Monday 25th of September 2023

brexit, looters by royal appointment and by presidential decrees...


The great empire operators of today and their governments are as devious as those of the past, possibly more hidden in their intent, because the plebs, us, are more educated. 

These days they are called multinationals, business enterprises and various clubs of rich geezers in golden bunkers behind security guards... Because of social progress, "democracy" had to be given to the masses like burley to fish to be caught — to minimise the risk of revolution. We are still living in a feudal system.

As we discovered their tricks to manipulate us to their advantage and our chagrin, the empire operators invented new methods of refined deception through the media. The baited hooks are advertising, propaganda, consumerism, religion still, lip service to social causes, the promises of "reforms" and "betterment" of whatever including limitless growth — plus many other tricks from the book of rulers to make us believe in debt (ours) and profit (theirs), a "fair day's work for a fair day's pay", accept the price of beer and the inevitability of war.

Peer trough a small timeframe of the past and see the lessons that the sociopath rulers of today could learn from their previous sociopath selves. 

Actually the leaders of today may not have to learn anything from the past, considering being sociopathic is a skill that one learns to develop from basic instincts, unchecked greed and limited care of people, especially for those who are in the way. 

But inherited loot and skills like sociopathy itself, sometimes disguised with selective philanthropy, helps a lot in creating fortuned decorum. Hence the creation of dynasties of queens and kings, by queens and kings — sometimes interrupus by others kings' and queens' conquests and looting.

So, in the spirit of Brexit, let's analyse a period of history — say the 17th century Europe. 

Rulers were basically grand thieves with elegant clothes that ponged of spices, lavender and crushed rose petal. They gave themselves the title of kings, queens, dukes and counts, all bribed sycophants in courts — hanging on for crumbs, bons mots or the next assassination of the head looter. And they fucked each other. They call this history. It has been sanitised for public deception.

They did the looting on a grand scale by lavishing massive trumpery, glitter, god and gold and fool's gold on courtiers, and lies and the fear of god upon the masses, the money of whom they took, like the sheriff of Nottingham. They made promises of glory for the troops, while the pope of the time usually participated on one side in order to eradicate the Protestants — his enemy. Most of the fights were between countries for no other reason that they did not like the look of their cousin's breeches or cock-piece — or that is was a kingly pass-time activity like playing cards. It's the thing one king or queen had to do. War. Still is the prerogative of the US presidents. 

These bloody elegant times were pitting friends against friends, cousins against cousins, brothers against brothers. And we helped them.

Today the looters manufacture more complex, more refined and more believable furphies to go to war, because we, dumb people, tend to be more educated. Imagine, the reasons to go to war against Saddam were one of the most elaborate massive masterpiece of deception. Though I could see right through it, our MMMM (mediocre mass media de mierda) did not want to look and repeated the royal edicts and added even more colourful editorials to the sauce to make it stick in the mind of the public.

The thieves in power employ MMMM specialists to promote the legal morality to go and loot something. 

Say we first look at James I, the successor of Elizabeth I, and his minion, the Duke of Buckingham. 

James "reign" started at the young age of one year and two months... Officially got the crown in 1583, aged 17. Charlie, the present heir to the throne, age 68, is still waiting for his mum (90) to give him the controls. Good old Germanic stock.

George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, was an English courtier, statesman, and a favourite — and (hum) "possibly a lover of King James I", we are told — was nine years younger than James.

Despite a very patchy political and military record (the young officer Buckingham had lost a few of the king's soldiers and had to abandon his disastrous quests for loot) Buckingham remained at the height of royal favour for the first few years of the reign of James I, certainly because of his famous good looks — until Buckingham was assassinated by a disgruntled army officer, possibly a scorned lover. Who knows. Actually we know... Buckingham was about to launch another war campaign which would have been even more disastrous than the previous one... On August 17, Buckingham arrived at Portsmouth to organise another expedition to La Rochelle. Five days later he was stabbed to death by John Felton, a naval lieutenant who had served in his campaigns and who believed that he was acting in defense of principles asserted in the House of Commons. 
The plebs in London rejoiced...

