Activists claim purge of Facebook pages

Protest groups claim Facebook has taken down dozens of pages in a purge of activists’ accounts
One more reminder that social change activists can never truly trust corporations

Demonstrators from the UK Uncut group outside Topshop, on Oxford Street, central London, during a demonstration against alleged tax avoidance by Arcadia group owner Sir Philip Green Photograph: Dominic Lipinski/PA

Activists are claiming that dozens of politically linked Facebook accounts have been removed or suspended by the company in the last 12 hours.

The list of suspended pages include those for the anti cuts group UK Uncut, and pages that were created by students during last December’s university occupations.

A list posted on the UCL occupation blog site says the Goldsmiths Fights Back, Slade Occupation, Open Brikbeck, and Tower Hamlet Greens pages as no longer functioning.

It is not yet known how many websites have been affected in total or why they are not working. Facebook is currently looking into the issue.

Guy Aitchison, 26, an administrator for one of the non-functioning pages said, “I woke up this morning to find that a lot of the groups we’d been using for anti-cuts activity had disappeared. The timing of it seems suspicious given a general political crackdown because of the royal wedding.”

“It seems that dozens of other groups have also been affected, including some of the local UK Uncut groups.”

Earlier, it was reported that the Metropolitan police had invoked special powers to deter anarchists in central London ahead of the royal wedding.

Police threw a section 60 cordon around the whole of the royal wedding zone on Friday morning to respond to anarchists masking up at a small gathering in Soho Square in central London.

The section 60 order allows police officers to stop and search anyone without discretion. The police also imposed section 60a, which gives them the power to remove masks and balaclavas from anyone within the area.

Scotland Yard said the decision was made after individuals were seen putting on masks in Soho Square where a group of anarchists had gathered.

The Guardian is awaiting a comment from Facebook.

• If your page is affected, please email the Guardian at newseditor@guardian.co.uk or post in the comments below.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




Race is the Trump Card

STEVEN JONAS, MD, MPH
Crosspost with: http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12646  | 04/28/2011

For many Southerners, the "Lost Cause" was a noble cause. The Old South may have technically lost the war but its values have very much survived and proliferated in modern America.

NOT SO LONG AGO in a land not at all far away part of it was ruled by a tiny oligarchy of very wealthy large landowners.  They made their wealth in part off the backs of unpaid farm laborers for whom they provided nothing more than minimal food and shelter, in part by trading in those laborers as property, and in part off the backs of another group of (much smaller) landowners/small farmers, who were generally poor, although definitely better off than the aforementioned unpaid laborers.  Actually, the latter two groups had much in common.  They worked hard, got nothing (in the case of the first) and precious little (in the case of the second) for their labors.  They were both dominated and exploited by the oligarchy.  One would have thought, in fact, that the two groups of laborers might actually join forces and struggle to improve their respective states in life.

But of course this did not happen in the slaveholding South (or the other non-Southern slaveholding states before the First Civil War either).  For in the South in particular, the ruling oligarchy had, over a period of two centuries since slaves were first brought to North America in 1620, very carefully nurtured the false doctrine of white supremacy.  Among other things the doctrine held that “white” people were inherently superior to “black” people.  They trumpeted this doctrine even though there had been interbreeding between European settlers and African slaves from the earliest days and the coloring became quite muddled.  Given that inbreeding, the grouping “black people” in particular was a totally artificial construct and of course still is.  But logic and facts never troubled the Right back then anymore than they do now.

Whatever could be said about the status and living standards of the poor whites in the South, the oligarchy could and did always buy them off with the notion that whatever else was going on in their lives, they were somehow “superior” to the “blacks.” Race was the trump card.  For the First Civil War the oligarchy managed this ideological trick so well that about 250,000 poor whites went to their deaths trying to perpetuate the institution of slavery on the territory (and Territories) of the then-United States.  Of course the only beneficiaries of that system were the white Oligarchs, the Slave Power.

