socialite (sorry "socialist"), uplands and celebrate the negative aspects of the Puritan Revolution whilst maintaining the crown but there are some things the British public just won't wear Mr Scargill despite all protestations to the contrary, for they respect a fighter (as they should in both Cromwell's case and Scargill's), and thankfully they despise back-stabbing.
Shamefully but perhaps unsurprisingly much of this conflict within the body politic still has its roots in religion..specifically of-course Christianity..for whilst some may be; "over zealous in their campaigning" they do so not on behalf of the crown but themselves. One may hardly demure, quote; "It is widely assumed that if the Queen were to call it a day after 50 years, Prince Charles would become King, and after him Prince William, or possibly Prince Harry. But that may not necessarily be the case. Any one of them would be instantly disqualified if he married a Roman Catholic.
That is the effect of the Act of Settlement, which is both an obvious fix and the only remaining piece of blatant anti-Catholic legislation left on the statute book*. Almost all of Britain's other anti-Catholic laws, which included a ban on Catholics holding public offices such as that of magistrate, were repealed in the 19th century - although it was not until 1974 that the question of whether a Catholic could be Lord Chancellor was finally resolved." Go to: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/31/politics.religion1Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, sect. 17, and the Jews' Relief Act of 1858, sec 4, no Roman Catholic or Jew may advise the sovereign on ecclesiastical matters. Were the prime minister to be a Roman Catholic or a Jew an alternate system of ecclesiastical appointment would have to be devised.
*Italics mine. It is typical of the denial present within the British media that the more secular issue asserts its dominance at the expense of the spiritual, the fact is that they are of equal import for both bear directly upon the governance of the country, quote; "Under the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829, sect. 17, and the Jews' Relief Act of 1858, sec 4, no Roman Catholic or Jew may advise the sovereign on ecclesiastical matters*. Were the prime minister to be a Roman Catholic or a Jew an alternate system of ecclesiastical appointment would have to be devised.
To date, all British Prime Ministers, at least while in office, have professed Anglican faith. Disraeli, while born into a Jewish family, was baptised into the church of England at age 12 and Tony Blair waited till after he stood down from the post of prime minister to officially convert to Catholicism.".....and...
"from 13 September 2001to 29 October 2003 the leader of the Conservative Party was Iain Duncan Smith who was, and is, a Catholic. Mr Duncan Smith did not, therefore contest a UK General Election as leader of the Conservative Party but obviously could have done. If he had been successful and the Conservative Party had won such an election, he would have become the Prime Minister" Go to: http://shamelesspopery.com/why-it-matters-that-kate-middleton-can-be-catholic-now/
Worth a read; Prime Ministerial Involvement in Ecclesiastical Appointments, go to: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj6h_3qmJTRAhVICcAKHekcA10QFghEMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk%2Fdocuments%2FSN04403%2FSN04403.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEH-lIgaxxqNC88tEPlPMcvhJnBtg&sig2=nKm5ek_GaHAW03b2IkWJLg
Quote;"“We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive to those who adhere to a minority faith,” the prince intoned. “All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s … Whichever religious path we follow the destination is the same: to value and respect the other person.”".....
"Of more significance in Charles’s broadcast was his reference to the story of the nativity – and that was pointed indeed. It unfolds, he said, “with the fleeing of the holy family to escape violent persecution”, and he added for good measure that the prophet Muhammad migrated from Mecca to Medina in search of religious freedom.
The prince has studied Islam, its beliefs, practices and art, long before 9/11 made it fashionable to do so. It was one of the reasons why more than 20 years ago he spoke about being a defender of faith when he becomes king, rather than defender of the faith – a statement that caused the established church, whose faith he will be defending, conniptions at the time." According to "The Graun", go to: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/22/prince-charles-christmas-day-message-today-future-monarch
A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales titled 'Islam and the West' at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies , The Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. Published on 27th October 1993, go to: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/media/speeches/speech-hrh-the-prince-of-wales-titled-islam-and-the-west-the-oxford-centre-islamic
There's a social issue involved too of-course for the attempted exclusion of Charles Windsor from the succession is clearly an example of discrimination on the grounds of mental health (not that I'm saying he's crazy just not always well), Roosevelt used walking aids and no one claims he would have been a better president if able bodied and it's the same issue. For if there is one critiscism I would make of Elizabeth's reign (it is only one but it's a big one), it is that she should have seen clearly the need for a "common-bond" within the Commonwealth and done away with the sectarian parasite decades ago, that this was complicated by her son's (and her sister's -for bi-polarism does indeed run in her "Saxe-Coburg" family-), illness only exacerbates the crime, her majesty may claim that these decisions were a product of the times in which they were made but they, "were a-changin'" well before Charles was deliberately side-lined.
Witness the election (rightly or wrongly), of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, an introduction to their, "Little Friend; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" for although the would-be Republicans and would-be Democrats never admit to it "we" call it "Anarchism" for we know what principles such pirates espouse. Then there's the French "Mon Dieu"! "Et toujours toujours un grognement comme d'une dogue" (said by their own staff about the French general staff during The First World War -"and it's as good today as it's always been"-), "compromised"? I think so.."Extra-extensionism? It's a conservatory doctrine......"
Nevertheless the Americans have a point about liberty for they rightly distrust the social engineering "benign dictatorships" are capable of and have always been terrified of Vanguardist Socialism usurping the crown in the U.K (although in "our" country the notion of voting for a republican who isn't also a democrat is considered the worst form of idiocy). One might accuse the Yanks of naivete even of being gauche but not on this occasion for our institutions are decrepit and weep with their over-ripened corruption.