James's nickname for Buckingham was "Steenie," after St. Stephen who was said to have had "the face of an angel". James knighted Buckingham as "Gentleman of the Bedchamber". 
Speaking to the Privy Council in 1617, James I declared: "You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."

Wow! Now we know why Jesus seeked the company of men.


In a letter to Buckingham in 1623, the King ends with, "God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear father and husband." Buckingham reciprocated the King's affections, writing back to James: "I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had..."

No platonic relationship here. Beats the tampon tapes. James I was a Protestant. His wife was Ann of Denmark... They had seven children.

James I was followed by Charles I in 1625. Charles I married Henrietta Maria of France in 1625 and got beheaded in 1649. A small contretemps for the Stuart family.

After the beheading, England was then ruled by the unruly parliament. 

In 1653, Oliver Cromwell (Old Ironsides) took control of everything and tried to create a dynasty when passing "his powers" later on to his son, Richard (Tumbledown Dick), who was a wimp. The wimp was removed by Fleetwood, but anarchy reign till a fellow called Monck took over and allowed Charles II, the son of Charles I and Henrietta, back from his refuge in France, in 1660.

George Villiers' son, Buckingham mark II, had learned the art of deception from who knows who, but he used other people to do his dirty work. After some devious manipulations, a secret "explosive" agreement between Charles II and King Louis XIV (King of France 1643-1715) was made. It would take too long to explain who was married to whom, who was sleeping with whom, just say here that kings of Europe were all nearly related through marriage and were possibly inbred. Nothing new.

In this secret deal, not much different to a modern TPP, Charles II was to abandon England's Triple Alliance with Sweden (those bloody Normans) and the Dutch Republic, in favour of assisting Louis XIV in conquering the Dutch Republic, at a time of his choosing — while letting his "friends", the Swede and the Dutch, believe that the treaties were still in place, till the invasion was enacted. 


Provided that the conquest was successfully completed, England was promised several very profitable ports along one of the major rivers that run through the Dutch Republic. Because at that time, guess what? The Dutch were a REPUBLIC. Kings hated republics. 


The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. 


Guess what? Kings and sociopaths always win, because they know how to flatter, to condescend, or to enslave or kill the poor by pitting the poor against the poor should they resist.


We are brainwashed from a young age to believe in fairy stories where there is, lurking somewhere in a castle, a "Prince Charming" waiting for the common (beautiful) girl to kiss him — or is it the reverse, when a bad witch had turned him into a toad?... It's my simple belief that princes should stay toads, but we stupidly let the royals in our hearts, still today, as we read the rubbish popular mags. Some of us dream of pomp and circumstances at our solemn private occasions — and we let the psychos dictate our fate. Making democratic choices is hard. Look at the recent Aussie elections. Democracy is so unfair when 49.8 per cent of the population is completely trounced with no rights to say ye or ney by 50.2 per cent of the others. All you need is a couple of dorks voting the wrong way, says he. There is no proportionality of intent. At least a king would tell us to bend over or work harder for his glorious self. Our personal interest would come second or last, but we would submit, considering the guns pointing in our direction and the lure of becoming something by royal appointment.


Back to the Dutch. The main components of the secret treaty were as follow:


The King of England will make a public profession of the Catholic faith, and will receive the sum of two millions of crowns, to aid him in this project, from the Most Christian King, in the course of the next six months. The date of this declaration is left absolutely to his own pleasure. 


The King of France will faithfully observe the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, as regards Spain, and the King of England will maintain the Treaty of the Triple Alliance in a similar manner


This was a massive deceit! Charles II and Louis XIV would lie to the others, Holland and Sweden, as if they were still good friends through treaties, until Charles and Louis were ready to loot and kill them. Remembering a redeemed Gaddafi... 


More of the secret deal and distribution of the loot:


If new rights to the Spanish monarchy revert to the King of France, the King of England will aid him in maintaining these rights. The two Kings will declare war against the United Provinces. The King of France will attack them by land, and will receive the help of 6000 men from England. The King of England will send 50 men-of-war to sea, and the King of France 30; the combined fleets will be under the Duke of York's command


His Britannic Majesty will be content to receive Walcheren, the mouth of the Scheldt, and the isle of Cadzand, as his share of the conquered provinces. Separate articles will provide for the interests of the Prince of Orange. The Treaty of Commerce, which has already begun, shall be concluded as promptly as possible.


