|19 Dec '08|
SCOTTISH NATIONAL STANDARD BEARER:Peter Dow
Bush betrays Scottish, British etc. republicans (again).
Predictably enough, I sent the crockery flying on Rice for President Yahoo Group when the bad news about Queen Elizabeth’s visit to the USA broke, though I was reasoned enough to repeat the arguments I had deployed against the (November 2005) welcome Bush extended to Prince Charles.
However, it was not long before my creative genius was at work and now I'm pleased to present a number of videos I produced mentioning this ill-advised American welcome for the Queen, with different styles (some musical, some satirical, some straight-talking) to complain that Americans are letting us Scottish and British republicans down (and harming American interests for the long term) by giving such strong support for the UK monarchy.
Satirical music video on Queen Elizabeth's visit to the USA, as an evil Mysteron plot to pervert republican USA by putting Americans in a monarchist trance. Captain Scarlet to the rescue, but is our Condi the evil Captain Black (Mysteron Agent) or the good Captain Scarlet (Spectrum agent)? Watch the video and take your guess.
Queen Elizabeth visits the White House - and makes a complete mockery of American republican principles in a disgusting spectacle of monarchist brown-nosing.
The Devil Queen visits the White House.
Voice-over: "7,000 guests assembled on the south lawn of the White House for that official arrival ceremony and among those guests, the Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett, the American Vice-President Dick Cheney and the American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice."
Music: Elvis Presley "The Devil in Disguise".
Subtitles: "The Devil Queen. Queen's State Visit. Fooled Americans. Cheated. Schemed. Lied. Angel Condi."
Begins with an ITV News report on reactions to the South Park cartoon which lampoons the Queen and fictionalises her (unsuccessful) attempts to reverse the American revolution and take back the USA as part of the British Empire.
Subtitles: itv NEWS censored. Queen's brains blown out! Explicit South Park .. Here in a minute or two.
Peter Dow (a Scottish Republican) agrees with shooting the Queen in the head but President Bush perversely supported the UK monarchy earlier this year with a most preposterous ceremony ...
Video - "The Devil Queen visits the White House". TV news report set to music by Elvis Presley. "(You're The) Devil In Disguise"
Peter Dow speaks -
"That was Americans shooting themselves in the head because that Queen cannot be a reliable friend of the American Republic. Monarchs are threatened by republics which have no need of Kings or Queens.
Queen Elizabeth is a liar and a backstabber who will betray America any chance she gets - like the Saudi Arabian King who has already betrayed America when he allowed his terrorist proxies operating as "Al Qaeda" to attack America on September 11th 2001.
The monarchs of the world are all the time waging an undeclared war with the educated people who would oust them in favour of democratic republics where we would elect our own president as head of state."
More South Park: Uncensored excerpt from "South Park" cartoon wherein the Queen's shoots herself in the head and blows her own brains out.
Peter Dow continues ...
"Queen Elizabeth is a particular enemy of British republicans like me because the officers of her United Kingdom state often deny the British people freedom, abuse us, enslave us, treat us like animals and sometimes they murder some of us.
Except when the Queen's officers murder innocent people here - her royalist courts don't call it murder, they get away with murder and instead they get medals.
We are completely unarmed - they can kill us like lambs whenever they want and there is nothing much we can do about it.
If there was a Scottish or a British republican army, perhaps set up with help from the American government, I and other people no doubt would try to join it and we would fight for our freedom and for a republican revolution that would end the United Kingdom once and for all.
Now, the American and British military are today fighting to free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan - so well done us - but what about freedom for the people of Britain? What about the Scots, the English, the Welsh? Don't we deserve freedom too?
Saddam Hussein didn't get a ceremony in his honour at the White House - he got 48 hours to get out of Iraq and stay out or else.
So please America - don't invite the UK royal family to the White House - instead we should give the Queen and her family 48 hours to get out of Britain and stay out or else."
Royalist "Sir" Colin Powell - "... showed America there is nothing a black person cannot do" said the traitor Powell.
American TV network news last night reported President Bush awarding The Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen, and not before time.
Now THAT'S a medal worth having!
So a good news story? Yes, but here is the grit in that oyster - speaking and correctly praising the 'black' airmen along with the President was Colin Powell - a former general and Condoleezza Rice's predecessor as Secretary of State.
So where's the grit?
Powell has shown Americans that a 'black' person like himself can be a traitor to the United States of America by assisting the enemy royalist-terrorist axis in the war in terror when he gave his treacherous support to the UK monarchy by accepting an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth.
(The royalist-terrorist axis explanation: The incompetence and injustice of royalist rule in countries throughout the world, from the UK to Saudi Arabia, has a long history of provoking many terrorist outrages that would not have been provoked had good democratic republican rule replaced the royalist rule. So monarchies give rise to terrorism and this evil royalist-terrorist axis leads to all kinds of outrages, like 9/11 which was carried out by mostly Saudi terrorists.)