That the oft professed zeal for individual liberty should now only appear as window-dressing with the other loss-leaders in New York's shop fronts is however a deeply disturbing reality, hypocrites are one thing, heavily-armed hypocrites quite another! To discover that this process is aided and abetted (some might say instigated), by shady elitist cabals like that of Bohemian Grove in the U.S and The Rhodes Scholars in the U.K should come as no surprise because elites (all elites including the Socialist Vanguard and the Brahmo Samaj), are essentially Socially Darwinistic, the notion is however intrinsic both to monetarist capital (that relies on the notion that the weak must fail -and do-), and hereditary entitlement (and explicitly so), therefore the "happy accident" of Catholic Democrat funding for Irish nationalist organisations played straight into the hands of the American Illuminatus who wish to control the European market place*. O Hanlon (who un-like McTavish does not share his death bed with his sibling)'s Razor must be applied to any further analysis for such crass conceptions do indeed lead to banal conclusions and Cameron's terrible blunder over Europe exemplifies same. It seems clear that the vested interests in Britain and America thought it was worth gambling on the predilections of the European electorate but as with America's interventions elsewhere our global-flatfoot made a rookie's mistake, "never bet on money over land" or "the dollar over blood"!
Another reason I bang on about this may indeed be that I have a predilection for necrophiliac equine abuse, nevertheless to be forced to actually pose the question; "What of all the other faiths? What of; Rastafarians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Quakers, Unitarians, Wiccans, and all the others (nb. "Satanism" is not a faith, ask one)?" Is more than somewhat embarrassing. Is it of no concern that they too must be excluded from advising our monarch, for what conception of Anglicanism can any who profess another faith hold? How could "one" allow a Sikh to be first amongst equals but not a "Papist"? Or; ""Why the Continued Ritual Immolation of Human Effigies Might be Indicative of an Unevolving Society" From, "You are no Parliament!" (see archive). It is an acid test of the social-reformer how they respond to this question and it's funny how a global perspective helps; consider how long the British Monarchy has endured, Elizabeth 2nd's claim to being the most powerful monarch in the world is (unlike perhaps some of the Saxe-Coburg's family's other claims), a remarkably good one, the last of her kind (whether the monarchy continue or not), and she should be respected as such, those observing from "outside" our tent are aware of the power in the symbols of monarchy but our proximity tends to deny us same. Surely we must avoid those who would "emancipate the vulnerable" by rebooting us all to default setting zero? Unfortunately this would mean the British Left dropping its intolerance of Israel for a more balanced approach somewhat better rooted in the traditions of these islands, quote; ""..and here we find a child's toy, a poignant reminder of the human cost of this...(insert: "conflict", "earthquake", "meteor-strike" etc.),.." "Drop the Dead Donkey."
You know I could give serious credence to someone who might tell me that "liberal" Western journalists have been paying both Palestinian and Israeli extremists in recent years in order to ensure the continuance of the conflict and the cash-cow that is their supply of pre-soiled-copy to the pious "liberal" masses.
Fashion not withstanding however a fully independent secular Palestinian/Gazan state (in which the nationalisation of foreign immigrants has been normalised and no one religious or ethnic group has an overall electoral majority), must surely be the way forward" From; "What's that Coming Over the Hill?" (see archive).
The desire to affect social change must be balanced with a notion of individual responsibility, the other walks the road to treason (a treasonous smear itself as in the case of the NUM but nevertheless effective as such). Stalin when pushed was forced to admit that tradition, religion and ethnicity were essential vitalising forces in the Soviet Union's battle with National Socialism however tolerance should not just be for public-philanthropy but for life!
*Arafel: "Northern Irish politician says Theresa May will ‘very likely’ face court challenge to block human rights law reforms, amid local anger at potential breach of Northern Irish peace treaty" Go to: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-facing-likely-legal-challenge-to-block-human-rights-reforms-in-breach-of-northern-a7500416.html
Is Camilla’s promotion first step to becoming Queen?
Quote; "The monarch has marked her official 90th birthday by tidying up plans for her death and elevating the Duchess of Cornwall to her most senior advisory body, the Privy Council.
It is unprecedented in modern times for a royal wife not in direct line to the throne to be a member of the Privy Council, showing the esteem in which Her Majesty holds Camilla.
Both Camilla, 68, and William, 33, went to a special meeting of the council at Buckingham Palace on Thursday evening to be admitted into the body.
It acts as the cornerstone of the constitutional monarchy, enacting Acts of Parliament and advising the sovereign on the use of powers which do not formally go through Parliament.
The Queen wanted Camilla to be beside Charles when he formally succeeds her as monarch in a ceremony normally held at St James’s Palace within 24 hours of the death of a sovereign, according to the sources.
A royal aide said: “The Duchess is honoured to be admitted to the Privy Council.”" Go to: http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/678872/Is-Camilla-s-promotion-first-step-to-becoming-Queen
For full article.
https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/american-progress-podesta-albright.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-horrible-cant-possibly-be-true.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/barbarism-and-rank-hypocrisy-allies.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/where-are-liberals-brexit-eureferendum.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/sophies-choice-again-brexit.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/slaying-euro-dragon-brexit-voteyes.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/abergavenny-castle.html,
https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/gerrymandering-and-al-gore-isms.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/britain-pursues-happiness-to-its.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/catalan-independence-what-if.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/will-us-be-so-vocal-and-vehement-about.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-night-they-drove-old-dixie-down.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/red-star.html,
https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-european-arrest-warrant-should-be.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/american-justice-re-ferguson.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-omertas-blind-spot.html,
https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/ukrainethe-regime-tightens-its-grip.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/the-nuremberg-defence-jo-cox-rip.html, https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/this-is-no-parliament.html,