This secret treaty did not become public until 1771 — one hundred years or so after the declaration of war. A historian, Sir John Dalrymple, published its contents in his Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland. So there.


The "separate articles to provide for the interests of the Prince of Orange" have to be a hoot. See, The Prince of Orange (A small Principality in France), born in The Hague (Holland) in 1650, was also A STUART FAMILY MEMBER. He would have been made an offer he could not refuse. As a "Dutch" he would have been a "protestant", hence the devious incrimination of James II who would appear as a "traitor to the protestant" cause, for which he was deposed. We see not very similar actions with Tony Blair, with a different purpose and result... Tony B-liar should be impeached.


The Young Prince of Orange was not a fool. As sovereign Prince of Orange (a tiny feudal state in Provence, in the south of modern-day France) from birth (The French call him Guillaume d'Orange) though we was born in La Hague, as Stadtholder (Chief Magistrate) of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland, and Overijssel in the Dutch Republic from 1672, Willem III ended up... as William III, King of England, Ireland (King Billy), and Scotland (William II) from 1689, replacing James II's daughter, Mary II, until his death in 1702, when he fell from his horse.


He was replaced by Anne, the daughter of James II till 1707. Then came the Hanovarians who, to simplify the transition, adopted the Royal crest of the Stuarts...


Back to Willem III... The Principality of Orange had been constituted in 1163, when Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I elevated the Burgundian County of Orange to a sovereign principality within the Empire (read "Europe", minus a few recalcitrants like Spain and Portugal). The principality became part of the scattered holdings of the house of Orange-Nassau from the time that William I "the Silent" inherited the title of Prince of Orange from his cousin in 1544, until it was finally ceded to France in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. Although permanently lost to the Nassaus then, this fief gave its name to the Royal House of the Netherlands. 


James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, Mary II, William III, Queen Anne were all from the "House of Stuart" replacing the "House of Tudor" since Queen Elizabeth had no kids. 


Meanwhile Louis XIV polished his average pride with some sunshine — calling himself the Sun-King.


We arrest this adapted dissertation of royal tits, bums and looting with a summary of the House of Hanover (or the Hanoverians). 


This German royal dynasty ruled the Electorate of Hanover and then the Kingdom of Hanover. It succeeded the House of Stuart as monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland in 1714 and ruled the United Kingdom until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. Victoria had been raised under close supervision from her German-born mother Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld — in the House of Hanover. She married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in 1840. Their nine children married into royal and noble families across the continent, tying them together and earning her the sobriquet "the grandmother of Europe". Some haemophiliac rulers while democracy bleeds to death. 


When Vic went into mourning for too long after the death of Albert, there was rumbles of Republicanism in England. This was soon put to bed. The House of Lords did not have to work hard to made sure of that. Institutionalised pageantry with privileges is hard to give up, even for the peasant spectators. We love our fairy stories...


In order to sound more British, the name of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Saalfeld in the house of Whatever was changed to the Windsors... They had not had to do looting for a while as their loyal subjects were prepared to do commerce and trade through a variety of looting enterprises, including the East-India Company, the first grand multinational with its own army. 


This name will soon change to the House of Mountbatten-Windsor because Philip-the-Greek (and Denmark) descends from the House of Oldenburg.


So, everyone paid cash to keep the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Saalfeld of Hanover in place, the head of which would deliver Christmas messages of goodwill to the empire as the grand doodah of a silly religious belief, while those who conquered new domains got knighted. 


God save the Queen...


Brexit looks a bit pale in this context...


The new rules for the looters is that there is no "new" inherited kingdoms to rule over. But one can inherit a lot of cash. Presently there is about 2,000 dudes and their progeny who control about US$100 trillion of the world's fortune. Considering there is about US$120 trillion of cash in circulation, we, the plebs, are still screwed.