Then after the end of the War, during reconstruction when some efforts were made by both poor whites and newly freedmen to form alliances, the oligarchy very quickly remobilized the doctrine, backed up by the Ku Klux Klan and other terror organizations, to make sure that the poor whites either continued to be bewitched by it or were themselves terrorized in submission.  Of course, the doctrine of White Supremacy and its power over the “white” people of the U.S. has never gone away.  In fact, its presence and wide-spread influence on the thinking of United States folk of all kinds to this very day is a major indicator of how the South actually won the First Civil War (see also URL: http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12555).  As others have said, the Southern oligarchy lost the war but over time has won the peace.

And so we come to the present time.  Instead of the Slave Power oligarchy ruling one section of the country and controlling much of its politics nationally until the first firing of the guns of South Carolina at Fort Sumter, we now have the Corporate Power oligarchy ruling the whole country and controlling virtually all of its politics.  And many “white” folks actually support the Corporate oligarchy even though, like the Southern oligarchy of old, its politics are contrary to the best interests of most of those “white” folk.  And indeed, the Corporate Power does it with same old doctrine: “whatever else is going on in your life, you are inherently superior to that ‘black’ person over there just because you are ‘white’ and he or she is ‘black.’ And oh by-the-way, the doctrine now extends to ‘brown’ people, to immigrants, to Muslims, to homosexuals, and to what-have-you. You are ‘white,’ and you have supremacy over them too just because of that very fact.”

Race is still the trump card for the Right, for the Corporate Power, and increasingly for the Religious Right as well — see the current performance of Franklin Graham in re President Obama.  Whatever other cards anyone may lay on the table in front of the GOPTP rank-and-file to attempt to show them that the Corporate Oligarchy is just as much their enemy as it is the enemy of anybody who is not one of them or one of their direct servants in the politico-legal-media-what’s-left-of-US-industry sectors, the Oligarchy plays their trump card, and almost always wins the game.  Which brings us (I know that you were waiting for this one) to Donald Trump.

Trump, a former Health Care Single-Payer supporter, a former pro-choicer, a former supporter of other liberal causes, may or may not be actually running for the GOPTP nomination for President.  There are certainly plenty of observers who think that that is not the case if only because he would have to reveal a good deal about his personal.  And since those are apparently quite murky if not quirky in the sense of his relationship to his variable real estate and gambling casino holdings and the banks with which he deals and had has dealt on them, he just might not want to do that.  But be that as it may, for now he seems to be actively running.

And what is he using as his own Trump Card?  Why the classic one of white supremacy/racism.  For what else does the so-called “birther issue” stand for?  Yes, the State of Hawaii has produced the certificate that certifies that a birth certificate exists in their files (and now, after this column was originally written the President has produced the original).  Yes there were the also the contemporaneous birth announcements.  But the Right knows better than to confuse any of adherents with facts.   They keep on pretending that there is something there when of course there isn’t and they are continuing to do so even after the release of the “long form.”  They are not the first to use the Big Lie Technique.  Brought to its highest peak of proficiency by Hitler and Goebbels, it proclaimed that the bigger lie one told, if one told it over and over again, with conviction, that the people you wanted to reach would come to believe it, and their support for you would be increased.

Trump knew full well what the facts are.  But how better to distinguish himself from the rest of the undistinguished GOPTP field than to openly play the race card, using the dog whistle of “birtherism” resting on the foundation of the Doctrine of White Supremacy that has been in place in this country since long before the First Civil War.  It happens that Trump himself appears to be backing away from birtherism, but he planted the seed and it is sprouting very well, so well in fact that about 75% of GOPTP voters either believe that Obama is not a US citizen or have doubts about the fact.  The attack is on Obama’s legitimacy as a person, and “we all know what that means, don’t we.”