In so doing, Powell was in effect telling so-called 'black' Britons (and so-called 'white' Britons whose name isn't Windsor) that there IS something they cannot yet do - become head of state of Britain - because that position is reserved for the UK royal family, this side of a republican revolution in Britain; a republican revolution which Powell has set himself against by accepting an honour from the Queen.
(Racist language: I've put the terms 'black' and 'white' in quotes in order to emphasise that I am echoing here Powell's language of race and colour, which I don't like using myself. For example, I don't consider or want to describe myself as 'white' coloured or of 'caucasian' race or whatever. I resent it when I am presented with a form in which I am expected to pigeonhole myself like that. I am a scientist and scientifically speaking, 'race' and 'colour' are not well-defined or useful classifications of people. Indeed the use of such classifications can often have very anti-social consequences.
When responding to comments phrased in race or colour terms, sometimes I do echo these terms but in my heart and mind, I just see and think of people as individuals and human and I don't want to discriminate between people using such wrong-headed terms as race and colour. Although I recognise there are racists out there, I think the racist mindset needs to be challenged every time. I too "have a dream", as Martin Luther King said.)
Well it is just as well that nowadays Condi has got better republicans than Colin Powell to watch her back. Better republicans who cannot be impressed with Colin Powell accepting an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth and better republicans who are planning that Condi shall not make the same mistake.
A story goes that Condi had the good sense to ask that the oil tanker which was once named after her, should be re-named so as not to equate her name too closely with the "war about oil" accusations we sometimes hear.
The oil-tanker "Condoleezza Rice" was a honour which Condi returned, with all the grace you'd expect from a once competitive ice-skater.
To win the war on terror, entirely and convincingly, we are going to have to neutralise all the harm being done to international politics by the royalists and the terrorism royalist rule seems to provoke and that means getting a U.S. President of the most exceptional leadership ability.
That means we need a president with more insight than Eisenhower and Reagan - both only too keen to accept a honorary knighthood from the UK without thought to the long term harm to good republican government and peace in the world.
It means a president better than Colin Powell, who was considering a run for the presidency at one point. Colin Powell would have been as much a President as Eisenhower or Reagan, no question, but their slow-burning treason against the republic of U.S.A. is no longer tolerable when there is a war on terrorism to win.
It means a presidency of someone with the exceptional ability of Condoleezza Rice who would have the intelligence to see the down-side of an honorary knighthood and who would be smart enough to decline or return any such so-called "honour".
So there is one just person I know of who can guarantee a win in the war on terror - that would be a President Condoleezza Rice.
If Powell wishes to redeem himself in the eyes of republicans all he has to do is to return the honorary knighthood to the Queen, and let the world know that he has had second thoughts about accepting the knighthood.
I PROTESTED most strongly against the visit to the White House of Prince Charles and wife Camilla to be entertained by President Bush and his wife on 2nd November 2005.
The White House: President Welcomes Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall to the White House
I'm paraphrasing here more or less what I said to our American friends in posts and emails in web forums in the days in the lead-up to the visit.
I am a republican and a democrat.
(My politics should not be equated exactly with the US Republican and Democrat parties - I am not a US citizen - I am Scottish, living in Scotland - and so I’m not a member of either party, although I am part of the world-wide group of supporters of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.)
In other words, politically I support the establishment and maintenance of democratic republics everywhere in the world.
That means, for example, I support the democratic republic of the United States of America, wishing to see the USA thrive and standing together with it, shoulder to shoulder, to take on all enemies of democracy, freedom and republican government - such as Al Qaeda in the war on terrorism.
In principle, I support the overthrow of undemocratic regimes of one kind or another - monarchies such as Saudi Arabia or the United Kingdom, Stalinist dictatorships, as in North Korea, the former Saddam Hussein regime or theocratic dictatorships as in Iran.
I have a particular interest in opposing the United Kingdom - its Queen Elizabeth and its heir apparent Prince Charles - as that is the undemocratic regime which denies me, as a Scot and a Briton, of my democratic rights. It’s the UK state which oppresses and subjugates me and takes away my freedom.
Now the UK, down through the years, has been compelled by popular political struggle to allow certain pseudo-democratic changes to the regime - such as not-really-free-and-fair elections and not-really-just courts pretending to apply the rule of law, while actually imposing arbitrary justice.
For those engaged in high-profile protests and extra-parliamentary democratic politics, a rule of judicial terror is imposed to back up the terror of the police imposed on the streets.
The UK state is a terror state and Queen Elizabeth is the world’s most dangerous terrorist – primarily because she and her family not only oversee their terror state but they manage to co-opt royalist-sympathizer politicians to give their kingdom a veneer of pseudo-democratic respectability.
