For a Few Rice Bowls More.

 

During the appalling crimes of the Khmer Rouge the US remained vocally critical, but effectively stood back in as part of the push to open up China. The subject of human rights was never an issue of policy, not that it has ever been since. Washington postured over Pol Pot and the media moralised, there was a whitewash for who was funding Suharto's genocide in East Timor. It's impossible to understand these events without keeping in mind the American war on Vietnam. Originally the US waged war on South Vietnam after its proxy terror-state slaughtered 70,000 people and aroused an uncontainable resistance. The liberal administration in Washington arranged a "seat change" for President Diem, a man they had put in power, and just before JFK was assassinated Diem was promptly executed. The pretext for all of this was to contain China and the absurdity of this justification didn't become apparent until Nixon went to China years later. Nixon embraced Mao as US planes were dropping the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on Cambodia.

 

 

The US continued to block all attempts at peaceful settlement until 1975, by which time Cambodia and Vietnam had almost been bombed back into the stone age. Washington had failed to achieve its maximal objectives, a ravaged Indochina would live on, but its main objectives were actually fulfilled by 1965 - when the US installed Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Suharto in Indonesia. By then Vietnam was devastated, estimates of the Vietnamese dead ranged from 3 to 4 million. The war had been continued for the sake of US prestige. The aim had been to kill the "virus" of independence in Vietnam, the fear was that the rot might spread to Indonesia and eventually Japan. That would mean the US would lose everything it had fought for in WW2. The common perception of American defeat in Vietnam is not unfounded. This reading lacks subtlety in terms of analysis and exhibits imperial self-pity in conclusion. In short, the US secured its regional objectives though Vietnam survived the onslaught as a outpost of Soviet power in the Far East.

 

The US establishment was left profoundly bitter and sick over Vietnam and remains so to this day. So when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia the US led the chorus of condemnation, even though the Vietnamese drove out the Khmer Rouge. In fact, the US and its allies went as far as to support the Khmer Rouge as a government-in-exile of which Sihanouk became a representative. The Khmer Rouge were allowed to hold onto their seat in the UN as the legitimate representatives of Cambodia. And as a guerrilla force against the Vietnamese occupation the Khmer Rouge received training from the SAS, which the British lied about until 1991. Until then Western governments withheld a great deal of aid to starving Cambodia. The argument was that the Vietnamese would not allow food to reach everyone that it should, namely the Khmer Rouge - who were holding 45,000 people hostage at the Thai border with the protection of the UN. In spite of its battle to rebuild itself Vietnam sent over 25,000 tonnes of food aid across the border to feed civilians.

 

 

Upon the invasion Sihanouk was deployed to make a speech damning Vietnam's aggression at the UN, after which he sought refuge in China. He was later anointed as President of the coalition in waiting. As the respectable face of a government, which included many mass-murderers, Sihanouk thanked the US for passing on lists of Cambodian "traitors". In this grubby partnership Sihanouk was constantly aware that his life was in the hands of hardcore Khmer Rouge in his own entourage. In the meantime the Khmer Rouge decided to wage a guerrilla war and wait for the Vietnamese to be driven out of Cambodia as a force condemned as "outlaws" by the international community. The move would then be a forceful takeover of the country and a return to the barbarism of the 1970s. The Vietnamese occupation was not undeserving of criticism given its brutal repression of dissent and racist policies against minorities. In the end Vietnam left the country in the hands of Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge who had defected to Vietnam, who continues to dominate Cambodia.

 

 

With the end of the Vietnamese occupation the transition to a liberal democratic capitalist state began. Yet it was only a formal shift to a multiparty system of representation as Hun Sen remains in power to this day in a sort of dictatorship lite. The old command economy has been blown apart to make way for markets and the forces of capital. Sihanouk was reinstated as King while the Khmer Rouge stood at a far and tried to appear as a modern force by embracing market liberalism. The power-sharing arrangement was between Hun Sen and Prince Ranariddh and thankfully not Pol Pot. Once again the conservatives banded around the royal family began to collaborate with the Khmer Rouge. In response Hun Sen orchestrated a coup and purged around 40 royalists. By now King Sihanouk was fixing pardons to rehabilitate the old men who had led the Khmer Rouge in its heyday. It would be another decade until a handfull of these aging killers would even see an indictment.