And then came the Trump attack on Obama’s credentials for and in higher education.  As Trump said: “I have friends who have smart sons with great marks, great boards, great everything and they can’t get into Harvard.  We don’t know a thing about this guy. There are a lot of questions that are unanswered about our president.” Must have been affirmative action, donchaknow.  How else could he have gotten into Columbia College and Harvard Law School?  And never did release his transcripts (as if they were anybody’s business).  He must have made President of the Harvard Law Review and Magna cum Laude by affirmative action too.  And we know what THAT all means.  (Of course, “affirmative action” has always not meant granting admissions or jobs preferentially to discriminated-against minorities, but rather simply giving them equal opportunity to apply and be considered on their own merits.  However, that fact has never stopped the racists from using “affirmative action” as a weapon in their race war.)  And then comes Franklin Graham, attaching himself to Trump’s coattails on the racist “birther” issue as well as attacking Obama as not a “real” Christian (in Graham’s terms of course), in a further attempt to delegitimize.

Yes indeed.  Race is the trump card for the Right and for Trump himself, just as it was for the Slaveholding Oligarchy and is for the Corporate Oligarchy.

————————————————————————————————————

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-editor of over 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for BuzzFlash/Truthout (http://www.buzzflash.com, http://www.truth-out.org/), Dr. Jonas is also Managing Editor and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine (http://tpjmagazine.us/); a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad (http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/); a Senior Columnist for The Greanville Post (https://www.greanvillepost.com/); a Contributor to The Planetary Movement (http://www.planetarymovement.org/); a Contributor to Op-Ed News.com (http://www.opednews.com/), and a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




HBO’s Mildred Pierce: A Depression-era drama aimed at a contemporary audience

By Joanne Laurier
29 April 2011

Directed and written by Todd Haynes; co-written by Jon Raymond; based on the novel by James M. Cain

1945 poster for Crawford's Mildred Pierce.

The HBO five-part miniseries Mildred Pierce, directed by independent filmmaker Todd Haynes and based on the 1941 novel by American author James M. Cain (1892-1977), is a serious and commendable effort, a highly uncommon attempt—in our day—to root people’s lives and psychology in a realistic economic and social context. One can only hope Haynes’s drama heralds the return of deeper and more probing examinations of social life to American filmmaking and television.“I make no conscious effort to be tough, or hard-boiled, or grim,” Cain (The Postman Always Rings Twice, Serenade, Mildred Pierce, Double Indemnity) once noted of his own writing, “or any of the things I am usually called. I merely try to write as the character would write, and I never forget that the average man, from the fields, the streets, the bars, the offices, and even the gutters of his country, has acquired a vividness of speech that goes beyond anything I could invent, and that if I stick to this heritage, this logos of the American countryside, I shall attain a maximum of effectiveness with very little effort.”

In the remarkable 1945 film adaptation directed by Hungarian-born Michael Curtiz (from a script worked on by numerous screenwriters, including William Faulkner and future blacklist victim Albert Maltz, and starring Joan Crawford, Zachary Scott and Jack Carson), Mildred Pierce’s timeframe was shifted to the post-Depression years. The treatment of the revised narrative changed mood too, to that of a stylish film noir. Haynes has chosen to adhere more faithfully to the original book, which helps account for its more than five hours in length.

Kate Winslet (Mildred Pierce) and Guy Pearce (socialite Monty Beragon), taking the breeze in happier times.

In so doing, Haynes has effectively created a “logos of the American countryside.” The film is unusual as well in its meticulous and straightforward story-telling. This Mildred Pierce begins in 1931 in southern California on the eve of the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt and works its way through to the onset of World War II, taking its time with the progression of events and characters.

A striking facet of Haynes’s series is its obvious concern to bring back many of the hard facts of American life—economics, business and cash relations in particular—to the study of people’s psychology and behavior. This is something that has largely been lost in recent film and literature, and its loss helps account for the appalling superficiality of a large number of today’s filmmakers.

Mildred hugging Veda. Middle class aspirations under the microscope.

 

When the series opens, Mildred Pierce (Kate Winslet) lives in a modest Spanish-style bungalow in Glendale, California, a Los Angeles suburb, with two young daughters. The Depression has hit her family hard. Her marriage is failing, due in no small measure to the collapse of the real estate development firm owned by her husband Bert (Brian F. O’Byrne). Unemployment has token a toll on his ego, and he seeks solace in the arms of a Mrs. Biederhof (described by Cain as “a lady of uncertain years, with a small income from hovels she rented to Mexicans”).

