God Save The King!

It’s a public holiday and that is enough for many of his subjects to rejoice for. The magical exuberance and privilege to have a sitting regent, whose majestic reign stabs back to times when warlords, bandits and pirates took land, rallied warriors and pillaged the land until they themselves realised that the real booty and bounty is to be found in the permanency of government. Taxation. And, the God granted right to rule, to subjugate the peasantry. To bless useful and otherwise wealthy men as lords, to own populations, as slave, serf and then in time citizen subject. To codify rule into laws, bound in tradition and entwined in uncommon language, legalese and Latin sounds smarter, to own others, with the mystic writ granted to man by God.

God Save the King, even the atheists of state cheer.

The welfare state perhaps saved the Crown. It’s an easy remark to call royalty themselves, welfare queens, but the worlds fetish for sovereign extravagance and the ever evolving traditions that marry religion-state-privilege seems universal. The Royal Family, inc do in fact cost the tax payer and government a lot of money. They also generate it. As landholders, they are able to tax tenants, but they also bring in tourist dollars and make money from royalties, no pun, and merchandising. The mob seem to love them, even if at times they sneer, “he’s not my king’ oh but how they worship the government by which he sits upon, even as a symbol.

King Charles III, formerly Prince Charles, Lady Diana’s cheating husband is not as revered as his dear mother was. It’s hard for spoiled boy kings to be as appealing as their dear old mothers. Elizabeth II and Victoria, ruled for long periods over important eras in British history. Victoria’s reign was at the height of empire, she could look out her window to see no sun setting over her dominion, it is said that 25 percent of the planet was bathed in the pink ink of the British Empire. Her empire. It was an age defined for her namesake. Victorian Era. The Queen ever in black, mourning the loss of her dear Albert. A woman of prudish traits, who exemplified the majesty that only her position could afford. She was empress, prime ministers wrote to her affectionately, foreign leaders could her mother or aunt, she was the mother of imperial dominance.

In her time, pretty little Elizabeth II became queen while the British Empire was in decline. Having barely survived the second world war, and scandals pertaining to the family, the Royals had a new regent. The House of Windsor in the previous war, lost it’s German name, marriage to an American commoner and peace feelers with the Nazi’s all converged to sour the once revered family. In the age of democratic socialism, the NHS and welfare became as much a focus of government as holding onto parts of empire.

Britain rebuilt itself into a command economy, based on the principles of Keynes and war time austerity-planning, was there room for the Empire? The Cold War and insatiable hunger of the welfare state meant that some colonies needed to be kept. You see, these great empires need to steal and plunder the resources of foreign lands in order to maintain their welfare policies. Public education and health is only affordable so long as Malaya and Kenya are robbed. The modern French state is a master at this balancing act, keeping a form of economic empire while satiating the gorged neosocialism at home.

But alas, the colonies became dominions, independent and members of the Commonwealth. British managers and bureaucrats from the civil services helped to steer and guide some into nationhood, while others crumbled into wars of independence. Turns out when Europeans invent nations on a map, arbitrarily the traditional borders soon bludgeon into violent realisation. Elizabeth II reigned over this period, watching her empire decline. Then her nation fumbled into economic ruination. Post War debt to the former colonies of North America, and with a decline in aviation, automobiles, machines and weapon manufacturing. The once mighty industrial bastion became a basket case that only central planning and mass dependency could invigorate. God Save the Queen, for she represented a dignity of a before time. Labours winter of discontent, garbage in the streets, then Thatcherism and the glory of reclaiming the Falklands gave the UK a reprieve for British pride and the dignity of royals.

The rise of the Murdoch press ensured that the establishment and upper toffs were not above reporting. Their dirty laundry and scandals were all public fodder. Advertiser friendly for papers and magazines. Then the shining smile of Lady Diana bought in the tabloid gorged public into the loving fold of the Royals. A return to tradition, a fairy tale. Happy Ever After. Until years later the paparazzi chase Diana into a speeding tunnel, killing her. To live and die by the tabloids.