Who was Sihanouk?

 

Norodom Sihanouk, the self-styled King-Father of Cambodia, has died at the age of 89 in circumstances far more pleasant than the many Cambodians he outlived. He spent his last years in North Korea and China, the appropriate compatriots of a man who took the side of the Khmer Rouge out of his own opportunism. It's true that Sihanouk was just another man clutching at straws in the chaos of the American war on Indochina. He was both a hostage of and accomplice to the Khmer Rouge. Just as Sihanouk had juggled the various powers in the Vietnam war to maintain Cambodia's "neutrality" and hold onto the thrown, the demagogue went on to stand as a voice of opposition during the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. To this end Sihanouk took the side of the Khmer Rouge in those years as the respectable face to the international community. And yet Sihanouk began his reign as a playboy and demagogue, it seems he learned quick how to dance to the tune of foreign powers.

That was the case with the French until the old empire was on its last legs. Sihanouk moved to establish an independent state in 1953 and reinvented himself as the father of the nation. Yet the young King continued the alliance with France even after independence. In 1955 Sihanouk stepped down as King, letting his father take his place, only to lead the country on a populist appeal to cultural conservatism, revolutionary nationalism and Buddhist socialism. Though Sihanouk later took up the powers of King as a Prince when his father died. It was a balancing act, Sihanouk was keen to keep Cambodia out of the Indochinese conflict and played leftists against rightists. In the end, his former deputy, Lon Nol seized power in a putsch in 1970 with the approval of the CIA. It was then that Sihanouk forged a coalition with Pol Pot. Meanwhile the reactionary nationalist Lon Nol supported the US campaign to repeatedly bomb Cambodia thereby laying the road to Phnom Penh for the jungle-dwelling guerrillas.

As the Khmer Republic crumbled in 1975 Lon Nol opted for a last stand - it came straight out of Buddhist mysticism - and when the Khmer Rouge surrounded the capital the Marshall had a ring of consecrated sand spread around the entire city. The sand couldn't save Cambodia from what happened next. At first the mood was one of celebration as the youthful troops draped in black and red garb marched into town. The mood soon changed when the thugs started to evacuate the city, dumping the old and the infirmed at the side of the road to die. The rest of the people were marched into the jungle at gun-point. During all of this Sihanouk spent his time between Beijing and Pyongyang, upon his return to Cambodia he would serve briefly as a mascot monarch of the Angkar. He gave a lie-riddled speech at the UN defending Pol Pot, though Sihanouk was just a pawn in a game this was no trivial game. The Chinese supported Pol Pot in order to colonise Cambodia and counter the shift of power as Vietnam realigned itself with the Soviet Union.

For more on this period of Cambodia's history see my latest article.

Hobbes on Democracy.

Thomas Hobbes was a perfect foil for Machiavelli in a way, as Machiavelli claimed to have discovered a new continent of a new order but it was Hobbes who made that continent habitable. The focus of Leviathan, specifically in chapter 19, shifts onto the different kinds of commonwealth as distinguished from one another in terms of institutions and the succession to sovereign power, as well as in differences of convenience, aptitude in the creation of the peace and security of the people. For Hobbes there were only three main models of commonwealth: monarchic, aristocratic and democratic. This is due to the indivisible nature of sovereign power can only be peacefully manifested in representatives of “either one or more or all”.[1] For our purposes we will be focused particularly on what Hobbes has to say about democracy rather than aristocracy and monarchy. But the views he held on aristocratic and monarchic systems remain important only insofar as they can be distinguished from a democracy or a “popular commonwealth” as Hobbes deemed it.

Early on in the chapter democracy is marked out as distinct from monarchy and aristocracy, as a popular commonwealth in which representation comes in the form of “all that will come together”. Thomas Hobbes contrasts this with monarchy, where the representative is one man, and aristocracy, which is only partial assembly. In the case of a democracy every man has the right to enter into it, rather than in an aristocracy where only the men distinct from the rest can enter. Notably, if the power of the monarch has been limited then the state in question is not a monarchy as sovereignty fell into the hands of an assembly (which could be either democratic or aristocratic). For Hobbes the indivisibility of sovereign power is necessary for peace, an end for which sovereignty is instituted. Once power becomes divided it is no longer sovereign, so for conflict to be avoided it is vital for a duality of power to be averted.

For peace the sovereign must have absolute authority, be not a party to the covenants and hold absolute authority only to the extent that the sovereign has the power to enforce the law. Then it is absurd to think that there could be perpetual peace when sovereign power is in the hands of an assembly (as in a democracy) for the absolute representation of the people would fall to subordinate representatives and the power could very easily become divided. Thus subordinate representatives pose a danger to sovereign power insofar as such a system can become a source of division in the commonwealth.[2] So sovereign power can be divided, but it shouldn’t be because power ceases to be sovereign once it has been divided.[3] Think of instances in which states have collapsed into chaos amidst an uprising, a rupture of the order from which the sovereignty of the regime is undermined to the extent that a duality emerges and a rival for sovereignty appears.

There are also cases where the sovereign takes the form of a one-party state and a sudden rupture explodes the status quo. The revolution and subsequent civil war in Libya was one such example where power was stripped of its sovereignty as the people rebelled, but eventually sovereign power was manifested in a new government as the Gaddafi regime was brushed aside in Tripoli. We might even segue into theories of what makes a revolutionary situation. We might understand a revolutionary situation as defined by the emergence of what Charles Tilly called “multiple sovereignty”, which has three main features. First of all, the existing state suffers a loss of power to contenders and rivals. Secondly the rivals fall back on a base of popular support which is a significant portion of the population overall. Lastly, the existing state cannot, for whatever reason, repress the contenders and the base of support behind them. The fears of a divided sovereignty, which Hobbes had, are precisely a fear of this kind of situation arising.

Whether or not it is possible for a sovereign to hold absolute power regardless of its' form (whether monarchic or democratic) is not really explored by Hobbes at this point. For Hobbes, democracy is problematic for a number of reasons let alone the question of indivisible sovereignty. In a democracy the people of the assembly would not just represent the common interest of constituents. The individual has their own private interests which would rival the common interest and could easily come first, as Hobbes notes that the “passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason.” Where the public and private interests are unified the public is most advanced, Hobbes maintains that in a monarchy the private interest is the same as the public. The reasoning being that the wealth, power and honour of a monarch are derived from the subjects. The ability of the state to defend itself from enemies would be undermined if the people are poor, contemptible or too weak to maintain such a war. In a democracy, the prosperity of the people contributes not so much to a corrupt leadership as it does many times deceit, treachery and conflict.

Hobbes points out that a monarch can receive counsel wherever and from whomever he so deems fit, in secrecy, at whatever point before the time of action. In a democracy in which a sovereign assembly has been established, there is no time or place in which the assembly could receive counsel with secrecy because of the multitudinous nature of an assembly. So when such an assembly requires counsel, it will not be received except from those who have a right to do so and may not leave the confines of its own body to do so. Typically this will mean that the assembly will receive counsel from people who are more versed in the accumulation of wealth than knowledge. The advice could likely come in the form of long discourses, which would commonly call upon men to act in various ways rather than govern them. For Hobbes the assembly could reach out to counsel from the unskilled in civic matters, orators and so on, who give their opinions in speeches full of pretence and inept learning, this could only lead to the disruption of the commonwealth or do it no good at all.

It is possible that the assembly could strip good citizens of property to enrich friends of the assembly (e.g. friends of the people rather than the friends of elected representatives). Hobbes concedes that this is a possibility in a monarchy, he maintains that “we do not read that this has ever been done.” For the favourites of the assembly are more numerous than a monarch, so there is a greater temptation to serve the interests of their own kindred as well as to seductive orators – who have greater power to hurt than to help, as “condemnation than absolution more resembles justice.” Not only is it impractical for the assembly to be well advised there is a great potential for inconstancy as the potential for such in a monarchy is multiplied as with the mass of the representative. For Hobbes the resolutions of a monarch are subject to no other inconstancy than that of his own nature, whereas democratic resolutions are subject to the nature of the masses.