When Mildred throws Bert out, friend and neighbor Lucy Gessler (Melissa Leo) defines her new standing: “Well, you’ve joined the biggest army on earth. You’re the great American institution that never gets mentioned on the Fourth of July—a grass widow [a wife abandoned by her husband] with two small children to support.”

Haynes pays close attention to the financial conditions of his characters and their consequences. With Bert out of the picture, his former business partner Wally Burgan (James LeGros) shows an interest in Mildred. Neighbor Lucy advises Mildred to make him dinner rather than accept an invitation to dine out. Better that she be owed than that she owe—also better to marry for security than love.

Wally is not a sure thing, so Mildred pounds the pavement in search of work. She quickly learns there are scores of women with better skills who are unemployed. When she initially expresses revulsion at waiting tables, she is told by a headhunter that an empty belly trumps pride. Despite her poverty, she is frightened that her status-obsessed daughter Veda (first played by Morgan Turner and later by Evan Rachel Wood) will reject her for wearing a uniform and mopping up crumbs. Mildred saves her pennies from hash-slinging and pie-making, at which she excels, in order to open her own business. Securing the property for her restaurant necessitates making a cold-hearted legal break from Bert.

As the result of unrelenting effort, Mildred starts to know some success. Monty Beragon (Guy Pearce), of the aristocratic Beragons from Pasadena, enters her life. Haynes highlights the sexuality of the liaison to draw attention to Mildred’s emotional starvation. Monty ignites in her a hunger that she has suppressed in the process of pursuing financial advancement.

After the sudden death of her younger and more appealing daughter Ray, Mildred is guilty over the relief she feels that it was not her precious Veda who died. The tragic event clears the way for Mildred to focus on the surviving child who “has something inside her that I thought I had.”

As the embodiment of the aspirations of the middle class for upward mobility, Veda is also the distillation of Mildred’s fantasies and illusions. Being penniless does not stop the determined mother from buying Veda’s piano lessons and expensive clothing. She comes from the social milieu that most ferociously believes in the American Dream.

The mother-daughter relationship is a focal point of the story. Mildred yearns for Veda’s affection, withering under her contempt and snobbery, and consecrates her life to the ungrateful girl. This, despite the fact Veda is a counterfeit compared to the lovable and loving, and now deceased, Ray.

Glendale and Pasadena are the two poles between which the story unfolds inMildred Pierce—home, respectively, to working class or lower middle class families, on the one hand, and old, distinguished money, on the other. Although Monty’s family has lost its fortune, he still looks down on Mildred even as he becomes her “paid gigolo.” Mildred’s restaurants are her “Holy Grail,” attained through monumental effort and sacrifice; for Monty and Veda, they are condescendingly called “pie wagons.”

Monty and Veda join forces against Mildred, and, as Cain puts it, Monty grants to Mildred’s daughter “all the social equality he withheld from Mildred.” Haynes is successful in dramatizing the complexities of this triangle. Nonetheless, as Mildred makes clear, “The hand that holds the money cracks the whip.”

Veda claims she is only emulating Mildred in using men to get what she wants. While Mildred has a genuine concern for people even when her motives are impure, Veda’s machinations are grotesque and sociopathic. She can, with icy sangfroid, fake a pregnancy to extort money from a high-society family.

In a chilling rant directed at her mother, Veda gets to the heart of the matter: “With this money I can get away from you. From you and your chickens and your pies and your kitchens and everything that smells of grease. I can get away from this shack with its cheap furniture, and this town and its dollar days, and its women that wear uniforms and its men that wear overalls.”

When Veda (rather arbitrarily) proves to possess a “miracle voice”—a one-in-a-million vocal instrument, radio sponsors descend upon her with offers of lucrative contracts. She is mentored and promoted by an Italian impresario, who views her as a exceptional coloratura, but a vile human being. At this point, Mildred and Veda are estranged. To remedy this, Mildred seeks out Monty who is “between cars,” meaning, in a financial hole. She purchases the Beragon mansion in Pasadena for a princely sum. Monty and a Pasadena address are the bait for Mildred to reel in Veda, with ultimately disastrous results.