So that makes Prince Charles the second most dangerous terrorist in the world – so why is President Bush inviting terrorists to the White House when he is supposed to be fighting a war on terror?
The UK is perhaps a half-way house between an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia and a proper democracy like the United States.
So half-a-loaf is better than none. But as a principled republican I am not settling for anything short of a democratic republic - no Kingdom for me, thanks all the same.
The citizens of the US would not, most of them, want to live or come home to anything other than a democratic republic in the USA - why should they?
Americans want to elect their President and not have a King or Queen forced upon them as head of state.
And similarly, you must not expect me to agree to anything less than a democratic republic - why should I?
It is Queen Elizabeth who is the ceremonial head or figurehead of the UK state (Prince Charles expects to take over that role when the Queen dies though) - but a figurehead is an important person who can do an enormous amount of damage to the democracy of a country.
A figurehead is not as insignificant a thing as you might think.
The royalists are insisting that the Queen is to remain the figurehead. A figurehead is a decisive role because the figurehead person serves to approve the status quo - here, rubber-stamping the UK royalist, fascist, police state and implicitly, the death, destruction, disaster and missed-opportunities that it imposes.
Obviously, the Prime Minister is a key officer in the UK state and the Queen rubber-stamps what the PM does or doesn’t do as well.
Likewise, the First Minister of Scotland is rubber-stamped, indiscriminately.
Moving to a republic would afford the people an opportunity to replace a hellish rubber-stamp with the political context to commence sorely needed action to liberate us from the fascists who are making lives hell - fascist police, judges and other assorted UK royalist, fascist state officials.
Some people advance the theory that the UK Prime Minister is an acting head of state. Does the Prime Minister then have the power to have the fascist police and judiciary urgently replaced en masse and - if they wouldn’t go quietly - shot as required, by calling in the military?
The UK police and judiciary as presently constituted, form the core of the national enemies within and removing them and reconstituting the forces of the state according to democratic principles will be quite a task.
I would question that the PM could easily do that, even with the consent of the House of Commons (There is no such consent presently, nor willingness by the PM, sadly. Sort of banning fox-hunting was as much as elected royalists could manage.)
I mean, it is wishful thinking to think that the PM does now have the power to do the necessary but there is presently no evidence that the PM has that power under the UK’s constitution from hell.
(If there were compelling evidence such as, for example, the dead body of the Queen then of course one would have to reconsider then the powers of the PM in the new context.
Thus Oliver Cromwell, leading as evidence the dead body of King Charles I, who had his head chopped off, could fairly claim to have head of state powers.)
The House of Lords, royalist lawyers, courts and the Queen’s officers themselves would presumably challenge such head of state powers in a Prime Minister.
Certainly the UK royalist, fascist police state would oppose the First Minister of Scotland presently having similar head of state powers to end royalist fascism in Scotland. (Take a look at the Scotland Act.)
We need heads of states to act against the UK royalist fascists as soon as possible and arguing for republics for the nations and the overthrow of the monarchy is the context in which those heads of states would emerge.
Just voting for royalist candidates, from royalist parties - Scottish Nationalist, Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UK Independence, Green and so on - just electing Members of Parliaments who must give allegiance to the Queen - won’t do.
British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries should be welcomed to the USA
So while I am pleased to see Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visiting the USA and meeting with President Bush or Secretary of State Rice,
I take a different view with regard to members of the UK royal family being given a similar such preferential and high-profile welcome.
Welcoming Prince Charles to the White House will be understood from Scotland and Britain as President Bush accepting the role of the monarchy in Scotland and Britain - being seen to stand with the royalist, fascist police state of the United Kingdom - rather than clearly siding with the democratic rights of the people of Scotland and Britain.
In short, Prince Charles is my enemy and I don’t want anyone to be seen being friends with my enemy.
Either to support democracy throughout the world - which I thought was President Bush’s and Secretary Rice’s policy - and be loved for that stance - as I love Condi Rice.
Or the USA government could go back to the discredited old policy of supporting regimes that deny proper democracy to their people - and whether President Bush means to or not, when he meets with Prince Charles, it looks like he has decided to support the UK regime and not the democratic rights of the British people.
President Bush spoke some fine words about spreading democracy during his inaugural speech and some of the people of the world must have believed in what he said - hoped that he meant what he said.
But now many Scottish and British republicans are going to feel betrayed by President Bush and particularly by Condi Rice in whom I had so much faith.
Many of us really expected better from Condi and I was hoping that at the last minute she would avoid getting herself tangled up with Prince Charles’s visit to the White House and avoid meeting Charles at any time while he's in the USA.
I regret to say that Condi seems to have gone to the White House dinner for Prince Charles.