The assembly would be prone to disagreement as a result of the nature of man, as well as due to envy and interest, to the height of such disagreement a civil war maybe the consequence.[4] So it would seem that the stability of the state in question is at stake with the rise of a democracy. At the same time, the whole of the assembly cannot fail unless the multitude fail as well and there is no place for the question of the right of succession in a democratic government for the reason that anyone can enter into such a government. Though the death of a monarch differs from the death of an entire assembly, it would still dispossess the people of a representative and leave the multitude without a sovereign which unites them. The question of stability inevitably arises once again, without the guarantee of the “peace of men” it is likely that the state could return to the “condition of war in every age” and the only alternative to this is an “artificial eternity of man”.[5]

---

[1] Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.118-120

[2] It makes sense then that Hobbes considered it absurd that the monarchy could hold sovereign power as it invites the people to elect representatives capable of putting forth the advice from the people. In the rare case of a monarchy in which the monarch is never considered a representative, though called sovereign, the status of representative would fall to those who have been sent by the people to carry their petitions and give the monarch their advice. In such cases then it is imperative for the “true and absolute representative of a people” to instruct the people in such offices and watch how they admit any other representation on any occasion.

[3] Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.120-121

[4] For Hobbes, to say it is inconvenient to place sovereign power in the office of one man or an assembly of men (e.g. rather than a democratic assembly) is to hold that “all government is more inconvenient than confusion and civil war.” All danger must originate in the dispute between those who are for an office of such honour and those out to profit for themselves.

Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.122-123

[5] Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1994) pg.124-125

David Starkey, Black Culture & the Riots.

Wiggers with Attitude?

In the aftermath of the riots David Starkey decided it was wise to bring up Enoch Powell and argue that a specific point made in the 'Rivers of Blood' speech was "absolutely right". He was keen to reassure the audience that Powell was wrong in that it was not "inter-communal violence" and that it is cultural rather than racial. It would be generous to David Starkey to designate him as a cultural chauvinist, which is perfectly consistent with the monarchism and nationalism to which he subscribes. David Starkey is a provocateur in the tradition of an insolent dinner guest crowing just to offend and shock. In this instance the bespectacled historian was at dinner with an Oxbridge liberal, a leftist and a crime novelist. The outrage was over comments such as "The Tiber did not foam with blood but flames lambent, they wrapped around Tottenham and wrapped around Clapham." As if that were not bad enough Starkey went on to claim the problem is that "the whites have become black" and that the black politician David Lammy sounds "white" when you close your eyes.

At first he pinned the riots as an "extension of commercialism" and the exuberant consumerism of British society, though he is intelligent enough to understand that the consumer boom was born out of the implosion of social democracy and the emergence of Thatcherism in it's wake. Therefore to manage the contradiction between rapacious individualism and the moral opposition to senseless violence Starkey wheels in racially charged rhetoric which will scandalise the liberal intelligentsia and split the commentariat down the middle. At which point the working-classes can make a cameo appearance in the guise of the angry crowd yelling "Enoch was right!" It is now highly unlikely that there will be any debate over the issues behind the riots as the media discusses whether or not David Starkey is a racist. Notice David Starkey asks of Owen Jones "You glorify Rap?" and then backs off as Dreda Say Mitchell points out that the rappers only reflect the materialism of the world. Brian Cox was right to call Starkey "utterly corrupt" last year.

It could have been a conscious effort to further derail the political discourse away from any meaningful discussion of inequality and police brutality. It could just be a simple case of racism masquerading as cultural conservatism. Time will tell if David Starkey distances himself in the future from such remarks. The insinuation of a respectable historian that this is somehow related to an imported "black culture" of crime is just false. In the halcyon days of vanilla Britain, at the finest hour of our country, back in 1940 juvenile crime accounted for 48% of all arrests and there were over 4,500 cases of looting from then until 1941. There were even cases of firemen looting burned-out shops, teenagers stripped the clothes off of corpses to sell and some even cut-off the fingers of the dead to get at their rings. These could not have just been the "wiggers" who had watched too much MTV and absorbed an awful lot of 50 Cent's anger before going out to spit it out into society. As a result of this level of bullshiting we're unlikely to see any real solutions in Britain, just a right-ward shift that will lead us down the road to more riots in the future.