The cash Mildred lavishes on her daughter in return for a smattering of attention lands her in the clutches of bankers and creditors who have hired Wally to represent their interests. The scene featuring the unvindictive, but unforgiving money lenders is one of the film’s best. Wally is not essentially Machiavellian, he simply does not want to be brought down with Mildred.

With its somber-hued cinematography and inclusion of historical details, such as a portion of Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, Haynes’s Mildred Piercemakes an effort to evoke the desperate times. Winslet’s performance, particularly the increasing weariness in her face, expresses the stress and insecurity that took hold of the population in that period. LeGros as big-bellied Wally, a quasi-bottom-feeder, is convincing, and Pearce’s Monty strikes the perfect chord as a nonchalant cynic.

Haynes has striven, with considerable success, to convey what Cain, a sharp writer and a fascinating figure, was driving at in his novel.

Cain—born and raised in Annapolis, Maryland, and a college graduate while still a teenager—fought in World War I and drifted through various white-collar jobs before becoming an associate of H.L. Mencken and a major contributor to the latter’s American Mercury. Moving to New York, he became a protégé of journalist Walter Lippmann and a lead editorial writer on the New York World, and served for a brief time as the managing editor (under Harold Ross) of the New Yorker magazine.

Cain later migrated to southern California and tried, for the most part unsuccessfully, for over a decade in the 1930s and 1940s to write for films. Meanwhile, several of his own novels, with scripts written by others, were adapted famously and successfully for the screen. Cain became something of an expert on what was the seamy reality of life in California for a good portion of the population, especially those prone to self-delusion. Critic David Madden noted that Cain “was interested in the way the high hopes of the westward movement collapsed on the Pacific shore in the vacant glare of a sunlight that gilds the cheapest artifacts of transient American technology.”

Novelist James T. Farrell suggested that “Cain is between the serious and tragic work by men like [Theodore] Dreiser and the popular writers. A master at playing between both sides…he is a literary thrill producer who profits by the reaction against the sentimentality of the other years and, at the same time, gains from the prestige of more serious and exploratory writing.”

The distinguished literary critic Edmund Wilson was one of the first to devote serious consideration to Cain, in his 1940 essay, “The Boys in the Back Room,” dedicated to a number of gritty American novelists. Wilson considered Cain and his school to have been strongly influenced by Ernest Hemingway. Written prior to the publication of Mildred Pierce, Wilson’s essay addresses itself to Cain’s heroes, “always treading the edge of a precipice; and they are doomed.” Wilson notes that Cain’s protagonists’ fate “is forecast from the beginning, but in the meantime he has fabulous adventures—samples, as it were, from a Thousand and One Nights on the screwy California coast.”

Cain is one of the “poets of the tabloid murder,” observes Wilson (although, ironically, when Hollywood adapted Mildred Pierce, it was obliged to add such a crime). “Such a subject might provide a great novel: in An American Tragedy, such a subject did.” But, in Cain, the critic complained, we too often run up against “the wooden old conventions of Hollywood.” Mildred Pierce, in fact, avoids some of those conventions, but Wilson’s comments on Cain’s limitations are fundamentally just. After the Second World War, the novelist produced relatively little of value.

At any rate, at the time of writing Mildred Pierce, Cain had a decidedly “knowing” quality about life in America and of its lower classes, who are not subjectively monstrous, even when they do monstrous things, but are impelled to act for reasons fundamentally beyond their control.

The most high-born and “high-minded,” Monty and Veda, are the most treacherous. They are emotional exploiters who don’t want to dirty their hands with work, but are perfectly happy to live off the hard labor of others.

