royal wedding: the ‘refuseniks’ vs the dumbniks

bbc: royal wedding, how might refuseniks spend their day


I don’t fancy being termed a ‘refusenik’. It gives a ‘pop’ and juvenile feel to it, like ‘beatnik’. It isn’t.

I’m a republican, and a socialist. That determines my view of the ‘royal’ wedding as a ‘right royal pain in the arse’. I don’t like being lumped together with those who aren’t bothering about the ‘royal’ wedding because they’d rather spend their national holiday for Willy’s marriage to whatever-her-name-is doing a ‘Desperate Housewives’ or ‘Top Gear’ marathon. Such people, like those ‘adults’ who keep going on about the ‘royal’ wedding are nothing but ‘no-lifers’ to me and, as far as logic is concerned, should not be given the right to vote - until they pass exams on the constitution and political philosophy, which, in ed-land, would be mandatory.

To dilute true intelligent opposition to the monarchy, the BBC, amongst others, lump them together with the aforementioned so as to present the entirety of those who can’t give a toss about the ‘royal’ wedding as a generally ideologically-free body to the public.
To dilute true intelligent opposition to the monarchy, the BBC, amongst others, lump them together with the aforementioned so as to present the entirety of those who can’t give a toss about the ‘royal’ wedding as a generally ideologically-free body to the public. This is in contrast to those who are busy slicing their cucumber sandwiches and crossing their buns for street parties where the unemployed and homeless roam. The supporters being presented as supporters, as opposed to sad gits who don’t have a life, validates the ideology supporting the continued existence of the monarchy, the class system, and privilege of a minority. Those treasonous people who support the royal wedding - i term them ‘treasonous’ as it compromises the interests of the people and the formation of a classless society which would bode best for the maximal development of all - are held up as a statement in itself for the positive value of the institution of the royalty, and through them, of privilege, be it the privilege of the capitalist class, celebrities, or the ‘royalty’.

On the other hand, those, like ed, are presented as ‘sceptics’. A ‘sceptic’, these days, is nothing more than one who questions a ‘commonly accepted truth’ or ‘norm’. In other words, a misfit, a radical, an extremist, and one who requires therapy, or needs to be ignored. They aren’t ‘philosophers’, ‘profound thinkers’ who go beyond the superficial, or anything that might garner popular consideration of their perspectives. Just sceptics. Why, pray tell, are the main exponents of western philosophy of the historical past not presented as ‘sceptics’? Might give the sceptics of today a good name i suppose. Rather, they are ‘the father of western philosophy’, ‘great thinkers’, ‘insightful minds’, etc, etc, etc. But such people would be nothing other than discountable ‘sceptics’ today. The thing is, to validate society on its present course, the elite will have to value relevant events and persons in the past, whilst devaluing their counterparts in the present lest the people in the present be led by them as they were in the past. That is the true meaning behind the terming of insightful minds as ‘sceptics’ in the present as opposed to the past.

The BBC states that 18% of people in a study were planning to leave the country in time for the ‘royal’ wedding. But follows this with,

“This exodus from British shores may, of course, be fuelled by a desire to make the most of the long weekend rather than any political sentiment or wedding fatigue.”

There, again, the BBC, goes down in favour of the ‘royals’ by presenting those who aren’t into swooning over willy and his mate’s wedding as people without political sentiments on the matter. And even with the use of the word ‘sentiments’ presents those who do as ‘emotional’ as opposed to ‘objective’ and ‘rational’.

And finally, the BBC talks about how the UK’s erstwhile leaders had taken ‘refuge in republican soil’ as a protest against the royalty when Charlie and Diana got temporarily hitched.

“In 1981, as the Daily Mail has noted, a group of Labour party activists sailed to Boulogne for a day trip which coincided with the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana.
They included Peter Mandelson (now Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and of Hartlepool in the County of Durham), the future business secretary, Harriet Harman, now Labour's deputy leader, Jack Dromey, Ms Harman's husband and also now an MP, and Alan Haworth, who currently sits in the House of Lords.”

Here, the BBC, is implying that even those who bothered to do this did not shy from taking on ‘royal’ titles later and gestating in the House of Lords. In this, they are saying that the anti-royalist cause isn’t worth anything as their prominent proponents themselves have no problem supporting it via their acceptance of their appointments later.

What is going on here is that not only does the BBC, amongst others, downplaying the ‘refuseniks’, but doing its utmost in depoliticising their refuse-niking. So, not only are the ‘refuseniks‘ a minority, but those with political ‘sentiments‘ are a minority within this minority, and therefore discountable, in contrast to the thus significant majority whose attendance at this right royal acrimony, in the streets, street parties, or via the telly, is itself a vindication of the principles founding the continued maintenance of the supreme symbol of capitalist exploitation and hegemony.

I’ll have no part of it. And it’s not just because I’m a ‘refusenik’.





ed






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