Cultural Blackness?

Originally the issue of race was raised on Newsnight before Starkey crawled out from his hole, it was Gavin Esler who wondered if the riots had anything to do with "black culture" or even MTV. We should bare in mind the relations of base and superstructure when we're talking about culture in this way, that the superstructure is generated by the base in order to justify and defend itself. Simultaneously the superstructure has the potential to undermine the base in spite of the interdependent relations between them. Take Rap music, usually it defends the status quo in it's portrayal of a anti-political and anti-intellectual form of underground capitalism in which collective organisations (e.g. gangs) can still function meaningfully. It at once embodies society's institutional corruption and it's opposite with an emphasis on a warped set of codes and rituals. The misogyny and homophobia found rampant in the music videos and lyrics is born out of a thoroughly impotent masculinity.

It is not coincidental that Rap music becomes incredibly popular and influential in the late 1980s onwards at the peak of Reaganism. Look at the socio-economic situation for young black men in particular, especially in the US where there was a brief opening for black people in the 70s as civil rights were gained through harsh struggle. But with the financialisation of the economy millions of African-Americans became part of a superfluous population. The black economy of drugs provides an alternative to the business system which has excluded black people for decades. Not only is it an alternative to financial capitalism, where the wasps of Harvard still thrive, it provides a welfare system that has been completely destroyed in the US. It is also an expression of rage against the police for the murder and persecution of black people, NWA captured the anger bubbling beneath the surface just before the battering of Rodney King sparked the LA riots in 1992. Ultimately, mainstream rappers are only looking to establish a black aristocracy which stands as a reflection of the white elites.

Rap music is not the source of riots and crime, rather it is linked to it through economic circumstances. The riots were not a coherent and organised expression of political dissent. It was mass-rage against the police along with elements of the same consumerism we have all indulged in. Where does this anger come from? In 1997 and 1998 there were around 8,000 stop-and-searches, by 2008 to 2009 that had risen to 150,000. The use of Section 60 between 2005 and 2010 has increased by 300%, originally Section 60 was introduced to combat football hooliganism; over the same time period the stop-and-searches of black people increased by 650%. From 1998 to 2010 over 330 people have died mysteriously in police custody, surprisingly 75% of the people who died were white and not so surprisingly 90% were male aged between 25 and 44. Let alone the level of unemployment and economic stagnation in this country which has plagued the poor for years. The decisions undertaken by the rioters were not justified, but the grievances are legitimate and real.

On the Royal Wedding...

William Arthur Philip Louis has found a wife to cheat on, in accordance with the family values of Henry VIII. How can I express how little I give a fuck? The mock national anthem from Human Traffic comes as close as possible. The elephant in the room is class and that I do care about. Of course, we all know that Kate Middleton is a 'commoner' and millionairess descendent of landed gentry and solicitors as well as the odd miner. Notably it is her mother's side, the 'prolier' side, which is scrutinised more by the media than the father's side. Kate Middleton could suffer the modern equivalent of a public execution, death by media, if a past of promiscuity is uncovered by the gutter press. The persistant survival and rigidity of class in British society has yet to be levelled, the bloodlines and property deals of Royalty will dominate the tabloids until a social convulsion brings down the monarchy.
 

Britain is one of the few countries in the world that doesn't have a written constitution, as a consequence the country is typically conservative. Change comes slowly and when traditions are threatened the reaction is often despair. The British throne was once at the apex of capitalist accumulation and imperial expansion. Queen Victoria was important in providing the ruling class with the legitimacy to hold back the tide of mass-democracy, whilst the Empire can be expanded and the Church of England maintained. Today the Royals provide legitimacy for the bourgeoisie, as well as tradition and patriotism to keep the 'commoners' from despair. The ruling class and the dominant ideology have been in crisis, this wedding offers the possibility of rejuvenation. To keep up with old imperial traditions the Chief Torturer of Bahrain attended the ceremony, though Colonel Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad were not welcome. The distinction between these guests is a fine one, between "evil-evil" and "good-evil". Incidentally, April 29th is the same day that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun wed.