I am not going to be popular, am I?

Gus the Elder

Your local atheist republican by vocation.



Her wedding to the Prince of Wales on 29 July 1981, held at St Paul's Cathedral, reached a global television audience of over 750 million people. While married, Diana bore the titles Princess of Wales,Duchess of CornwallDuchess of RothesayCountess of Chester, and Baroness of Renfrew. The marriage produced two sons, the princes William and Harry, who were then respectively second and third in the line of succession to the British throne. As Princess of Wales, Diana undertook royal duties on behalf of the Queen and represented her at functions overseas. She was celebrated for her charity work and for her support of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She was involved with dozens of charities including London's Great Ormond Street Hospital for children, of which she was president from 1989.

Diana remained the object of worldwide media scrutiny during and after her marriage, which ended in divorce on 28 August 1996. Media attention and public mourning were extensive after her death in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997 and subsequent televised funeral.,_Princess_of_Wales


A flame of decency amongst that lot above. Read from top.

bribes from war machines...

WASHINGTON—Like all special interests in the nation’s capital, the defense industry is spending millions of dollars this election season to ensure a front-row spot at the federal trough—and in the case of the most powerful military-industrial contractors, a chance to influence the national-security policies that will keep production lines humming and profit margins growing.

Defense contractors took a keen interest in the Republican and Democratic primaries, backing candidates for reasons both ideological and commercial. How they will divide their dollars between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the general election remains to be seen, though there are reasons to think one of the major-party nominees will be especially receptive to industry support. For the military-industrial complex, however, the race for the White House is not the whole story—and in the ways that matter most, this year’s elections mean business as usual.


By April 30, the defense sector had given more than $1.6 million to the broad field of presidential candidates. Among all the 2016 hopefuls, Ted Cruz was the recipient of the most defense-industry dollars, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Cruz received a total of $343,000, followed—perhaps surprisingly—by Bernie Sanders with $323,000, and then Hillary Clinton with more than $273,000.

Sanders’s place at the top of the Democratic heap in terms of defense-sector support may seem odd for a man who attacked Clinton’s support for overseas military interventions. But it’s not so strange at all when one considers that the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the most expensive aircraft in U.S. history, and more than a decade overdue—underwent development in Sanders’s home state of Vermont.

Lockheed, the maker of the F-35 and the biggest recipient of Pentagon contracts in 2015, gave Sanders $36,600 through March. He also got more money from Boeing than Clinton—nearly $46,000 in that period, according to Alexander Cohen of the Center for Public Integrity.

Meanwhile, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Donald Trump, by then already the presumptive Republican nominee, had received only $17,818 as of May. Republican dropouts Jeb Bush ($212,108) and Lindsey Graham ($135,925) filled out the top five this spring, under Cruz, Sanders, and Clinton.

While the total figure for defense corporations’ giving directly to presidential candidates was just $1.65 million as of the end of April, that number does not count the companies’ political action committees, which pour cash into presidential coffers and, even more so, those of congressional candidates and party committees. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have PACs that rank among the wealthiest in the industry. Lockheed’s PAC, which spread around over $1.6 million for federal candidates this spring, had given $10,000 to Cruz by the end of March. Northrop Grumman’s PAC, on the other hand, gave all of its $1.5 million as of March to House and Senate candidates—mostly Republicans.

Over and above ordinary PAC spending, the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows for unlimited contributions to super PACs from corporations. “Now [that special interests] can spend as much money as they want, I think you will find more lopsided contributions,” notes Pierre Sprey, a defense analyst and critic who spoke with TAC. “This is a huge sword hanging over the heads of the candidates.” And although Super PACs must ultimately disclose their donors to the FEC, issue-oriented nonprofits need not do so, and they too can be tools of defense-industry influence on public opinion. The overall picture of how defense dollars shape politics is shadowy—but what we can see is telling.

read more:

advertising nappies...


Conservative England — God's play ground


Until Corbyn came along, England was in the throes of conservatives. Even under that liar extraordinary, Mr Tony Blair of "new Labour".