Lady Diana, Prince Charles had selected wisely. He picked his then underage future wife with devious intentions of making her a Princess. Turns out, for Lady Spencer, it was not a Disney ending despite many attempts at making such a life appealing. The couple adorned magazine covers, just like a Disney poster, one with wide Dumbo ears, the other wearing the pretty pearls of royalty beneath a smile of practised insincerity, the deceit of public navigation. Like a bulimic who pretends to digest, the dear princess understood the need for deception before the public.

It was true love.

Except that true love for our dear prince was another man’s wife. His former teen sweetheart, Camilla Parker Bowles. There is no doubt that they truly love one another, he even once proclaimed his want of being her tampon. The obligation and privilege of royalty meant that their love was denied. True love, was too powerful and despite the contract obligated by the very laws that his rule validates, they betrayed the mythic and magical vows made inside the church that he is the figurehead of. And, love prevailed. Rather human, common even.

Instead of loving them for their love, at risk of exposing the charade of the royal and public good, the then future king was seen as a villain. Lady Diana, the victim. It was with her unfortunate death in 1997 that she achieved a very public martyrdom. A death that the royal family fumbled with their public relations, further harming the brand a little more. Charles invested himself as a father, a lover to Lady Camilla and spokesman to many causes. The tradition of royalty for many is a going through the motions of obligation, a burden of habit. The affection for Elizabeth II and even the late Lady Diana are no longer present, hope was once invested in the prince’s Henry and William now less adored than they once were. Thanks in part to their marriage selections and the public perceptions of them as men, being Mummy boys and all that. Which strangely seems to be a common feature for modern British Kings.

Her Royal Highness, Elizabeth II reigned when Sir Jimmy Savile, rapist and paedophile Knight was at their royal service, it can be reasoned and rationalised that Royals never knew. But, many did know and because of such a man’s fame and public esteem, he was kept dearly protected. Protected by the very public health system, broadcaster and police that have mandated that they are the monopoly of the land. Protected by the British government and due to his closeness with Charles and Diana, by the Royal Family. The truth of power is encapsulated inside of this scandal, as depicted by this one vile man and his many victims.

The establishment, that which needs the common person to validate all it’s power, will trample and disregard the common person not only to retain power but to avoid a slant against it’s credibility. In doing so, it has no credibility. But as an employer, a welfare feeder and with the magic of tradition, reputation and credibility does not matter.

Sir Jimmy became an adviser of sorts. Not as a jester, rather as a high court degenerate in chief.

He helped them with public spin, guided them with charm and how to navigate the fickleness of the mob. He was able to raise money for charity. He did this well and for all of his viscous acts, their seems to be a part of him that sought redemption through deed. The Janus mask of his persona, a conflict between a darkness of degenerate rape and sexual violence, balanced by the philanthropic energies, a light, to help many in need. Because of this greater good reasoning, the intimate turmoil and misery of his victims became hushed out of any public light, the light of his good deeds illuminated upon them with dismissive indignity. Such is power. Such is government. Such is the divine right to rule.

Just like royal family confidant Savile, the Duke of York, Prince Andrew, also likes them young. A man who has his own indulgent tastes, how young and how consenting some were, we are yet to know. Regardless, it’s a very royal thing. The modern world and the confused nature of what is moral and what is not, muddies the waters when viewed through the historical lenses of nostalgic glory. The Kings and the aristocracy of the past were indeed far more degenerate and vile actors. It seems that the modern inheritors are merely abiding in the tradition that they are known for, loved for. The Epstein files, a well known list of public people who may have indulged in the rape or sex acts that could compromise their reputations, includes the Duke of York who has somewhat been cancelled by the family. The Duke was a bonafide hero during the Falklands, flying combat and rescue missions as a helicopter pilot, what glory he may have gained then, remains in the 20^th century, where it once mattered.

