Skip to main content

'Royal car' ‘attacked’ in protest after MPs' fee vote

That is unacceptable. Not because Charlie and his chick, Camilla, are appreciated by perspectivally-malnourished minds as ‘royalty’, but because they are human beings - though, according to John Carpenter’s movie, ‘They Live’, starring one of my favourites, ‘Rowdy Roddy Piper’ (a wrestler from the 80s), they may just be aliens bent on subjugating and exploiting humanity. How nice.

Anyway, i sense a bit of a ‘conspiracy’ here. What on earth were these two doing in the midst of a protest? And why was the police presence paltry - as it appears to be the case in the video on BBC? Why wasn’t the video shot with BBC cameras? Why is the BBC relying on shaky hazy footage that seems to be shot by some of those whom were there?

Well, given that the *liberal-Con government, not too long ago, attempted to distract the local and global public from the intentions of demonstrators by focusing on its violent aspects, it seems that they are upping the stakes here in an attempt to discredit the entire anti-cuts movement by showing them attacking a hallowed British institution - the 'royalty'.

What we seem to have here, gentlemen and ladies, is an emotive and aesthetic effort to manipulate public opinion. Shaky cameras and Camilla’s distraught face, and accompanying both with the headlines, ‘an attack on royalty’.And i suppose the chaotic angles and movements of the footage is supposed to serve as an aesthetic complement to the irrationalism of the 'attackers' and, through them, the entire movement. If it was shot with BBC cameras, and with clear smooth footage, people might consider the issue on its own merits as opposed to having their minds made up for them by the shaky footage on the BBC site. It's something like how films, drama serials, and advertisements sometimes tend to boost their ‘excitement value’ with flashing images, shaky camera angles, ‘reality-video’ styles as seen in ‘Blair Witch whatever’ and ‘Cloverfield’, etc. These strategies tend to distract one from the rubbish storyline and equate ‘entertainment‘ with a ‘reflexive workout‘ - i never fell for that.

And, most importantly, not having a clear view of the ‘attacks’ will not lead many to wonder why both of them were there, notice the poor police presence, whilst allowing the BBC, amongst others, promote the notion that the whole thing was of 'attack' proportions. In fact, it seems that the person who was filming the incident was the one ‘under attack‘ as s/he seemed to be twirling it around as if it was a light-sabre. And if one was to look at the front(above) and related page(below) of the BBC, where one is provided a link to the video, what we see is Camilla’s distraught face - as if to impress upon us that it was an attack. I wouldn't be suprised if the 'eye witnesses' outnumbered the 'attackers', and together, helped make the whole scene seem as if the 'royal car' was truly surrounded by 'attackers'.

What we seem to have here, gentlemen and ladies, is an emotive and aesthetic effort to manipulate public opinion. Shaky cameras and Camilla’s distraught face, and accompanying both with the headlines, ‘an attack on royalty’. I’ve suspected, for quite some time, that much visual effects, storylines, camera angles and styles, dialogue, etc, etc, in american-led media is aimed at training humanity to ‘go by reflex’ and ‘visual information’ as opposed to actual thought, thus, rendering them even more susceptible to manipulation.

Anyway, i don’t see why the ‘royal family’ ought to be exempt from public scrutiny in this context. They, after all, are the symbolic epitome of a system of privilege and exploitation aren’t they. They occupy their position of privilege on the simple basis of lineage as opposed to hard work. If privilege can be justified on the basis of something as irrational as that, arguments against privilege being acquired on the basis of actual work - albeit minimal - by actors, stick-swingers and ball-kickers, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, etc, will not be able to destabilise it. If we can accept something even if it is irrationally-based, then we are going to find it even more difficult to argue against its more justified examples. Think about that.

related article: BBC - Royal car attacked in protest after MPs' fee vote


* Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition, which many Brits term ‘con-dem’, but which I find to be less descriptive of their nature than ‘lib-con’ - eds term.


Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…