The right-hand side of politics, which includes New Labour, is full of precious dust and mothballs. Cameron, the present British prime minister, has placed his government in the hands of Thatcherism, though he is an admirer of Disraeli, a clever con-man of "One-nation conservatism" (hello?) — a form of British political conservatism that views society as organic and values paternalism and pragmatism. The phrase "One-nation Tory" originated with Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881), who served as the chief Conservative spokesman and became Conservative Prime Minister in February 1868. He devised it to appeal to working class men as a solution to worsening divisions in society. Does this reminds you of "it's never been a better time to... be a millionaire?" 

But all the present trauma of Europe, including Brexit, is the continuum of old distrusts, broken alliances and new demands. 

The Congress of Berlin (13 June – 13 July 1878) for example was a meeting of the representatives of the Great Powers of the time (Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Germany and the Ottoman Empire) and four Balkan states (Greece, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro), aiming at determining the territories of the states in the Balkan peninsula following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. 

The Congress came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Berlin, which replaced the preliminary Treaty of San Stefano signed three months earlier between Russia and the Ottoman Empire.

This was designed to stuff up the Russians as well as promote English interests in the Middle East, before solving the real Balkan problem which had been festering for 400 years and is still festering today.

The German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who led the Congress, undertook to stabilize the Balkans, recognise the reduced power of the Ottoman Empire, and balance the distinct interests of Britain, Russia and Austria-Hungary; at the same time he tried to diminish Russian gains in the region and to prevent the rise of a Greater Bulgaria. As a result, Ottoman holdings in Europe declined sharply (The Ruskies had defeated the Turks — thank you); Bulgaria was established as an independent principality inside the Ottoman Empire; Eastern Rumelia was restored to the Turks under a special administration; and the region of Macedonia was returned outright to the Turks, who promised reform. Romania achieved full independence, forced to turn over part of Bessarabia to Russia in order to gain Northern Dobruja. Serbia and Montenegro finally gained complete independence, but with smaller territories, with Austria-Hungary occupying the Sandžak (Raška) region. Austria-Hungary also took over Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas Britain took over Cyprus. All this makes more sense to understand Eurovision when you hear the name of that country you did not know existed: Bosnia and Herzegovina...

The aim of the congress was also to prevent Russia controlling the Dardanelles as well as the Bosphorus, to "allow" England to place its hands on the Suez Canal. By then the French had already lost Alsace and Lorraine to "Germany". But all were friendly enough to make new empire pies somewhere else.

The stink of the next war was already in the air. All it needed was a small flame to light the wick. This was provided by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, nephew of Emperor Franz Josef and heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire... probably a false flag event, a Bay of Tonkin, a Saddam WMD fiction. The fabrication of deceit, usually blamed on someone else, including a peasant lunatic, for gain is not new. 

Here we can accept that some nationalists Serbs did not like the Austria-Hungary empire. But had it not been for this event, something else of similar insignificance would have created the same crap. 

From the east of Tearaght Island, 12.5 km west of Dingle Peninsula, county Kerry in Ireland, to the Philippines —and Australia — ordinary people were left hopeless in a powder keg, manipulated by media, into the arms of the megalomaniacs and sociopath in power, pushed and shoved for territorial empire — then equated with cash, resources and prestige.

Here Gus would be called a "conspiracy theorist"... He is not. He is a conspiracy analyst. The chessboard can be deranged when no-one is looking. 

All this dissertation here brought to you by Brexit. Cameron is but gone, waiting for September for his replacement in the Tory Party. We know it will be a woman as the choice has narrowed.  Good old feminism, one would be prepared to announced. But fear not, feminism in the Tory ranks is laced with the old values and doused in religion. 

Both women candidate have already presented their religious credentials. The faith is safe, until the Labour leadership wars are settled. Meanwhile we are hook-winded into believing all is well in the best of the world, while the psychopaths are preparing for war once more. It never stopped. The Middle East has been ablaze since the creation of Babylon...

Today, with Prince Harry and Prince William as heirs to the British Throne, the monarchy has been sanitised into a perfectly decent bub-making family acting in advertisements for nappies and toothpaste.