Haynes understands this. In his direction of Winslet, he allows the audience to concentrate on a face that emphasizes how hard she works and how tenacious she is. And despite that, she loses everything she thought was important. Mildred epitomizes how hard Americans work in general, often on the basis of illusory notions of what they are going to get out of it. Or, as she says, “to be something before I die.” There are millions like her, who work themselves to the bone, imagining that they are their “own boss,” when their fates are almost entirely determined behind their backs by global events and big moneyed interests.

Todd Haynes is an intriguing director, who has certain insights into American society and is not fooled by its official defenders and various false saviors. His movies, such as Safe (1995) about a housewife afflicted with “20th century disease”—in fact, a variety of middle class, suburban anxiety and disorientation—and Far From Heaven (2002), a saga set in the 1950s focused on racial tension and hypocrisy in suburban Connecticut, are clearly influenced by figures such as Rainer Werner Fassbinder and Douglas Sirk.

Haynes’s Mildred Pierce is reminiscent of an earlier period when American writers and filmmakers knew something. Unlike the majority of their counterparts today, they did not approach the details of life carelessly and superficially. Artists whose illusions were knocked out of them by the Depression and its mass suffering learnt something about the brutality of American capitalism.

The fact that Haynes is taking an unusual path is confirmed in interviews where he reveals his motivation for making Mildred Pierce: “I’m a great admirer of Michael Curtiz’ original film, but I was so startled and surprised by reading the James M. Cain novel, which I had never read until 2008, right as the markets were tumbling in the United States…. The novel is intensely relevant. I love how it links potential pathologies in maternal desire with potential excesses in middle-class yearning.”

He felt it important “to have an experience where you actually move through someone’s life without leaping hysterically, flashing forward, and jumping around. I’ve never done anything this doggedly linear in my career as a filmmaker, and that’s what the novel does—it spans nine years.”

It should be mentioned that the 1945 Curtiz film has an undeniable ease and fluidity with class and social concepts. The Haynes project is a bit less organic on this score (as he himself points out). When filmmakers start on this road, one that was once traveled by their talented forebears, a certain awkwardness and stiffness should be expected. Nonetheless, Haynes’sMildred Pierce stands out for insisting that economic realities are the bases of bases.

Joanne Laurier often covers cinema and the arts for the World Socialist Web Site.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




The royal wedding and the myth of national unity

By Julie Hyland, WSWS
29 April 2011

Aneurin Bevan: Firebrand socialist and orator who is regarded as the father of the National Health Service. The age of real reformers is long past in Britain, for decades immersed in the swamp of Toryism and social democratic sellouts.

Events such as the royal wedding, the Telegraph’s Matthew d’Ancona opined, “drop a dauntingly heavy payload of political symbols, messages about the social fabric, hierarchy, class, manners and our collective optimism: where we are as a nation, in other words.”

So where, exactly, is Britain today?

One thing can be established—a royal wedding is a sure indicator of hard times, at least for the broad mass of the population not invited to the ceremony but expected to foot the bill.

Princess Elizabeth married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten on November 20, 1947. Two years before, Britain had emerged as one of the victors of the Second World War and the Labour Party had won a landslide in the 1945 General Election promising a land “fit for heroes.”

Britain’s triumph over Germany, however, came at a price—the final ceding of its global domination to the United States. And, while Labour had carried through the nationalisation of key industries and implemented health and welfare provisions, widespread shortages, rationing and pay freezes continued.

In 1947, a growing sterling crisis saw the situation worsen significantly. In November of that year, just days before the royal nuptials, Labour Chancellor Stafford Cripps unveiled a budget of public spending cuts and tax increases that inaugurated an “age of austerity.”

Fast forward to July 29, 1981 and the marriage between the heir apparent, Prince Charles, and Diana Spencer. It was two years since the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher had taken power, pledged to dismantle the nationalised industries, roll back the welfare state, deregulate the City of London, and reinvigorate Britain’s imperial ambitions.

Unemployment was at three million that year. In February, Thatcher had made a tactical retreat from plans to close 23 pits so as to better prepare a confrontation with the coal miners three years later. In the meantime, youth joblessness and police harassment ignited the first major British riots of the 20th century in Brixton, London in April.

