Synogenes.com

As the foreign powers struggle to decide which authoritarian face they want to see replacing Mubarak to protect western investments, the people are at a critical point with everything to lose. The security police are still in place, the army is still aligned with the government, the thugs still prowl around the square, and Mubarak is still in power. If they lose the square, then the fear is that very many people will be arrested by the security forces and will "disappear" like so many protesters before them.

This isn't yet a situation of dual-power in which the people exert such a strong will independent of the state that the government has to take notice. Power is still in the hands of the ruling elite and they also have access to the same apparatus of repression, paid for incidentally by the US. And although liberals around the world are pontificating about the gradual transition to democracy, it is clear that goodwill, public opinion, and strength of numbers, is not enough to sweep away a dictatorial regime. There is the awkward but crucial question of the state apparatus as well. If the old regime is not destroyed, then repression can follow and the movement can be destroyed. No doubt the US would acquiesce in that outcome too.

Below is the statement from the Revolutionary Socialists who know only too well what the regime can still do if the workers are not organised and able to defend themselves:

Statement of the Revolutionary Socialists, Egypt

Glory to the martyrs! Victory to the revolution!

This army is no longer the people's army. This army is not the one which defeated the Zionist enemy in October 73. This army is closely associated with America and Israel. It's role is to protect Israel, not the people. Yes we want to win the soldiers of the revolution. But we must not be fooled by slogans that 'the army on our side'. The army will either suppress the demonstrations directly, or by restructuring the police to play this role.

You have to smile when you hear about the latest pronouncements from the legendary sage and wit, Charles Windsor. He is telling people not to deny the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

Has he had an epiphany, suddenly realising that the scientific evidence is in fact not simply opinion but the result of collecting and analysing vast amounts of data and the testing of hypotheses? Has he finally come to terms with the idea that you can in fact find out whether something is true or not?

After all, he has always been a firm believer in the magic of water treatment, that nonsense therapy called homeopathy, which after more than a hundred years has not a shred of evidence to support it. He seems to have no problem believing something which is utterly contrary to all known science. Why then is he suddenly concerned about those who deny the overwhelming evidence about global warming?

Clearly he hasn't grasped the idea of scientific evidence being based on the analysis of carefully collected data or he would have ditched the nonsense of homeopathy long ago. Maybe he's just had an irony bypass or perhaps there's another explanation.

Like most people in his position, very wealthy and self-important despite limited talents, he feels a sense of paternalism, a duty to offer his advice. Has he not yet realised that the monarchy is a throw-back to feudal times with no civil basis? He is nothing more than a member of a protected wealthy family, given absurd privileges by a state still unable to sweep away the pomp and ceremony of a bygone age.

In any political sense, the Windsor family are an irrelevance and a drain on the resources of the state. Often they are defended as if their tourist value justified their privileges but we can easily see that removing the royal family and opening their palaces would if anything increase the opportunity for tourism.

But Charles Windsor even offers his views on the future economics of the planet: "I cannot see how we can possibly maintain the growth of GDP in the long term if we continue to consume our planet as voraciously as we are doing". Of course, he doesn't know the economics and is simply parroting what his advisers have told him to say. Of course, we could easily reduce the burden on GDP by putting an end to the subsidy of the civil list, and taking back the royal wealth that came from either historical theft or state funding.

And whilst it is certainly true that rapacious capitalist exploitation of the planet's resources undermines the sustainability of the natural environment, the causes are not simply those deluded folks who deny that global warming is occurring. The capitalist system which searches out and exploits every opportunity for profit is responsible and Charles Windsor is one of the less-talented members of the class who benefits. Given the choice between protecting the environment or keeping his privileges and wealth, which way do you think he would jump?

As a social commentator, he is absurdly naïve but in commenting on matters of science and economics he displays a misplaced paternalism that makes him a rather pathetic anachronism, seemingly trying to live up to a role in which he dispenses wisdom and advice to his subjects. Unfortunately he has an inadequate grasp of the issues and is mistaken in thinking that he has subjects at all in any meaningful sense of the word.

Next time Charles Windsor offers advice to his subjects, we should all bear in mind that this is a man who believes that water has a memory and that homeopathic remedies that contain nothing at all can cure all sorts of illnesses. He is one of the deniers he himself decries. If he thinks scientific evidence should be listened to, why then does he persist in promoting the fraudulent therapy called homeopathy?

He has so little grasp of the real world that it is amazing that anyone still bothers to notice when he makes these absurd pronouncements. Unfortunately this nonsense factory that is the royal family is a state-funded business in which the royal family get all the benefits. It's time they were put out to grass.