Gus Leonisky
Your local not-a-royal fan.




See also:


We have used the word "trumpery" for a while now... Read from top. It appears that the Gadfly has just discovered its meaning... (I think the Gadfly knew it but is playing the ingenue game for effect):


Where do we start with the Orange Bampot, who had such a terrific week of threats, lies and braggadocios?

One of Gadfly’s research assistants has been working his way through the Oxford English Dictionary and struck upon the entry for “trumpery”.

The meaning of the word has evolved, much like the Bampot himself, but even so it has stayed close to giving us a proper definition of the fleshy, orange-coloured leader of the “free” world. As early as circa 1485 it meant “deceit, fraud, imposture, trickery”. There was an early Scottish reference: “They concordat alltogither in trumpery and fallsit.”

By 1531 it also applied to objects and things: “A heap of trumpery fit to furnish out the shop of a Westminster pawnbroker.”

It extended to abstractions, beliefs and religious ceremonies. For example, “I’d put an end to free-masonry and all such trumpery.”

In the 17th century it was being used in relation to worthless finery, even to weeds and refuse and earlier to things of “little or no value, trifling, paltry, insignificant, rubbishy, trashy”.

Shakespeare in The Tempest (1616) had: “The trumpery in my house, goe bring it hither For stale to catch these theeues.”

Of course, it came from the French, but it is the Brits who are nothing if not thorough in exploring their words. Here we find all the ancient meanings and uses hurtling into the present day with great precision and clarity.

Tips and tattle: [email protected]


Read more:

dancing to the pipocrats...

Populists who started Brexit call Theresa May a traitor to the cause ahead of historic vote
With Parliament set to vote on her compromise exit plan, protesters mounted a “Brexit Betrayal” demonstration, demonizing May. A larger crowd of counterprotesters also rallied, some calling for a second referendum.

How Europe’s new autocrats are consolidating control
Autocracy is making a comeback, seeping into parts of the world where it once appeared to have been vanquished. But it is a sleeker, subtler and more sophisticated version than before, twisting democratic principles into tools of state control. Here are the stories of citizens fighting back.

Read from top.

post-imperial hangover for the english sausage...



Many Brits, wallowing in their post-imperial hangover, sometimes make fun of countries, typically in southern Europe and Latin America, which from time to time are afflicted with a political paralysis— “Look at country X, still can’t put together a government after 3 elections”, etc.

Ukania has however exceeded countries such as X when it comes to governmental paralysis.

It only took a single election, in 2017, to allow the Tories to form a minority government with the support of the northern Irish DUP (founded by the rabble-rousing hate-preacher Ian Paisley), that has been paralyzed ever since by its utter inability to negotiate any kind of Brexit deal with the EU.

The coming to power of the Tories in that single election has ensued in just as much governmental paralysis as country X with its inability to acquire a functioning government after 2-3 elections.

Ukania as Ruritania as Kakania (the latter being Robert Musil’s term in his great novel The Man Without Qualities (1930), describing the Habsburg monarchy as mired in a self-stultifying political morass overlaid by mindless flummery that has no limits; and Ukania being Tom Nairn’s term to designate the UK’s own embodiment of Kakania).

Ukania/Ruritania/Kakania—Brits currently have little choice but to go for all three when it comes to describing their laughing-stock of country.

Groups within Ukania treat Brexit as a battle that must be fought to the death, but really the issues that appear to cause divisions in this dog-fight are moot in a wider scheme of things.

Remain in the EU? Accept the rule of Eurocrats who will do the bidding of the multinational corporations.

Leave the EU? Accept the implacable will of the multinational corporations through bilateral trade deals conducted under the auspices of the window-dressing WTO.

Either way, Ukania’s Joe and Jill Normal will be stiffed.

However, presumed nuance in such matters can’t be overlooked—is there any likelihood that one of these two options (Leave vs Remain) will stiff our Joe and Jill just a little bit less than the other?

It is hard to decide if this choice has to be made solely on the basis of workable policy and compelling political principle.

Here, a more plausible decision-making approach may reside in assessing, as clear-sightedly as possible, the political actors upholding this or that position vis-à-vis Brexit.