Prince Charles at the White House looks like a stab in the back to most republican lovers of freedom and fighters for freedom living in the many countries - Britain, Canada, Australia and so on - where we are not allowed to elect a President but instead get Queen Elizabeth, like it or not.
It looks like President Bush is saying to the Scots, Britons, Canadians, Australians and the rest something like -
The welcome of Prince Charles to the White House was humiliating and insulting to many Scottish and British republicans - as that is what I am, and that is how I now feel - humiliated and insulted.
On what I meant by
That is a phrase I used on my website to equate the meetings with royalty with that of the Queen’s Uncle Edward when he met with Hitler".
I then quoted this page from my website -
I then continued -
The Windsor royal family is nobody’s ally unless they agree with their undemocratic monarchist privileges. If they could, the British imperialist-monarchists would go back to ruling America as a British colony - they’d make Americans their subjects if they could. Taxation but no representation.
But does he expect to become King of the Royal United States of America?
No. Prince Charles is greedy enough but his advisors are not stupid enough to think that he can take the USA as well.
But entertaining this Prince IS akin to surrendering vast portions of the English speaking world over to the royalist terrorists.
Realistically, the visit for Prince Charles is more to do with keeping power where the Windsors have it already.
If the royals are friendly with the most powerful republican in the world - the President of the USA - then Prince Charles is expecting that the President will give no support or encouragement to republicans wishing to oust the Windsors from realm countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and so on.
But allowing the monarchists to rule does have consequences in the USA itself.
The 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks have originated from royalist countries - Saudi Arabia mainly but terrorist websites and organisations have been allowed free reign for years under the royalists here.
It's not that Tony Blair or even the Queen wanted the USA attacked - far from it - it is more a question of gross incompetence (as in the Titanic sinking) which comes about when the country is so badly run by the royalists that good people are locked up or leave the country in disgust.
The point is to be the best we can in the war on terror - so it would be better to move the Windsor realm countries to republics as soon as possible.
Prince Charles is not the USA’s ally - he is the enemy of American democracy and republicanism. He’s not an ally in the war on terror – in fact, he is a terrorist himself.
I am NOT calling for a snub of America’s closest ally.
Prince Charles is NOT your (America’s) closest ally! Britain IS your close ally!
The British people ARE your close allies!
British republicans ARE your closest allies – and a lot closer allies than British royalists!
A snub of Prince Charles IS a snub of monarchy! A snub of monarchy is NOT a snub of Britain!
The British royalists keep referring to Great Britain and Northern Ireland as “the United Kingdom” but the Kingdom - the UK state - cannot always be relied upon as America’s useful ally. The royalists running the Kingdom are too incompetent and undemocratic always to be relied upon by anyone – a British Republic would be a better and more reliable ally, as would a Scottish Republic.
The British people are generally good, loyal allies of America - many of whom are republicans but, of us all, it is the British republicans who are most enthusiastically allied to the American republic, the best and most loyal allies of America.
Don’t trust the Kingdom! Trust the people!
By entertaining Prince Charles, President Bush IS snubbing America’s closest allies - British republicans!
So my post is NOT a compliment to Bush - that is true. It is a protest!
It is a protest BY one of America’s closest allies - a British republican - a protest that we British republicans are being snubbed by this welcome of Prince Charles to the White House.
We British republicans are loyal to our fellow American republicans - we simply expect the same loyalty back - and we don’t want to be betrayed by an American president entertaining our enemy – the enemy of British republicans – Prince Charles!
Declaration of Independence. Tribute to signers wrote:
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners and the others held respectible positions; men of means, well educated.
However, they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
Nine fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.
Please take a few moments while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently give thanks to these patriots for many gave the ultimate price, their lives, for freedom.
But it wasn't British democrats or British republicans who wanted to deny America its independence.
No democrat or republican would ever wish to do that.
It must have been King George III, Queen Elizabeth's and Prince Charles's predecessor, who fought against American independence with the help presumably of other British imperialist-monarchists - Queen, Princes, Princesses, Dukes and Duchesses, His Majesty's Government, the King's royalist army and all the other royalist hangers-on.
Prince Charles has too much in common with King George III to be deserving of a welcome at the White House.
King George III was America's enemy - and Prince Charles is America's enemy too.
Ancestry isn't the problem. It is the undemocratic rule of Kings that they share and makes them the enemies of America and all who love freedom.
99 Red Balloons. There may have been about 99 Grand Old Party (American Republican) members at the Prince Charles White House dinner. The GOP colour is red. "Balloon" is Scots slang for "fool". Those GOP diners were behaving like foolish royalist sympathizers rather than principled republicans. Hence "99 Red Balloons" is my choice of tune to accompany this web page.
Click to: For War to Disarm Saddam
|Music: 99 Red Balloons, Nena|