The press claim we are 'less deferential' than ever and yet there are thousands on the streets of London. The irony being that Westminster have been trying to drive away homeless people in recent months. Naturally this private occasion demands camping on mass on the Mall, a wave of flag-waving and piss-ups to celebrate the union. It's all about procreation of course! The bloodline must continue! It was 20 years ago that Major declared Britain to be a "classless" society and here we are fawning over a marriage like obedient plebs. Mind you, a nun was spotted wearing tatty trainers and so far 43 people have been arrested including one person who was singing "we are living in a fascist regime" in Soho. Though there were also plans for a mock execution of Prince Andrew. There are 5,000 police officers on the streets with the support of the military in case of an "attack". The EDL pledged to march if the Muslims Against Crusades demonstrated.

Republican Rhapsody.

 

And so for the first time since Prince Charles pulled a Caligula and married a horse, we saddle up for another ROYAL WEDDING, where the taxpayer’s money is gleefully spent on an inbred family whose original purpose as figureheads has been buried under meaningless luxurious ceremony. Apparently an awful lot of cash is needed to make Prince Willy look like less of an absolute farting cretin, and to make Kate Middleton look less of a social climbing trophy-wife in waiting.

Unless you’ve been on the moon for the past couple of weeks, with your fingers in your ears and your eyes stapled shut, you will inevitably have heard that William Wales and Kate Middleton are engaged and will be married next year at the tax-payers’ expense. Yes, its true, the Prince has found a wife to cheat on, following in his illustrious father’s footsteps. Naturally the feeding-frenzy led by the parasites, who call themselves “journalists” and “paparazzi”, is underway with an enthusiasm rivalled only by a teenage boy’s yearning for privacy having just discovered masturbation. The media frenzy has barely got started and has yet to “climax”, the press has already shot down the Bishop of Willesden for expressing his views on the Royal wedding. It is obviously a grave crime to express indifference or opposition to the Royal Family, for it is an institution endowed by God with the right to rule us and live off our taxes, because their better than us and we’re their bitches, so sit back and watch all the fantastic ceremony kick off at your expense, bitch.

It is somewhat ironic that Christianity has been taken up as the religion of the ruling class. After all it was Christ – a radical Black Jew who came from the Middle East and looked like a goddamn hippie – who denounced the rich and the powerful, who held that the losers and deadbeats would inherit the earth, before being done to death by the state. Not an obvious hero for the British monarchy, with its family values derived from Henry VIII and pillaging the most of the world in the name of “civilisation”, which also has a history of crushing dissent to prevent the rise of a mass-democracy. The vote was not a gift from above, it was seized from below. It was gained after centuries of struggle against a clan of inbred hypocrites and syphilis-ridden playboys “entitled” to rule only by a hereditary principle.

Actually, speaking as writers, it’s probably a good thing that this wedding has been announced, because damn it, we need material for this column. Prince William, our future King lest we forget, is being hitched to another hot piece of St. Andrews ass (don’t think too much about that metaphor, I certainly didn’t) whom he first “fell for” (i.e. made Prince Will’s little Wills go SPROING!!) at a University catwalk, where Kate was wearing a dress that left very little to the imagination. An adventurous lady could possibly replicate the effect using four cobwebs and three beer bottle-tops, but it would be a near thing.