The Brexiters, in the main, are either retro-imperialists or upholders of an even less-regulated capitalism (or both). The retro-imperialism is a fantasy, but the less-regulated capitalism is not, though the former is used as a cloak to con misty-eyed imperial Brit nostalgics into acquiescing in the latter.

The Remainers are by and large believers in a more cosmopolitan order (hence scorned by Steve Bannon and his ilk as “globalists”), and a somewhat more regulated capitalism, albeit one still superintended by billionaire hedge fund managers and property tycoons.

Another grouping that has to be considered in any kind of Brexit typology are those who for decades have been proponents of a so-called Lexit.

I have been a Lexiteer since I was a teenager in the 1960s (when the UK entered the then European Community), on the grounds that no country in that entity could achieve an adequate socialism because the EC/EU was always going to work for the capitalist corporations whilst giving bromides to plebs like me.

The determination I made at that time, though largely correct, needs now to be reassessed in the current context of a neoliberal globalization.

It is a no-brainer that a no-deal Brexit will be an unqualified capitulation to the imperatives of this neoliberal globalization.

All that Brexit supporters (such as Bannon and company) want is a globalized capitalism, albeit one accommodating xenophobic “nationalist” characteristics, and UK Brexiters such as BoJo Johnson and Nigel Farage, are in the same boat as Bannon.

Remain, on adequate terms will, hopefully, be a half, or maybe a less than half, capitulation to the imperatives of this neoliberal globalization. However, we should not forget that the big UK corporations are fervent Remainers, and this for damn good (capitalist) reasons.

So: as a Lexiteer what does one choose?

Jeremy Corbyn has always been a Lexiteer, and now has to steer Labour into making a choice.

Actually, it is not Corbyn’s or Labour’s choice to make.

Brexit has been such an indecisive shambles for the UK that only a second referendum, fraught thought it will be, can approximate to a choice made by “the people” with regard to a future Brexit outcome.

A second Brexit referendum will be an imperfect but marginally better option than the dead-end Brexit alternatives available to Brits thus far.


Read more:


Read from top.


The UK should never have been allowed in the EU...

freedom of speech — how it was done...

The Protestation of 1621 was a declaration by the House of Commons of England reaffirming their right to freedom of speech in the face of King James' belief that they had no right to debate foreign policy. 

Many Members of Parliament were unhappy with James' foreign policy. They opposed the Spanish Match (the plan to marry Charles, Prince of Wales to the Spanish Infanta) and wished for a war against Spain.[1] The MPs believed that if they conceded that they had no right to debate matters which displeased the King, Parliament would be obsolete. As William Hakewill MP and historian stated: "The privileges of this House are the flowers of the Crown, and we shall never sit here again if they are not maintained".[2] The Commons declared on 18 December 1621:

The commons now assembled in parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concerning sundry liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, amongst others not herein mentioned, do make this protestation following:—That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and the defence of the realm, and of the church of England, and the making and maintenance of laws, and redress of mischiefs, and grievances which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in parliament; and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of the house hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same: that the commons in parliament have like liberty and freedom to treat of those matters, in such order as in their judgments shall seem fittest: and that every such member of the said house hath like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation (other than, by the censure of the house itself), for or concerning any bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter or matters, touching the parliament or parliament business; and that, if any of the said members be complained of, and questioned for any thing said or done in parliament, the same is to be showed to the king, by the advice and assent of all the commons assembled in parliament, before the king give credence to any private information.[3]

James formally deleted the Protestation from the Journals of Parliament and dissolved Parliament.[4]


Read more:


Read from top.

brexit by decree of tyranny...

World-renowned Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt explores the playwright’s insight into bad (and often mad) rulers.

As an aging, tenacious Elizabeth I clung to power, a talented playwright probed the social causes, the psychological roots, and the twisted consequences of tyranny. In exploring the psyche (and psychoses) of the likes of Richard III, Macbeth, Lear, Coriolanus, and the societies they rule over, Stephen Greenblatt illuminates the ways in which William Shakespeare delved into the lust for absolute power and the catastrophic consequences of its execution.