In May, Bobby Sands became the first of 10 members of the Irish Republican Army to starve to death in Long Kesh in protest at the British government’s decision to refuse them political prisoner status. Riots swept nationalist areas in Northern Ireland at news of Sands’ passing.

In July, little more than a fortnight separated further inner-city rebellions in Brixton, Handsworth in Birmingham, Toxteth in Liverpool and Moss Side in Manchester from the lavish ceremony at St Paul’s Cathedral.

On to the wedding of Prince William, second in line to the throne, and Catherine Middleton. It takes place 30 months after the worst financial crash in 75 years, and 11 months into a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government that is utilising the resulting crisis to shift the class agenda even more decisively in favour of the super-rich.

The government’s £100 billion programme of public spending cuts is the most severe since the 1930s, and one would have to go back to the same period to find a comparable squeeze on workers’ living standards.

That royal nuptials, with their theme of national unity, invariably occur at times of increased division and strife is not only blindingly obvious, those charged with orchestrating such mood music openly admit to it. Winston Churchill described the 1947 ceremony as a “flash of colour on the hard road we travel,” while the marriage of Charles and Di supposedly enabled people to forget their worsening problems for a day. The pairing of “Wills and Kate” has been similarly packaged as good for national morale.

There, however, the similarities end. In November 1947, there were street parties in every town and city to celebrate, and even in July 1981 an estimated 10 million people participated in similar events.

What is most striking about today’s event is that, though the powers-that-be have been pressing the same well-worn buttons, the response is markedly different.

Despite entreaties from Prime Minister David Cameron and special measures to reduce the red tape surrounding road closures, officials admit that few public celebrations have been organised, and those that have been prepared are largely confined to southern England. According to the Local Government Association, just 5,500 applications have been received, with the highest numbers in Hertfordshire and Surrey.

In large areas of the country, particularly the north, there are barely any events. There has not been a single application for a street party in Glasgow, for example. Just four applications have been made in Sunderland, and the same number in Bolton, which held more than 100 in 1981. Oxford has received just five applications.

According to an ICM opinion poll, fully 45 percent of people questioned have no interest in the wedding and will try to ignore it. Only 18 percent say they have an “active interest.”

Sales of sick bags featuring a cartoon of the royal couple are a big hit, as are mugs with the slogan, “I couldn’t care less about the royal wedding.”

There is more than disinterest. Notwithstanding the fawning deference of the media (including its nominally liberal and republican components) and the official political establishment, there is a palpable sense of resentment amongst a significant section of the population.

It is not only that another hanger-on is to be added to the public purse, or that the estimated £4 billion cost of the additional bank holiday has hit small businesses particularly hard, while tens of thousands of workers without permanent contracts have lost a day’s pay. Even among permanent staff, more than a tenth have not been given the day off with pay (as usual on a bank holiday), and many more, including health care employees, are having to work as usual.

Announcing the wedding, a Royal spokesman said, “The couple are both very mindful of the economic situation the country is in.” Therefore, the royal family would pay those costs “normally associate[d] with a wedding … such as flowers, reception, transport,” he added graciously.

Leaving aside that the royal family is largely funded by the taxpayer, the items listed do not include the cost of transporting, accommodating and entertaining the 2,000 or so guests—including senior government figures, 50 foreign heads of state and hundreds more of the not so great. The security bill alone is the most expensive in history. Estimates range between £20 million and £80 million, and this does not include the cost of Wednesday’s full dress rehearsal, complete with representatives of the armed forces marching around central London in the early hours of the morning.

An estimated 5,000 police are on duty in central London—along with armoured vehicles, surveillance, snipers and helicopters. According to theDaily Mail, they are necessary because “Irish and Islamic terrorist groups are considered serious threats to the occasion, while there are also fears over anarchist groups and hundreds of lone individuals with known mental health problems who have stalked members of the royal family.”

The police have warned that “robust” action will be taken against anyone planning to disrupt procedures.

In the last week or so, police teams have been involved in “pre-event investigation” and “intelligence gathering” which included visiting the homes of known protesters to warn them to stay away from central London today.

It is reported that more than 70 of those arrested during the student protests and the TUC demonstration on March 26 have been banned from central London as part of their bail conditions. One young woman who faces aggravated trespass charges for a protest at Fortnum & Mason reported that she had been visited by plain clothes police and warned to keep clear.

What are the “messages” about “social fabric, hierarchy, class” conveyed by such measures? What accounts for this extraordinary nervousness?

In December, the limousine carrying Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall became trapped amongst a group of students protesting in central London against the tripling of tuition fees. Though the couple were untouched, the scene, replete with shouts of “Off with their heads,” has intensified the siege atmosphere surrounding the ruling establishment.

In March, the Liberal Democrats met behind a specially erected steel fence in Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s supposedly safe political seat of Sheffield. Days later, half a million people demonstrated against the coalition’s austerity measures in the sole national protest organised by the Trades Union Congress since the new government came to power last May.

In the Telegraph, journalist and political commentator Peter Oborne wrote that it was the “highly intelligent pragmatism” of the British monarchy, its “sure instinct as to when and how to adapt,” that had enabled it to outlive many of its international counterparts.

It should be noted, in this regard, that the first national public holiday to celebrate a royal wedding was in 1923, with the marriage of Prince Albert to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later the Queen Mother. It was the defensive response of King George V to the revolutionary upheavals of 1917 in Russia that had overthrown the Tsar.

But at the start of the 21st century, the pomp and ceremony of the latest royal wedding cannot conceal that “we” are not all in it “together”. Rather, it is rightly regarded by many as one more proof of the opposite.

Julie Hyland is a political and social critic with the World Socialist Web Site.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




Royal Insanity

By Diane Gee 

Apr 29, 2011

Just Will & Kate, to you mate.

I LITERALLY PAY SO LITTLE ATTENTION, that when my son asked me this morning what Prince was getting married, I wasn’t sure. Then he asked if it was true that Royals married among themselves and why didn’t they all end up nuts. Many did, I answered.Then I started thinking about why I don’t give a shit, and why so many Americans as well as other World Citizens do.

Its the old “Little girl dreaming of being a Princess thing.” That is everything that is wrong with the world and the American psyche. We all want to be in this privileged class in which everyone reveres us, and caters to our every whim. We yearn to be among the ranks of an Elite that shouldn’t exist in the first place. We want the jewels, the pomp, the circumstance, never thinking that even the polish for the armorplate of the attending guard would feed a third world nation for a week.

These are people who believed they were Divinely set apart, had blood so superior to the rest of humanity that breeding with the “lesser beings” is still scandalous.

Rather than come with pitchforks to the event, as the British are asked to accept austerity, they and we wax all sentimental and dreamy about the “precious fairy tale” of it all, and swoon at this grotesque carnival of excess. The money spent on this fiasco would spare so many in England the indignity and hardships they are being made to endure.

The beautiful gowns we will never wear. The Blood Diamonds dripping off every neck, wrist, finger and lobe. The feathers, the flowers, the absolute deferential respect given this small group of self-appointed Elites that still consider themselves a race apart.

Sure, people like their childhood fantasies, fantasies fed them to ensure that adulation. Is it not time to wake up and realize that a far better dream for a world is one in which no small group of people drain so much of the World’s resources with not only our permission, but our fondest wishes for them.

Fuck the Royal Wedding. Fuck the Royal Family. Fuck the Queen and her spawn. Fuck the British Empire and its demon child American Imperialism. Fuck the dream of being one of the Oppressors.

Long live the People. Long live the dream of equality. Long live the revolution. Long live V!!!!

Contributing Editor Diane Wieczorek (DIANE GEE) defines herself as follows: “Middle aged, overweight, undereducated housewife commie-pinko, socialist, semi-anarchist, tree-hugging, dfh, activist, writer and radio host who wants to save the World. Hows THAT for a bio?” Diane maintains a personal blog at THE WILD WILD LEFT.

 

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.