The military spending is no doubt on an incline under the Apisit government, as we all know very well that this government was formed by the order of a few generals. But don’t be surprised to learn that Apisit is giving back what the military gave him, they are in fact joining hands to absorb everything they can from the tax payers. Look at the jets and tanks they bought, one’s can learn easily how much corruption had been made. Tanks from country like Ukraine and fighting jets from Sweden. The purpose for all these military spendings is not really to upgrade or modernize their wings but rather than to pocket huge commission from these deals. So, the more they buy, the more commission they earn. Don’t be surprised with a sharp incline in all these spendings. The Thai generals with salaries of BHt 30,000 can drive a few Mercedes Benz that cost BHt 15,000,000 and live lavishly in a hundred millions Baht home.
jumping on this a little bit late…
ignoring previous comments…
my two cents: i don’t think there is much point in analyzing what aspects of the article itself lead to problems – because i don’t think that specific article is what lead to the 2 week reprimand. i think it would be more useful to analyze the institution behind the article, and specifically Nay Win Maung’s political choices and directions over the past two years.
and no one should reference the recent Irrawaddy article on Egress, because it is the largest piece of bullshit i’ve seen in a long time, complete misinformation, and in fact rather destructive to a fascinating organization.
Les is not only tedious but behaving in a manner similar to the McCarthyites of the 1950s. The reds are under the bed, but they won’t tell us who they are, so rooting them out is important. They are asked to reveal themselves as commie rats. By not revealing anything, they are held under suspicion.
Your passionate belief in ‘economic determinism’ is rather endearing.
“I would like see the issue of women legs be solved by economic development measure. “
The skin trade would certainly face a crisis of recruitment. The glamour modelling sector would probably continue to do a roaring trade.
“I strongly believe economic development is a key component for advancing democracy, freedom, self-government and the rule of law of which the Burmese Military Leadership is pursuing. “
Just throw money at the junta and all will be well. A technological fix is all you need. I reckon you believe in Father Christmas too.
Les, re your questions in 7, 9 and 19. This is what I wrote to you in an email in May:
“Can I ask that you stop the accusations of censorship. It is simply not true. You seem to assume that those with “anti-red/Thaksin” views are the only ones who occasionally have comments delayed or (where they are repetative or offensive) deleted. This is certainly not the case. Others, with very different views to yours, have been subject to the policy much more than you have. Our aim is to keep the conversation as diverse as possible. We feel that this is not helped by one person having a series of comments (often very similiar to each other) that dominate the top of the discussion threads. You, and others, may not agree with the policy but it is motivated by a desire to open up, not close off, discussion. And our experience is that it has a positive effect on the diversity of viewpoints expressed.”
“Lest we forget: ‘Democracy is not my goal’ (Thaksin)”
Er, no – that’s not Thaksin. It’s what that bastion of journalistic integrity “The Nation” attributed to Thaksin in their headline….. and many have made hay with it since.
The full quote:
“Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned,” he said. “Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress.”
Lest we forget: “Democracy is not my goal” (Thaksin).
Of course, if we look at the responses to my post at 10 above in terms of ‘VOX POPS’, it would indicate that 100% of the ‘sample’ had a negative view of my call for honestly expressed opinions on the Red Shirt leadership, which is pretty interesting in itself.
No Andrew, and I suspect if you think about it you would agree that’s not such a great idea. I have no intention of damaging anyone through a possible mistaken suspicion of mine. Above, Ralph wants to throw in Giles Ungpakorn’s name but that’s a bit of a given.
You are welcome to answer any of my other points, but I have got used to you not doing that, so don’t worry. Then again it would be good to get an answer to the question I asked you in comments 7, 9 and 19. What’s that saying about goose and gander?
I hope this is not censored Andrew as you did ask the question.
Les is tedious on this, and sounding very jonfernquest. Apart from Ji, now forcibly retired as an academic with a university, who are the academics he believes “want a revolution to overthrow the Thai capitalist system and bring about a socialist state under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist cadre, be it Stalinist or Trotskyist…”. And what would be the evidence for the claim?
OK Andrew but I think you will get more of answer than you expected.
Then again I have just gone back and deleted some names as that wouldn’t be right to do when I have no proof they were either academic or Marxist-Leninists. So I will carry on without the names.