Cherished institutions seem fragile, political classes are in disarray, economic misery fuels populist anger, people knowingly accept being lied to, partisan rancor dominates, spectacular indecency rules―these aspects of a society in crisis fascinated Shakespeare and shaped some of his most memorable plays. With uncanny insight, he shone a spotlight on the infantile psychology and unquenchable narcissistic appetites of demagogues―and the cynicism and opportunism of the various enablers and hangers-on who surround them―and imagined how they might be stopped. As Greenblatt shows, Shakespeare’s work, in this as in so many other ways, remains vitally relevant today.





DER SPIEGEL: Recently, a photo was published showing German Chancellor Angela Merkel reading your book "Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics" on the balcony of the vacation resort where she was staying. Do you have any idea how she became familiar with your work?

Greenblatt: I don't know exactly, but I do know that she already knew about the book in May when she received an honorary degree from Harvard, where I teach. We met briefly and she said: "I heard you wrote a book about Shakespeare that describes our time today." And I said: "Yes."

DER SPIEGEL: The tyrants you describe are sociopaths, liars, cheats and populists, and they tear everyone and everything to pieces. There is now a discussion in Germany about whether the chancellor is pleased by the comparisons made between Shakespearean tyrants and Trump.

Greenblatt: That's what books are supposed to do: open up a space for us to reflect.

DER SPIEGEL: If the chancellor wanted to make a statement with her reading choice, then it was an indirect one. Your book also makes indirect statements considering that it doesn't contain a single reference to Trump. Why?

Greenblatt: Look, we all talk about Trump all the time. The fact that we're so fixated on him is part of the problem. In Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, which opened in London in 1599, spectators stood so close to the stage that they became part of the action. Shakespeare wanted to suggest that we all have a part in creating power, even if we are only the audience. We are fascinated by the tyrant. He amuses us, he disgusts us, his rise can sometimes seem like a comedy, sometimes like a tragedy, both have appeal. At some point, it turns out that everything consists of lies, but lies only work when people want to be lied to. We want to keep watching the tyrant, even though we know he's acting destructively. That's how we stabilize his power, and that's why I'm not fond of talking about Trump himself. To me, this is about Shakespeare, whose dramas explore the psychic mechanisms that move an entire nation to abandon its ideals, even its interests.

DER SPIEGEL: What are these mechanisms?

Greenblatt: For example: The tyrant can act as a populist, as one who represents the interests of his counterpart, the people. But he is deceiving people, because all he cares about is himself.

DER SPIEGEL: As an author, you distance yourself from the concrete person. Does this allow you to better identify the structures?

Greenblatt: Shakespeare showed the way, though his circumstances were profoundly different from my own. Unlike me, he really did have to watch his back. He lived in the early modern age, where critical words against rulers were considered treason and punished with torture and death, dismemberment and evisceration. The country was stirred up during Elizabeth I's reign by fears of foreign invasion and fanatical religious terrorists, and there were spies everywhere. Shakespeare chose the form of coded speech, shifting place and time: "King Lear" is set in ancient Britain, "Coriolanus" in Rome in 5th century B.C. and "Richard III" in 15th-century England. Shakespeare used their portrayals to show the typical moments in the rise of catastrophic leaders: the exploitation of internal disputes, deceptive populism, the interplay of various enablers who believe that they themselves can benefit from the rise of the tyrant.



Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament is an unlawful abuse of power, a Scottish court has heard in the first of three legal challenges.

Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for a cross-party group of 75 MPs and peers, told a court in Edinburgh that the prime minister had trampled on more than 400 years of constitutional law by asking the Queen to prorogue parliament solely for political gain.

“We have a constitution ruled by law,” O’Neill told Lord Doherty in the court of session, urging him to issue an interdict – a Scottish court order equivalent to an injunction – forcing the UK government to quash the prorogation order signed by the Queen on Wednesday.

“That is what a constitutional monarchy means,” he said. “It is not some form of autocracy or divine right or that ‘the king can do no wrong’.”





See also:

the theatre of the merde-och absurdists...



Read from top.