Queen Elizabeth II’s Death Coverage Exposes Media Hypocrisy

The so-called Democratic “Free World” came to a stand still for a monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who’s death has again proven just how subservient, hypocritical, and ridiculously biased Western media and governments are.

Western media came to a standstill, airing live coverage in which the now deceased Queen of England was lauded. Just about all descent was crushed and, as is routinely the case when a Western head of State dies, their criminal record is wiped and history whitewashed in the name of “respecting the dead”. In reality, this is simply the argument of someone who wishes to silence and censor. The West spared no time in taking to the criticism of Iranian General, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020, after the US Government launched an illegal airstrike in Baghdad to assassinate him. Despite Soleimani holding a special place in the hearts of many Iranians, who poured onto the streets in their millions to mourn his death.

There is no argument the Western media or governments can make that is consistent with their practices when it comes to “respecting deaths” — the celebrations on air following the assassination of Osama Bin Laden demonstrate this perfectly. For days, American civilians, members of government, and media celebrated Osama Bin Laden’s death, in fact, the joy expressed towards this death was quite frightening.

There are many allegations about Queen Elizabeth II; ranging from her direct involvement with the Royal family’s various pedophile friends like Jimmy Saville; to allegations of her involvement in racist abuse against Princess Meghan Markle; and even accusations of having Princess Diana killed. All of these allegations cannot be verified, however, in the case of her son Prince Andrew, who is widely assumed to be guilty of criminal activity through his pedophile, sex-trafficking former friend, Jeffrey Epstein, the record is clear. The Queen went to great lengths to protect her “favorite son” from the allegations of sexual abuse leveled against him, even helping Andrew to pay a 12 million pound settlement on the case.

Aside from all of this, the Queen represented British Empire, she represented the colonialist force which massacred indigenous people’s the world over and a family who built part of their wealth from slavery and the East India Company. This is why those living in the Global South did not mourn, but rather, didn’t care, or even rejoiced at the death of the British Queen, who they see as one of the symbols of their oppression.

There are constant arguments regarding the Queen’s direct role in colonialism and the extent of her power. It is often that her sycophantic supporters will use the excuse that she never interferes in the country’s policies. For the sake of argument, let’s entertain the line of thinking that the Queen was never involved in any criminal action whatsoever and that she was a simple “grandmother and mother” that stayed out of every crime that the United Kingdom committed under her leadership. Even if this was true, there can be no dispute that as head of State, she could have intervened to stop the UK government from committing its various crimes, but refused to act.

So let’s pose the question; if the Queen could have stopped slavery, the holocaust, or the genocide of indigenous Americans, but refused to do so, would history see her as a moral figure? There can be no dispute that she would be condemned and rightfully criticized. So why is it fine that the Queen ruled over racially segregated colonies and visited them frequently as their head of State?

One of those racially segregated colonies that the Queen personally visited was known as the Colony of Aden, at the time, where White’s were afforded full rights and the native inhabitants of the territory made second class citizens. Things were so bad there that Yemeni nationalist groups, most prominently the Front for the Liberation of South Yemen and the National Liberation Front, launched an offensive in 1963 to force the British occupation out. In 1966, Amnesty International released a report which documented widespread cases of torture used by the British against the Yemeni population. Even after the horrifying accounts of sexual and other forms of physical torture became well known in Britain, it wouldn’t be until 1969 that South Yemen was properly liberated, after the British began slowly withdrawing in 1967 due in large part to other crises.

Here are a sample of major wars, in which the United Kingdom was implicated in crimes against humanity, during which the Queen did nothing substantive:

The Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya (1952-1960), the Jebel Akhdar War in Oman (1954-59), the Cyprus emergency (1955-59), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Border Campaign in Ireland (1956-1962), the Upper Yafa disturbances in Yemen (1959), the Dhofar Rebellion in Oman (1962-1975), the Indonesia-Malaysia confrontation (1963-66), the ‘Aden Emergency’ (1963-67), ‘The Troubles’ in Ireland (1968-1998), the ‘Falklands War’: Argentina (1982), the multinational attack on Lebanon (1982-84), the first Gulf War (1990-91), Bosnian war (1992-95), ‘Operation Desert Fox’ in Iraq (1988), the Kosovo War (1998-99), Sierra Leone’s civil war (2000-2002), Afghanistan War (2001-2021), Iraq war (2003-2009), the war on Libya (2011) and the war in Syria which began in 2011 and continues.

Keep in mind that this is nowhere near a complete list.

The Iraq war alone is so great of a crime against humanity that it must be considered by itself; an illegal war in every sense, resulting in the exile of millions, the death of over a million Iraqis, and the destruction of the Iraqi State altogether. The so-called “War on terror” that the United Kingdom has been on board with, has cost around 6 million people their lives, yet throughout all of this, Queen Elizabeth II used hundreds of millions in taxpayer pounds to finance her luxurious lifestyle. Now, whilst Britain experiences an energy crisis, rising inflation, the collapse of its national health service, and an out of control living crisis, the Queen’s funeral will cost the taxpayer millions. Those that choose to voice their rejection of the Royal family on the streets of the UK have even been arrested for doing so, and whilst the Queen’s family lives across dozens of luxury homes and palaces, families are flocking to food banks and are forced onto the streets at increasing rates.

There is absolutely no reason that any sane-minded person, especially those from the working class and minority communities in the United Kingdom, should take any time out of their day to mourn the passing of the benefit parasite that was called “the Queen.” Having an unelected head of State that wears stolen priceless shiny stones and lives in a palace, couldn’t be any more the antithesis of democracy than the feudal systems that preceded it.

I, as a British passport holder, born in the United Kingdom, am a lot more saddened by the 2.2 million Yemeni children, under the age of 5, who are starving to death, right now, who suffer in part due to the UK’s participation in the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen. I refuse to mourn the symbol of the working and oppressed people’s suffering, a woman who at best could be described as someone who had the power to make a difference and watched from her palace as millions perished. I am far from being alone in my stance, however, you wouldn’t think that if you were to turn on the television and watch any of the major corporate media networks.