… Why would I suspect them of having a political agenda other than what they say? Well when a comment begins to look like it lacks logic and has the appearance of propaganda I wonder on whose behalf it would be for. Hasn’t the pro-UDD Professor S. commented on this in relation to Thaksin’s financial support?
Now yourself I wasn’t thinking about when I wrote that and as I think you are saying you are supporter of liberal democracy I would be wrong to anyway. But then again it probably did cross my mind when you were censoring my comments about Giles Ungpakorn that you might be part of the organization he belongs to.
If you asking if I would expect to find more Marxist-Leninists inside the academic world rather than outside, then from experience the answer is yes.
Am I wrong about the names I have thrown in. That’s quite possible, but I suspect they can answer for themselves. I have of course already taken the names out. Am I trying to start a witch hunt? No, I’m just angry for some on the left supporting the likes of Thaksin as you well know from my very first contribution to New Mandala. If they took a neutral view that would fine, but instead they have tried to give a move to reinstate Thaksin a political legitimization as a class struggle. Do we claim that because Berlusconi in Italy or the BNP in Britain has working class support that they are progressive movements? Of course not, so why do it in Thailand?
If anyone wants to know why I’m so anti-Thaksin then just ponder this. A return of Thaksin would see him continue with the CEO tactic he was using before. The army, police and civil service would be run by his family and cronies. The judiciary would be again under his control and quite possibly in the future so would the monarchy. So please answer this. If that came about would Thailand be a democracy? If there is no balance of power in a democracy like we have in the West what are you left with? Aren’t we on the way to something like the Marcos Philippines or worse?
I basically agree with all the points of Marajtp.
I am a journalist, but not a photo-journalist. Still i feel it is my duty to be a witness in all situations, including dangerous ones.
In East Timor in 1999, i was in Dili when pro Indonesian militias were randomly shooting in the streets. Being there, close to the fire, allowed me to write a report about the complete breakdown of Law and Order after the independence referendum.
On 19th of May, i saw on Twitter at 4.20 am that “Tanks were positionned in Saladaeng”, indicating a possible military operation to clear Rajprasong. Of course, i rushed there, otherwise, i would better do another job.
I stayed in Rajprasong, on the “Red side” until 4.30 pm, roughly a 12 hours stint.
There, i have witnessed numerous things, that i could not have if i would hv been on the other side. After Sae Daeng assassination, my determination was already clear : if there is a military clearing operation, then i should go on the “Red side”, not on the military side. Why ?
Because, i felt it was more important to witness what was happening on the “people side”, because what was happening on the side entitled with, as Max Weber said, “the legitimate use of violence” would be reported anyway by the State medias and many others.
On the “Red side”, i saw amazing scenes. During heavy fire on Rajdamri, when everybody was taking cover, a monk was quietly sitting on a bench, completely impervious to the external chaos.
At the beginning of the afternoon, after Nathawut’s surrender speech (one of the great speech of the Red campaign), some black shirts put fire to the staircase of Rajdamri BTS station. Then, street traders came and extinguish the fire with buckets of water.
During the shooting, a bit close to the stage, one old man asked me where i was from. When i said i was French, he began to tell me about a trip in Paris he did ten years ago, and how he enjoyed it.
Do you imagine this in any other country ?
Many things are escaping our Foreigner’s grasp, but we can at least feel them. There is also a “spiritual” or animistic dimension in this political crisis, which is, i think, quite meaningful to Thai (see Wassana’s book).
This quiet monk, a bit after the shooting, came to me and put a paper in my hand. Then he quietly walk away, his bag on his shoulder and his umbrella in his hand.
I looked at the paper (which i still preciously keep). On one side, he had drawn a cartoon, a small smiling character with the word “Mr News”. On the other side, he just wrote “UN”.
I understood more about the Reds and their outlook from this tiny piece of paper than from months of newspapers reading.
Historians and anthropologists do not always look at things precisely the same way, and I guess no two anthropologists interpret the same way — or the experts of any other discipline. That’s okay. As an anthropologist, I find the re-writing of history, whether by an individual or by a society/section of a society more interesting than the accuracy of historical events and chronology. The lineage between Luang Prabang and Vientiane seems doubful, as do the motives for moving the capital — which could be seen as a move to catch up with the Lao-speaking people (at that time covering a very large part of Thailand) as much as fleeing from Burmese. But never mind the facts, a nation in the building has to have reference points and a lineage, otherwise where did it come from? — surely not france!?…All countries and societies go in for politically correct interpretation as a way of reinforcing what is politically and socially acceptable (or ‘maybe’ acceptable — the actuality is that very few Lao are likely to lose any sleep or raise a glass to whatever Somsavad says). If Chao anou can serve a unifying purpose in contemporary Laos, that’s maybe better than saying the last great leader of Laos was a military adventurer looking to free the ‘sudaten’ Lao. When it comes to Lao leaving LPG for VTE, I am reminded of Dunkirk — which snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Nations need heroes. Poor and insecure nations need big heroes. Whatever the Anou statue looks like, it can’t be worse than the 14 floor Don Chan Palace Hotel on the rebuilt river bank. And light the statue up at night so Thais have to look across at the Lao king who almost out-Thai’d the Thais.
And isn’t it strange that almost all roads in Vientiane are named after kings — even the mythical Khun Bhulom, common genitor of Thai and Lao. No statue to him…yet.
Les – who are the “more academic contributors” whose honesty you call for? Can you be specific?
I, for one, have consistently argued for (1) electoral democracy (2) greater extension of the benefits of commercialisation to rural areas (3) a pluralist political space in which alternative views and political cultures can have free expression. Is that what you regard as a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Trotskyist vision?
“And just in case, to secure a third line of defense in support of their position, the [Thai] authorities do not hesitate to resort to arguments that were even rejected by the International Court of Justice (in the case involving the Preah Viharn Temple in 1962) in order to invalidate any Lao claim of sovereignty based on the map annexed to the Bangkok Treaty of March 23, 1907.” – Ngaosyvathn, P., ‘Thai-Lao Relations: A Lao View”, Asian Survey, Vol. 25, No.12, 1985, p. 1244
Well at least Chupong Red is honest about what he wants out of the red shirt movement. It would be good if some of the other more academic contributors would be as honest. If they said we want a revolution to overthrow the Thai capitalist system and bring about a socialist state under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist cadre, be it Stalinist or Trotskyist, then others would know who they were arguing with.
Instead we have dishonesty, although as the Jesuits used to say, more by the sin of omission. It’s how we end up with people from the left arguing in favour of the likes of Thaksin and Robert Amsterdam. They see these characters as stepping stones on the way to their longer term destination. If history had been slightly different then the same people could be arguing for Abhisit and Newin if they offered a better route to that destination.
Chris,
I think the question that arises from what is a fairly typical analysis of nation as modernist construction (versus one as ancient origin) us precisely whether the LAO people who were around 450 years ago imagined themselves as ‘Lao’ in any way resembling the way they are being reimagined by the current Lao state. Being LAO is not a taken for granted category any more than being of any other nation is unless you subscribe to the ancient origins thesis, which Frankly, only seems to work if you link it with an analytical imaginary like the ‘meuang’ and extend this back in time as being somehow uniquely Lao. But to do this you have to ignore the development of the modern colonial state or at least radically downplay it’s transformative influence, which I think is the conundrum the current government finds itself in because it has erased the foundations for continuity with the past by destroying the monarchy (regardless of discontinuity between modern and premodern royalty, it is still a more plausible source for the anxient origins thesis than Marxist revolution. Or is what Simon is describing considered a perfectly valid explanation of the past by most LAO?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
More on the “strategy of tension”
Ralph – 59
So Ralph can I take it you are supporter of a liberal democracy in Thailand too?
Thailand’s hungry military
The military spending is no doubt on an incline under the Apisit government, as we all know very well that this government was formed by the order of a few generals. But don’t be surprised to learn that Apisit is giving back what the military gave him, they are in fact joining hands to absorb everything they can from the tax payers. Look at the jets and tanks they bought, one’s can learn easily how much corruption had been made. Tanks from country like Ukraine and fighting jets from Sweden. The purpose for all these military spendings is not really to upgrade or modernize their wings but rather than to pocket huge commission from these deals. So, the more they buy, the more commission they earn. Don’t be surprised with a sharp incline in all these spendings. The Thai generals with salaries of BHt 30,000 can drive a few Mercedes Benz that cost BHt 15,000,000 and live lavishly in a hundred millions Baht home.
Concept + Process = ?
jumping on this a little bit late…
ignoring previous comments…
my two cents: i don’t think there is much point in analyzing what aspects of the article itself lead to problems – because i don’t think that specific article is what lead to the 2 week reprimand. i think it would be more useful to analyze the institution behind the article, and specifically Nay Win Maung’s political choices and directions over the past two years.
and no one should reference the recent Irrawaddy article on Egress, because it is the largest piece of bullshit i’ve seen in a long time, complete misinformation, and in fact rather destructive to a fascinating organization.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Les is not only tedious but behaving in a manner similar to the McCarthyites of the 1950s. The reds are under the bed, but they won’t tell us who they are, so rooting them out is important. They are asked to reveal themselves as commie rats. By not revealing anything, they are held under suspicion.
Burmese women’s legs in the media
Hi All
just in case you have not seen this – р╕бр╕Хр╕┤р╕Кр╕Щр╕нр╕нр╕Щр╣Др╕ер╕Щр╣М Sept 2, translated the ‘post’
http://www.matichon.co.th/news_detail.php?newsid=1283427903&grpid=01&catid=
Burmese women’s legs in the media
Suzie Wong
Your passionate belief in ‘economic determinism’ is rather endearing.
“I would like see the issue of women legs be solved by economic development measure. “
The skin trade would certainly face a crisis of recruitment. The glamour modelling sector would probably continue to do a roaring trade.
“I strongly believe economic development is a key component for advancing democracy, freedom, self-government and the rule of law of which the Burmese Military Leadership is pursuing. “
Just throw money at the junta and all will be well. A technological fix is all you need. I reckon you believe in Father Christmas too.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Les, re your questions in 7, 9 and 19. This is what I wrote to you in an email in May:
“Can I ask that you stop the accusations of censorship. It is simply not true. You seem to assume that those with “anti-red/Thaksin” views are the only ones who occasionally have comments delayed or (where they are repetative or offensive) deleted. This is certainly not the case. Others, with very different views to yours, have been subject to the policy much more than you have. Our aim is to keep the conversation as diverse as possible. We feel that this is not helped by one person having a series of comments (often very similiar to each other) that dominate the top of the discussion threads. You, and others, may not agree with the policy but it is motivated by a desire to open up, not close off, discussion. And our experience is that it has a positive effect on the diversity of viewpoints expressed.”
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
c17
“Lest we forget: ‘Democracy is not my goal’ (Thaksin)”
Er, no – that’s not Thaksin. It’s what that bastion of journalistic integrity “The Nation” attributed to Thaksin in their headline….. and many have made hay with it since.
The full quote:
“Democracy is a good and beautiful thing, but it’s not the ultimate goal as far as administering the country is concerned,” he said. “Democracy is just a tool, not our goal. The goal is to give people a good lifestyle, happiness and national progress.”
The Nation 12.11.2003
Thai style reconciliation a recipe for further conflict
Thomas Hoy – 11
Lest we forget: “Democracy is not my goal” (Thaksin).
Of course, if we look at the responses to my post at 10 above in terms of ‘VOX POPS’, it would indicate that 100% of the ‘sample’ had a negative view of my call for honestly expressed opinions on the Red Shirt leadership, which is pretty interesting in itself.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Andrew Walker – 55
No Andrew, and I suspect if you think about it you would agree that’s not such a great idea. I have no intention of damaging anyone through a possible mistaken suspicion of mine. Above, Ralph wants to throw in Giles Ungpakorn’s name but that’s a bit of a given.
You are welcome to answer any of my other points, but I have got used to you not doing that, so don’t worry. Then again it would be good to get an answer to the question I asked you in comments 7, 9 and 19. What’s that saying about goose and gander?
I hope this is not censored Andrew as you did ask the question.
More on the “strategy of tension”
LesAbbey
I really have to issue with your anti-Thaksin stance but this is not the time to talk about a person, but a governing system as a whole.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Thanks Les, in other words you cannot (or will not) name any of the “academic contributors” you condemn.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Les is tedious on this, and sounding very jonfernquest. Apart from Ji, now forcibly retired as an academic with a university, who are the academics he believes “want a revolution to overthrow the Thai capitalist system and bring about a socialist state under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist cadre, be it Stalinist or Trotskyist…”. And what would be the evidence for the claim?
More on the “strategy of tension”
Andrew – 52
OK Andrew but I think you will get more of answer than you expected.
Then again I have just gone back and deleted some names as that wouldn’t be right to do when I have no proof they were either academic or Marxist-Leninists. So I will carry on without the names.
… Why would I suspect them of having a political agenda other than what they say? Well when a comment begins to look like it lacks logic and has the appearance of propaganda I wonder on whose behalf it would be for. Hasn’t the pro-UDD Professor S. commented on this in relation to Thaksin’s financial support?
Now yourself I wasn’t thinking about when I wrote that and as I think you are saying you are supporter of liberal democracy I would be wrong to anyway. But then again it probably did cross my mind when you were censoring my comments about Giles Ungpakorn that you might be part of the organization he belongs to.
If you asking if I would expect to find more Marxist-Leninists inside the academic world rather than outside, then from experience the answer is yes.
Am I wrong about the names I have thrown in. That’s quite possible, but I suspect they can answer for themselves. I have of course already taken the names out. Am I trying to start a witch hunt? No, I’m just angry for some on the left supporting the likes of Thaksin as you well know from my very first contribution to New Mandala. If they took a neutral view that would fine, but instead they have tried to give a move to reinstate Thaksin a political legitimization as a class struggle. Do we claim that because Berlusconi in Italy or the BNP in Britain has working class support that they are progressive movements? Of course not, so why do it in Thailand?
If anyone wants to know why I’m so anti-Thaksin then just ponder this. A return of Thaksin would see him continue with the CEO tactic he was using before. The army, police and civil service would be run by his family and cronies. The judiciary would be again under his control and quite possibly in the future so would the monarchy. So please answer this. If that came about would Thailand be a democracy? If there is no balance of power in a democracy like we have in the West what are you left with? Aren’t we on the way to something like the Marcos Philippines or worse?
Who killed Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi?
I basically agree with all the points of Marajtp.
I am a journalist, but not a photo-journalist. Still i feel it is my duty to be a witness in all situations, including dangerous ones.
In East Timor in 1999, i was in Dili when pro Indonesian militias were randomly shooting in the streets. Being there, close to the fire, allowed me to write a report about the complete breakdown of Law and Order after the independence referendum.
On 19th of May, i saw on Twitter at 4.20 am that “Tanks were positionned in Saladaeng”, indicating a possible military operation to clear Rajprasong. Of course, i rushed there, otherwise, i would better do another job.
I stayed in Rajprasong, on the “Red side” until 4.30 pm, roughly a 12 hours stint.
There, i have witnessed numerous things, that i could not have if i would hv been on the other side. After Sae Daeng assassination, my determination was already clear : if there is a military clearing operation, then i should go on the “Red side”, not on the military side. Why ?
Because, i felt it was more important to witness what was happening on the “people side”, because what was happening on the side entitled with, as Max Weber said, “the legitimate use of violence” would be reported anyway by the State medias and many others.
On the “Red side”, i saw amazing scenes. During heavy fire on Rajdamri, when everybody was taking cover, a monk was quietly sitting on a bench, completely impervious to the external chaos.
At the beginning of the afternoon, after Nathawut’s surrender speech (one of the great speech of the Red campaign), some black shirts put fire to the staircase of Rajdamri BTS station. Then, street traders came and extinguish the fire with buckets of water.
During the shooting, a bit close to the stage, one old man asked me where i was from. When i said i was French, he began to tell me about a trip in Paris he did ten years ago, and how he enjoyed it.
Do you imagine this in any other country ?
Many things are escaping our Foreigner’s grasp, but we can at least feel them. There is also a “spiritual” or animistic dimension in this political crisis, which is, i think, quite meaningful to Thai (see Wassana’s book).
This quiet monk, a bit after the shooting, came to me and put a paper in my hand. Then he quietly walk away, his bag on his shoulder and his umbrella in his hand.