In the past, the inventor of the Christian sect known as Anglicanism, King Henry 8^th, had his own particular tastes and ambitions to breed. It was his right. He famously had his six wives, a morbid series of abuse and state sanctioned murder-divorce enshrined him into greatness. He became the head of a nationalised church, could do as he pleased in so far as how marriage and relations went and God, his God, was fine with it all. The morality is in the writ of law, and the religion becomes credible once time and enough followers accumulate. The victims of such a man and his killers, rapists, buried beneath the legalese and legacy of time. His perverse thrusts into royal victims, sanctioned, thus moral, because he is the King.

Scandals are rife among those who live in public life, even before the internet and smart phones, some incidents were recorded and spread among the court and to the common folk. Public brawls like that between King George III and his then drunk playboy son, or the alleged lesbian affair between Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill. King George V’s son being a murder suspect or the murder scandals that reach back hundreds of years. The Royal’s are human beings but through the belief of the common person they are granted a magical lifestyle than transcends anything common. The problem is not in the King or the many Royals, but in the people who make them that. From the guards who are disciplined into robotic discipline, obeying customs of absurd martial tradition that it’s adored because it is a military form. Or the many officials, whether they believe or not, make sure that the government and the Royalty functions, or retains existence. While you may not need the King, he sure needs you. Because you, keep him and others like him on that throne.

I was a guest alongside Rabbi Dovid Feldman and Dr. Zachary Foster to discuss the true nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

On May 15, I joined Alana Newman in an X Space as a guest speaker alongside Rabbi Dovid Feldman and historian Dr. Zachary Foster. The discussion has since been published as an episode of Newman’s podcast The Speaker Salon, so you can listen here:

Newman explained how she had always avoided this topic but was prompted to learn more about it by my free e-book A Brief History of Palestine: From Canaan through the Mandate Era, which dispels popular Zionist myths aiming to deny the Palestinians’ own ancient historical connection to the land.

First up was Rabbi Feldman from the Orthodox Jewish organization Neturei Karta. He explained exquisitely the critical distinction between Judaism and Zionism and why the secular political movement of Zionism is anathema to Judaism, and why equating anti-Zionism with “anti-Semitism” is perverse.

Indeed, from Rabbi Feldman’s perspective, Zionism is heretical—and while I have no religious beliefs myself, as someone who has studied the Hebrew Tanakh (the Christian “Old Testament”), I completely concur with the theological underpinnings of that argument.

Indeed, this is something I have been pointing out for many years with respect to the malevolent influence of Christian Zionism.

• Woe to you, Christian Zionists, hypocrites!
• Interview: The Peculiar Alliance Between Christian Zionism and Israel
• To End the Israel-Palestine Conflict, End Christian Zionism

Dr. Foster next explained how he was raised in a Zionist family but became unsettled once realizing that “the core tenet of the Zionist program was replacing Arabs with Jews”, which he felt was a project “born in sin.”

He talked about how Israel was created through ethnic cleansing and is now perpetrating genocide in Gaza, along with covering a broad range of critical background knowledge for understanding the conflict’s true nature.

During my turn in “the hot seat”, as Newman put it, I reiterated the point that Israel’s US-backed crimes against the Palestinians include war crimes and the crimes against humanity of ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and now genocide.

• Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
• ICJ Hears Arguments on Illegality of Israel’s Occupation
• ICJ Declares Israel’s Occupation Illegal
• Interview: The ICJ Ruling on the Illegality of Israel’s Occupation

I explained how a ceasefire had finally been reached between Israel and Hamas earlier this year, but US President Donald Trump encouraged Israel to violate it and resume its genocide, so that’s exactly what Israel did.

• How Trump Approved the Resumption of Israel’s Gaza Genocide

I was next asked about the US “war on terrorism”, so I explained how it ties into the Palestine conflict and, indeed, how it was my inquiries into 9/11 that got me started doing journalism and led to my primary focus being this land struggle in the Middle East.

Next, I explained the requirements of international humanitarian law with respect to protections of civilian persons and objects, and how Israel systematically violates this body of law with intentionally indiscriminate attacks.

Later in the discussion, I covered some of the popular myths about the conflict that I debunked in my book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, such as the myth that the UN created Israel.

