Tags

'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


ed


* 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.





0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo