Because You Never Asked

WHO KILLED LADY DI?

     I begin writing this essay just a few days after the tragic death of one of the greatest myths ever nurtured by Occidental society. Having already written negatively about the Lady Di-like persona (see essay "Lady Di"), her needless, horrifying demise caused me to reflect even more --- and not without a vaguely felt indigestion of guilt --- on who she was and what she meant. 

     Judging from the vaudeville of unreliable sources available to an average citizen, I did not dislike Diana Spencer and would never have wished the sad fate that awaited her. As one who does not even believe in the execution of violent criminals, I mourn the passing of this woman in the same way I'd mourn the death of any human being so senselessly deprived of their right to live, of children deprived their mother, of parents deprived their daughter, of friends deprived of friends. But this is as far as my sympathy goes. I do not approve the role she was given to play in the burlesque of western culture, and consider her death a direct karmic result of that role. The fact that she died while fully immersed in the ramifications of her life style has a mathematical perfection hard to deny, in much the same way a gangster might die in a shoot out. 

     Before resolving the crime in question, there are other pressing considerations to ponder. 

     In analyzing the circumstances that led to this tragedy, much has been made of the role of the press and the right to privacy of people like Diana Spencer. Not having entered any popularity contests, I find no difficulty in saying that I don't have much respect for the privacy of people playing such roles in the world. One cannot expect to live such a lavish life style while having done so pitifully little to earn it, without there being a price to pay. The price paid by Diana Spencer, I agree, was much too high and can be chalked up to some awfully bad luck (and karma). But the loathsome pursuit of the crass "paparazzi" is a part of the aggravation quotient to be garnered from such a way of life. I reserve such feelings not only for the parasitical Lady Di-Jackie K's of the world, but for the pop star-cinema idol-athletic hero segment of our culture as well. Don't expect me to worry about the privacy of people living in such dubious extravagance. 

     There is the insinuation that much of what has just been said is mitigated by the great "humanitarian" work done by the deceased. It is now evident that in between leisure jaunts to Corsica or the south of France, or when she was not busy at the hair dresser or occupied with her favorite fashion designer or dining at the Ritz with Sheik Ali-Ali, the richest man this side of Kensington Palace, she could find time to cheer up the troops in Bosnia, lend herself to the fight against AIDS, or even have her picture taken with Mother Teresa. Not only that, she was against land mines, which is quite a coincidence, because I hate land mines too! . and oh, yeah, I almost forgot; she really loved her children. I'll have to ask my mother if she loved us as much as Diana Spencer loved hers. 

     I'd like to remind the reader that such charitable work and humanitarian stances are an integral part of a princess's "job". The much-maligned Prince Charles, her publicly scorned, generally reviled ex-husband, is not lacking in such causes. If one is to objectively weigh the evidence here, the great "humanitarian" qualities of Diana Spencer might have something to do with the fact that she is somewhat more attractive than the average princess. One has to wonder if an ugly princess could ever be the humanitarian Lady Di was. 

     Now, who killed Lady Di? 

     There is an amorphous, mercury-like substance formlessly making its way through the environment that might be referred to as the "general public". This implacable, insatiable herd, through some instinctive homing device, made its way to London by the millions this weekend in order to say farewell to their fallen goddess.    

     This ambiguous stew is the defendant in this case. 

     The "herd" is a very complex entity whose underground springs of subconscious behavior can be very difficult to get a reading on. At this evolutionary juncture in time, each individual head in the herd is so lacking the self esteem necessary to be a truly whole person, is so insecure with regard to their own personal worth, they must create mythical people to live vicariously through, someone who is their embodiment of perfection, the outlet for all their unfulfilled hopes and frustrations, someone they wish they could be. The vast majority of this herd are the same people who impatiently wait for the next bit of gossip and the latest round of forbidden photos. The despicable, omnipresent "paparazzi", so idiotically chasing after the Diana Spencers of the world, is employed by the "general public". The herd demands their product and pays their salary. 

     If what has just been said above can be accepted by the reader, it might be said that the "general public" is guilty of something like Involuntary Manslaughter. As the District Attorney in this case, I want more. In this jurisdiction, we believe the more severe crime of Murder, with its accusation of intent to kill, is more appropriate. 

     We live in a society that prostrates itself before the false Gods of triumph, "success", being #1, and a whole host of egotistical pursuits. The Newtonian reaction to this attitude is the creation of substantial amounts of envy, jealousy, resentment, and other such negative residues left over for the losers in this societal scheme. For every "winner" there is a "loser", and a society based so heavily upon competitive forces cannot escape this kind of polarization. 

     The love shown by the herd for Diana Spencer is genuine, but it is not the only manifestation of human feeling involved. Deep down in the herd's collective subconscious, as they change dirty diapers and deal with screaming kids, as they blindly trudge off to the job early each day, as they get shit-faced in front of the weekend soccer match on the "tele", there are doses of envy, jealousy and resentment in play as well. The harassment of people like Diana Spencer is the revenge of the "general public". Like an idolized bullfighter who could only satisfy his adoring public by taking more and more risks, so it was with Diana Spencer, Lady Di! The more the herd needed to love her, to adore her, to follow her example, the more of her they wanted for themselves. They eventually took everything she had. 

     I say guilty of murder. Let the jury decide. 

     In the end, the whole idea of a "Lady Di" is a vulgar concept created by and for the vulgarity that reigns over western culture. In spite of all her efforts, Lady Di was eventually done in by this chronic vulgarity. 

     Relevant Material:  "Charity! What good did it do? It kept poor people miserable as they awaited a few crumbs to momentarily soothe their hunger in order to prolong their bondage."

     "Charity was selfishness disguised as virtue; the sacrifice of a very small part of the superfluous, distributed at somebody's whim. Charity, no: Justice!"

     "Charity had never done anything to dignify mankind."

     "It was the most impotent and anemic of all the virtues." From the novel "La Bodega" (The Wine Cellar), by the immortal Spaniard, Vicente Blasco Ibanez. 

     "If you know how to face failure and triumph, treating these two imposters the same way ." From the poem "If", by the incomparable Rudyard Kipling.

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info