I elucidated the critical distinction between the “two-state solution” grounded in the applicability of international law to the conflict and the alternative goal of the US-led so-called “peace process”.

As well, I provided examples from the New York Times about how the mainstream media deceive the American public, serving the propaganda function of manufacturing consent of the US government’s support for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

Listen to the full conversation using the audio player above!

Sign up for my newsletters and get my free e-book/audiobook A Brief History of Palestine.

Purchase my book Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

In the past those of us distant from war could only see it in the print media and television. It was curated with the intent to gain sympathy, or conceal the brutality of those who we were supposed to be sympathetic for. As censored as it was at times graphic, though it was just in fragments. Now, we have an endless stream of images and video. If we dare to see them.

War is a peculiar thing, it allows for the most horrible to occur on a grand scale. It is precisely because of the scale of such acts and who is committing them, that the insufferable horror continues on. Despite the savagery and suffering, it’s articulated to have great meaning. In the parliaments, lecture halls, on television panels, on podcasts and in the comment sections of social media, it’s given context or debated. The suffering, the innocent, those in pain, the dead and the mourning victims or deserving, depending on ones narrative. Online it’s usually content, watermarks of @accounts, phonk sountracks, AI slopovers narrating and X threads turning the footage lifted from another’s telegram channel into a revenue post.

A human being or entire populations, forfeit. They don’t matter or simply are described to be deserving of their suffering. These opinions and views are not held or spoken by brutes, but by elected officials, common people, bots and bot brained posters a like. It’s not a pariah opinion, in most cases it’s an allowable one. An opinion that is rewarded. An opinion of mature sophistication, considerable delicacy of intellect but also one of base tribalism. It’s both, depending on whose espousing it. To be antiwar, not pacifist but opposed to the slaughter of the innocent, to collective punishment of regions or groups, is devalued as childish, immature. Unsophisticated. Naive.

Beyond the voyeur, in a distant field.

A lone Russian man, young, tired. Resigned to his fate as a drone hovers around him. The open grass field he is in, cold and empty. He has nowhere to run, even if he could. He can’t surrender because the suicide drone has one mission, to kill. The man sits, his head lowered. There is no mercy, no humanity. The distant drone operator steeled by idealism, or revenge or maybe apathy, is far away. The drone lingers. Hesitation from the killer? Or maybe torment? Perhaps a conversation is being had, to kill or not? The man waits. The decision is made. The drone detonates. Another life gone. A dead man. A son, A brother, A lover, A friend, A comrade. Now Dead.

On that same social media feed, a young boy with a bullet hole punched through his chest, lays limp. Palestinian, barely ten. Shot by an Israeli soldier. The parliaments, lecture halls, podcasts, television, comment sections discuss, debate, cheer and condemn. They can afford to, it’s not their child. It’s not them. The civilised conjure up definitions of genocide, whether the child deserved to die or who is really to blame. The soldier pulling the trigger, had no choice it’s claimed. The child is dead. Murdered. Except in war, when nation states wage them, murder is an ugly word that gets contextualised away. A little boy, among thousands more, remains dead.

You see, it’s not immoral or even a war crime, whatever that means, when it’s them dying. The Russian man, maybe still a teenager, is an invader. A Russki. The Palestinian boy, belongs to a pariah group according to the civilised West and it can be figured, is close enough to fighting age. Ten year old male, old enough to arrest, torture and kill. Soon, it’s argued, he will be a terrorist. Radicalised, a threat. Better to snuff him out now. Argues some in parliaments to podcasts to comment sections. He’s just a child under any other context.

There is nothing to be gained in appealing to reason or consistency. Invader! It’s easy to mention the allied and US invasions of foreign lands. That’s meaningless. That is how exceptionalism works. This soldier, is not an American, or doesn’t speak English at least. Therefore his participation in an invasion or police action, is illegal, immoral. He is the enemy, there is no mercy. The purported values and dignities of Western civilisation, they don’t matter. Or they only matter when an enemy is revealed as brutish, inhumane, lacking in such values.

