Good Evening Friends,

I would like to take up a point I made, in passing, about the Queen of England, the office of the surviving English monarchy as a whole, and how it relates to power. Remember we said that legally the queen owns all the land of England, and that when she dies, all the mailboxes in England will have to be changed (they have her seal on them)? Remember we pondered to what extent the monarchy still exercises power. Sure the monarchy is supposed to be symbolic and...

Here, I would refer you all to a seven part lecture on YouTube by Slavoj Zizek called "The Reality of the Virtual." He considered 'virtual reality' to be a miserable concept, boring perhaps. All this is is the reproduction of our concrete reality by holographic means.

Much more interesting, in his view, (and he's made a believer out of me) is to consider the reality contained within the virtual, the real concrete force of the seemingly symbolic.

As I said before, the surviving English monarchy, for example, figures into our conception of the Old Money/New Money dynamic we have been discussing. Old Money doesn't come any older than the English monarchy.

And I point to the English monarchy as just one small example of something I always say: just as matter can neither be created nor destroyed (is this the second law of thermodynamics?), so too does old money never disappear. This is in somewhat of a contradiction to classic class theory, as I understand it. Classic class theory tells us that different groups come to prominence in the bourgeoisie, leadership of the ruling class is shifting.

As I said before, I understand the bourgeoisie to be basically divided into New Money and Old Money; and I hope I have provided a half way credible argument that New Money always wants to become Old Money, just as quickly as possible. Remember also, that I mentioned that there are at least two ways, I know of, that New Money tries to quicken the aging process of their "money" and therefore themselves (and this part is crucial, money is more than just money): financialization (Kevin Phillip's book, Wealth and Democray) and the corporate emphasis on "branding" as opposed to actually making things (Naomi Klein's NoLog).

We also talked about the Corleones in The Godfather and the Clericuzios in The Last Don. Money laundering, engaged in by "criminals" is a way of trying to transition from New Money to Old Money. We talked about the focus of Don Clericuzio, and more particularly, Don Corleone engaging in what might be thought of as transitional activities, not so much in a effort of going "straight," as much as trying to go untouchable.

Man is the desire to become God.
Business people are driven to try to have "more money than God."
Corporations (remember, practicing capitalists as opposed to theoretical capitalists) want to become government.
Government wants to become the aristocracy and the monarchy.
The monarchy wants to make the church say they are the personal representatives of God on Earth.

Now, on the December 5, 2008 broadcast of The Alex Jones Show, the veteran journalist and broadcaster hosted the historian and author, Webster Tarpley, a frequent guest on the program. Their interview is on YouTube. Just type in something like: Webster Tarpley on Alex Jones tv "Magna Carta."

Mr. Jones opened the show by referring to a reuters article. Apparently, Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper won suspension of parliament. It seems that he had lost control of the government and become the minority party; and he refused to allow elections to seat a new PM.

I'm sure Mr. Harper would not put it that way. But here's the interesting part. Canada's governor general, Michelle Jean, the personal representative of Queen Elisabeth, Canada's head of state, agreed to this.

Now Alex Jones read that part from the article. He had the reuters article in front of him. Symbolically, the monarch is still the head of state of the commonwealth territories. But we are about the business of examining the substance behind what is supposedly merely virtual.

Why did Harper want parliament suspended? We'll come back to that. Jones then asked Tarpley for his take on the article, handing it to the historian. Scanning quickly, Webster Tarpley said that that was the first he was hearing of it but that there was supposed to be a vote of no confidence against Stephen Harper, and so on and so forth.

Tarpley mentioned that there had been political agitation in the 1960s and 1970s around bringing the constitution home - I suppose to detangle Canadian political life from part of its medieval colonial past - which, it seems, didn't happen. Oh well...

Webster Tarpley gave two other examples showing how the English Monarchy still has some real teeth, shall we say.

1) in 1975, the Australian prime minister, Gough Whitlam wanted to do independent oil deals with Arab producers. Australia would get the oil and the Arab producers would get Australian technology, and so on and so forth. Well, the London and Washington-based oligarchies said no. Apparently Whitlam wasn't persuadeable or bulliable (I just invented the word bulliable) and he had to go. The Australian governor general, again, personal representative of the Queen of England, saw to his "overthrow," and replacement with a chap called Malcom Fraser - whom the parliament immediately issued a vote of no confidence against.

Tarpley didn't quite finish the story but implied that in this case, the Queen - as representative or spokesperson of the oligarchy as a whole - got "her" way.

2) When Canada had its NAFTA debate, Tarpley says that the Queen, again, actually named new senators to the Canadian parliament, somehow. Alex Jones said that initially they were supposed to be elected, but when candidates, not amenable to the Queen's position, looked like they were going to win, the crown went ahead and superseded the process. Tarpley characterized this by saying she "packed" parliament, not unlike the way Franklin Roosevelt had tried - and failed - to "pack" the Supreme Court, remember?
But Jones asked Tarpley who won that fight. Tarpley said the Queen won.

Now, why did Harper seek the suspension of parliament? Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley did not say. But I would refer you to an article on the infowars.com web site titled Prime Minister Harper officially Endorses NAU.

NAU stands for North American Union, the political and economic fusion of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Some people think of NAFTA as the economic arm of this project. Some people see this as one tiny step forward in what the left calls the New World Order of things to come - not a good thing. But we may come back to NWO another time.

Anyway, that is what the article is about. Canadian prime minister, Harper, thought that was a good idea. Its an October 3, 2008 article. Harper's government had reportedly been in the process of getting various Canadian government agencies to "harmonize" with U.S. governmental agencies, and so on and so forth. Probably, then, the struggle that Tarpley and Jones were referring to, involved this.

No need to go into detail about the article. To return to the Queen of England. Webster Tarpley's precise formulation is this: the Queen of England or the Crown in general is the spokesperson of the oligarchy (or bourgeoisie, or bourgeoisie/aristocracy) as a whole - which, we might, is what any political head of state, such as a prime minister or president, is today, to be generous.

We'll go on with this next time.

wingedcentaur.