Home | Features | Music | Fashion | Interviews | Archive | Contact Us

 

 

 

 

In Which We Serve

 

by Phil Thornton

 

What to do with a royal who can't cut the mustard in any normal profession, despite a private education at the best schools tax payer's money can buy. The answer is of course to do what generations of clueless toffs have done with their stunted offspring for millennia; stick em in the forces.

 

 

Prince William- apart from his 'job' as the horse-faced representative of that bunch of professional incompetents, the FA - has had his card marked post-university. All that money spent on equipping this inbred parasite with an educational advantage millions of other young people are denied, has been cast aside so that the 'pin-up ponce' can lord it over a host of provincial dolts as an 'officer and a gentleman.'

 

 

Of course his even more dim-witted young half-brother, Harry was shunted into the army even sooner, as it was apparent from an early age that his feeble intellect was ideally suited to the family career of choice. Harry has even been getting uppity saying that he'll refuse to serve unless he's sent to dangerous war-zones with 'his men.' On the surface this appears to be a pretty noble demand yet, he, like everyone else knows, that they'd never really risk the moron in a real life combat situation. No, the royal family's relentless PR machine present this as the New Monarchy way; pitching in with the yokels as if he were Henry V leading his men against the frogs at Agincourt.

 

 

The MOD's spin is that Harry would be such a scalp for the 'enemy' that his very presence in conflict would endanger the rest of his platoon, brigade, gang of thugs or whatever. So, there you have it; the tokenism of a royal army 'career' is laid bare for all to see. It's a sham, a lame PR exercise that the monarchy whores in the media gladly lap up in a repulsive attempt to convince us that there is a grain of integrity and honour left in this feudal relic of an institution.

 

 

Just as Prince Edward's feeble attempts at holding down any career 'even one in the forces' was papered over as a little boy lost story and Prince Andrew was presented as some kind of war hero because he helped fly a helicopter miles away from any real action during the Falklands Conflict (maybe this was the inspiration behind his ex's Budgie cartoon) so the media eagerly regurgitates palace press releases and photo opportunities without any of their much-lauded sense of balance and impartiality.

 

 

Quite apart from the way in which they manipulated the Queen's golden jubilee 'celebrations' to depict a nation rejoicing in their good fortune at having been governed so wisely by their 'monarch' even though 99% of the streets were devoid of any kind of jollity, so Prince Charles's constant attempts to depict himself as some kind of intellectual, philosopher and philanthropist are nauseatingly obeyed up by broadcasters and newspapers.

 

 

This is a man who really does believe in his divine right to speak utter shite on any subject close to his polluted and lifeless heart. May the Gods preserve us from aristocrats who believe they have a sense of purpose. Whilst his mum takes a backseat and can't really believe her luck or the public's gullibility in preserving the mythical concept of monarchical rule, Charles actually harks back to the Edwardian era, when a sovereign's behaviour was above public scrutiny but his word was to be taken as moral instruction.

 

 

The social climbing scumbags who hang on the clown's every word (the likes of Dumbleby and Fatty Fry) like to crow about all the great work he does via The Prince's Trust because he didn't HAVE to do it you know. He really wants to HELP his future subjects, those pesky Negroes and northerners who would have drifted into crime and drugs without his magisterial assistance. Yet, during the media's anniversary 'celebrations' of Chuck's GOOD WORKS, one thing struck me. It was stated that Charles started the trust using his navy pension. Eh? How long was this toff whopper actually in his token navy post? Long enough to qualify for a PENSION? And why give him a pension anyway? Does he really need the money when he so successfully markets his 'Duchy of Cornwall' brand to royalty cranks the world over.

 

 

At a time when Blair and his odious City licking maggots are telling the public that the nation can't afford pensions and that they must work longer and expect less, it comes as no surprise that these rules don't apply to the establishment, oh no! While soldiers killed or injured in various conflicts can expect short shrift when it comes to compensation or benefits, the likes of Prince Charles can come away with a pay-off for a couple of bone idle years posing on the poop deck.

 

 

But y'know good luck to him really. He didn't make the rules and if he and his demented progeny are allowed to goof about the planet without ever having to justify their existence, then why should they complain? The concept of a monarchy has existed since the very dawn of civilisation, back when the pharaohs were plotting up behind the pyramids. Every society has a hierarchy and an elite who defend their position, their status and their privileges at all costs.  We are often told that the British monarchy is the best of all models; a kind of benign dictatorship but it is nothing of the sort.

 

 

The actual royal family are only the public face of a rotten and corrupt feudalistic landgrab that dates back right to the Norman conquest.  If they have no real power, then they certainly have the trappings of power. If they serve no real function other than to prostitute themselves for vulgar capitalists which is their real role -  then why maintain them in such grandeur? If they represent so-called 'Britishness' then why not allow the public to elect their own representatives? The apologists always answer in the same way; 'Would you prefer to have a President Blair or a President Thatcher' and ofcourse the answer is always 'Fucking right we would!'

 

 

Monarchies were a good idea in ancient Rome when the constant civil wars created by republican generals competing with eachother lead to the Caesars claiming the laurel crown for themselves. Yet as with all hereditary and aristocratic models, you begin with Julius Caesar and end up with Nero. Post-Cromwell, this Stuart/Hanovarian blood line began with a Nero and has ended up with Prince Charles. Rather than being some kind of familial ideal the Windsors are infact just a bunch of incestuous Hillbillies who got rich off the blood and sweat of generations of slaves and paupers. They have no right to exist and I don't care whether the Great British Public agrees or not because y'know, fuck them and their stupid JJB Union jacks.

 

 

Gordon Brown says we should stop apologising for the Empire and wants us to celebrate 'Britishness' with a special Red White & Blue day (I thought the BNP already did this). New Labour want to teach 'British' values as a school subject; like everything else this tired, timid Government proposes, this is yet another pathetic sop to the Little England demographic they've courted ever since the mid-90s.

 

 

There is no such thing as 'Britishness' and no such thing as 'British values.' What they mean ofcourse is THEIR values, their concept of 'Britishness' as if this were something you were born with or sign up to. They mean all this tolerance, fair play and the rule of law bullshit as if this was uniquely British in essence and all other nations are intolerant, cheating, criminals. Yes, only in good old tolerant Britain can tolerance be regarded as a virtue; as the old Jewish man once said, 'I don't want to be tolerated.'  What they really mean is 'get them Pakis singing God Save The Queen at infant school and maybe they won't go around blowing up tube trains.'

 

 

But what about MY subjective take on British values? Cynicism, irreverence, dissention, iconoclasm, musical and cultural innovation, internationalism?  Thatcher was right, there IS no such thing as society and Donne was wrong, every man IS an island. Fuck cosy consensus politics and this gutless appeal to bigots and racists. You can't impose false notions of patriotism and national identity upon people because I don't buy it and neither do millions of other people, whatever their ethnic, social or political background. This is nothing new, it's been around ever since nations were formed and political empires constructed. As Tom Paine put it 200 years ago:

A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.

 

From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society. The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress' He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
   
Home | Features | Music | Fashion | Interviews | Archive | Contact Us

Copyright 2006 Swine Magazine. All rights reserved.