The little boy, he belongs to a pariah race, a people that are the other. He may as well be a ‘Gypsie’, another group still mostly allowed to be hated and despised, suspect. He may as well be a Jew in Europe’s own past. In these examples he is a savage, not a boy or child. Another creature. That is how it’s possible to kill so many, make sure that enough of the world agrees. Enough of the influential, powerful agree or don’t care. It’s how you can starve millions to death from Yemen, Iraq to last centuries Germany in that first Great war. It’s how you can carpet their bomb cities, or stuff them into carriages to be gassed, bayoneted or shot to death. They are subhuman, vermin. The civilised and those with values, often declare it as such.

One can as easily find the denials. It’s not really happening. It’s fake. Manufactured. The moral side is that precisely because it claims to be. The same Nazi German government that invited the Red Cross and Allied POWs to inspect the mass graves of the Poles massacred by the Soviets at Katyn, were themselves responsible for countless other massacres, genocides. Grandstands of moral virtue signalling. Countless commies will claim that the Katyn massacre never occurred or that the Soviets themselves were never that bloodthirsty and oppressive. Jew-haters will also claim that the Nazi’s were incapable of mass genocide, even one of such a scale that the term holocaust has now become Holocaust,inc. Denial is a form of enabling. The dead children in Palestine, some claim that’s not happening as well.

Arguments and debates become digital wallpaper, entertainment. Comment sections polluted by bots and paid posters blending with the ideological and trolls. The definitions of morality and right and wrong or good and evil, ever fluid. Non-binary-moral. Ever in transition depending on who does it, and who is killed. Everything is fluid, especially murder.

Soon there won’t be a human peering through the screen while operating the drone, guiding it to hunt and kill. Will automation change anything? Indiscriminate and intentional murder of the innocent is ancient, technology and institutions of civility, laws and religion only seemed to have enhanced it. The gladius wielding Romans could commit a genocide as easily as the National Socialist empire of Germany with 20^th century science. If the human killers and those distant humans, lack empathy, compassion and a regard for human dignity, how will a machine be any worse.

Maybe the machine with it’s logic and reason and rationales, a lack of ideological vileness, no religious contradictions, no sociopathic desire and greedy incentives, will be less evil? Who knows? The question remains, what does it say about us? Despite so much literature, achievement, apparent love of a creator or ages of reason, and atheistic morality that embraces justice and rights. Here we are.

“And when they were in the field, Cain stood up against his brother Abel and killed him.”

May as well be Johnny Reb bayoneting Billy Yank or a distant drone operator steering an exploding drone into a man in a grass field. It seems that despite all of these faiths, ideological versions of control, Utopian coercion’s and monopolies of order, the result is the same.

Maybe evil never existed. It’s just us. Humanity invented the devil and moral frameworks to satiate our spirit for murder with alibi, and excuse. God Wills It! or the Devil steered a hand, To kill for empire, nation or as a reaction to empire, nation. To kill for conquest, for freedom. To kill for spiritual nirvana or economic Utopia. To kill for jealousy, greed, hatred, lust, or just because. The reasons may vary, the killers always there. The State makes it legal or illegal. To murder is immoral regardless of the States reasons.

The soldier, his body in a field, ripped to pieces. That little boy, held by weeping family members. Another lost. I want to say it’s pointless, but it isn’t. Not for the killers and advocates of the killing. There is a goal, an ambition. Whether it’s policy or conquest. That is what drives them. The victims, they are not allowed to exist or live in peace. That should be understood as evil. But we are educated to understand it’s complicated. The benefactors decided.

The purity of evil gets washed, domesticated and civilised. Many may say they hate war, most believe that they are not evil. Some even do everything in their ability to not be like that, to reject it. We need the idea of good-evil to exist to pretend we are capable of being better, to believe that we can be good, are good. But most seem to only believe in the lesser evil, that being their side. They also believe that the end, justifies the means. That being whatever nationalist, ideological, cultural, political or religious end or simply put whatever satisfies greed and comfort. Or, they don’t care.

The soldier is dead. The little boy, dead. More to follow. That’s evil. But apparently it’s not.