I looked at the paper (which i still preciously keep). On one side, he had drawn a cartoon, a small smiling character with the word “Mr News”. On the other side, he just wrote “UN”.
I understood more about the Reds and their outlook from this tiny piece of paper than from months of newspapers reading.
National celebrations and historiography in Laos
Historians and anthropologists do not always look at things precisely the same way, and I guess no two anthropologists interpret the same way — or the experts of any other discipline. That’s okay. As an anthropologist, I find the re-writing of history, whether by an individual or by a society/section of a society more interesting than the accuracy of historical events and chronology. The lineage between Luang Prabang and Vientiane seems doubful, as do the motives for moving the capital — which could be seen as a move to catch up with the Lao-speaking people (at that time covering a very large part of Thailand) as much as fleeing from Burmese. But never mind the facts, a nation in the building has to have reference points and a lineage, otherwise where did it come from? — surely not france!?…All countries and societies go in for politically correct interpretation as a way of reinforcing what is politically and socially acceptable (or ‘maybe’ acceptable — the actuality is that very few Lao are likely to lose any sleep or raise a glass to whatever Somsavad says). If Chao anou can serve a unifying purpose in contemporary Laos, that’s maybe better than saying the last great leader of Laos was a military adventurer looking to free the ‘sudaten’ Lao. When it comes to Lao leaving LPG for VTE, I am reminded of Dunkirk — which snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Nations need heroes. Poor and insecure nations need big heroes. Whatever the Anou statue looks like, it can’t be worse than the 14 floor Don Chan Palace Hotel on the rebuilt river bank. And light the statue up at night so Thais have to look across at the Lao king who almost out-Thai’d the Thais.
And isn’t it strange that almost all roads in Vientiane are named after kings — even the mythical Khun Bhulom, common genitor of Thai and Lao. No statue to him…yet.
More on the “strategy of tension”
Les – who are the “more academic contributors” whose honesty you call for? Can you be specific?
I, for one, have consistently argued for (1) electoral democracy (2) greater extension of the benefits of commercialisation to rural areas (3) a pluralist political space in which alternative views and political cultures can have free expression. Is that what you regard as a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Trotskyist vision?
Abhisit’s territorial rite
“And just in case, to secure a third line of defense in support of their position, the [Thai] authorities do not hesitate to resort to arguments that were even rejected by the International Court of Justice (in the case involving the Preah Viharn Temple in 1962) in order to invalidate any Lao claim of sovereignty based on the map annexed to the Bangkok Treaty of March 23, 1907.” – Ngaosyvathn, P., ‘Thai-Lao Relations: A Lao View”, Asian Survey, Vol. 25, No.12, 1985, p. 1244
More on the “strategy of tension”
Chupong Red – 49
Well at least Chupong Red is honest about what he wants out of the red shirt movement. It would be good if some of the other more academic contributors would be as honest. If they said we want a revolution to overthrow the Thai capitalist system and bring about a socialist state under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist cadre, be it Stalinist or Trotskyist, then others would know who they were arguing with.
Instead we have dishonesty, although as the Jesuits used to say, more by the sin of omission. It’s how we end up with people from the left arguing in favour of the likes of Thaksin and Robert Amsterdam. They see these characters as stepping stones on the way to their longer term destination. If history had been slightly different then the same people could be arguing for Abhisit and Newin if they offered a better route to that destination.
National celebrations and historiography in Laos
Chris,
I think the question that arises from what is a fairly typical analysis of nation as modernist construction (versus one as ancient origin) us precisely whether the LAO people who were around 450 years ago imagined themselves as ‘Lao’ in any way resembling the way they are being reimagined by the current Lao state. Being LAO is not a taken for granted category any more than being of any other nation is unless you subscribe to the ancient origins thesis, which Frankly, only seems to work if you link it with an analytical imaginary like the ‘meuang’ and extend this back in time as being somehow uniquely Lao. But to do this you have to ignore the development of the modern colonial state or at least radically downplay it’s transformative influence, which I think is the conundrum the current government finds itself in because it has erased the foundations for continuity with the past by destroying the monarchy (regardless of discontinuity between modern and premodern royalty, it is still a more plausible source for the anxient origins thesis than Marxist revolution. Or is what Simon is describing considered a perfectly valid explanation of the past by most LAO?