So, then, Prince William. Already balding, and always seen with an insufferable and inherently punchable smirk on his over-privileged face, he is the centrepiece to this royalist burlesque, and it’s hard to figure why he’s so popular. He’s not even that attractive. His “brother” Prince Harry could, potentially, be considered attractive if one had just served a long voyage at sea, but William just looks like a New Yorker caricature of the stereotypical British toff, all braying laughs and absence of chin. More innocent or less cynical writers than we would wonder what Kate saw in him, but then one remembers that the prospects of a fortune and endless photo shoots for Hello and OK! Magazines would turn Jo Brand into a fanny-magnet. But there’s one thought that keeps circling the mind like a vulture, which is the thought of whether or not William is good in bed. The idea of William’s cut-glass English accent expressing explicit sexual pleasure is one that will haunt my dreams forever, as is the thought of whether or not William says “crikey” at the vital moment. Though at this rate, the media coverage will catch the “vital moment” for YouTubers everywhere.

The current estimates for security alone are £20 million. That’s an astonishing amount of money to be throwing around. The money spent on the caviar and smoked salmon alone could probably neatly settle my student loan. Twenty million pounds is more money than the average working Briton will make in their lifetime, and here it is being thoughtlessly frittered away on lavish fripperies that make your average Bullingdon night out look like a monk’s lifestyle. The fact that this money is coming from the taxpayers, who have mortgages and bank loans and other plebeian concerns is the point that turns this farrago from merely an exercise in repulsive decadence into a downright insult. As we said before, the subtext of the glamour and luxury of this wedding is not to celebrate the union between two whinnying upper-class toffs, but instead to highlight the fact that some people are just born better than you. That’s right, they are better. God says so. Nobody cares if you don’t believe in God or if you don’t like how they’re living, this family of scroungers descended from a line of murderers, madmen, syphilitic lard-arses and tyrants are better than you.

The affair brings to mind nobody less than a giggling little “People’s Princess” Diane Windsor nee Spencer. When so much money was spent on the wedding of her to that gloomy bat-eared man, only for the marriage to fall limply to the ground like an overused condom, how we would have laughed, had the population not been footing the bill. The dress and ring alone cost the equivalent of £100,000 today, paid for with the wealth and land bestowed onto them by God and the public. Diana Spencer was a voluntary member of the dynasty in pursuit of a fairytale life as a Princess and Queen in waiting. The media indulged her in this puerile quest and has succeeded in creating a cult to the Princess. As for philanthropy and the two days she spent in Angola and Bosnia, when you’re a borderline airhead with millions of pounds and nothing to do except shag the riding instructor and contemplate regurgitating lunch, these things are something to do. This also helped cement the cultish following in the press. So when the Spencer girl died the press lost control of this cult and had no choice but to suspend reality. The non-event of 1997 would be mourned incessantly in the mass-media, not out of genuine adulation but to retain circulation. No deviation would be tolerated. Banning and censorship were the penalties for doing so. Today the Memorial to Diana’s memory seems very similar to her as a person. Both pointless and gushing, though unless my memory fails, Diana never drowned any squirrels. Feel free to correct us on this point if you have proof. But we digress.

I guess that the point that we are trying laboriously to get to is that this wedding is, at best, ridiculous, and at worst a spit in the eye of the taxpayer. What needs to happen is for us to reassess the position of the royals in society. The kind of unquestioning loyalty that so many people have is completely groundless. Loyalty needs to be earned, and it cannot be wasted on these non-elected, inbred sponges. So many people never seem to question the privileged position of the royals in society, despite the omnipresent implications that some people are born better than others and that you should pay for the honour of being ruled by these toffs. Not that we want to sound like Cromwellian abolitionists (we are, but we don’t want to sound like it) but the Royals are an utterly vestigial part of Britain today, a detriment to the equality of man and the last remnant of imperial rule and all the nasty baggage that goes with that. If we must have them, then let’s not waste our time harping on about the wedding, but have the incestuous pricks tone it down. Give Willy and Kate a registry office-followed-by-local-pub wedding. Move the Queen into just one of her stately homes, and give the rest to the National Trust. Give Prince Phillip an ASBO for “racial insensitivity”. Tear down the Diana Memorial and replace it with the verdant beauty of Hyde Park once again. If we are to have the Royals, don’t have them be the symbols of a lingering aristocracy. Make them normal people. It’s either that, or we can dust off the guillotines.

Written by JT White and Josh Ferguson, November 28th 2010, for the Heythrop student newspaper the Lion originally.