Successions and impressions, as badly summarised by me:
-snip-
Pretty good summary
I like the heir to the heir to the heir, especially since for a while everyone went crazy with the Princely baby. Saw some ludicrous stuff where people went on and on about how majestic and regal the baby was, even though it just seemed they were doing regular baby stuff
I'd argue that the value is in how ideas change, mutate and adapt. The Dawkin's notion of a "meme". These ideas exist to help the society that holds them, and need to change and adapt as such. By the time you're having to fall back on "it's traditional" to defend the persistence of a meme, the foundation that sustains that meme is already long gone, and as such the meme is already effectively dead, or at least on life support.
Ah, I get it. Thanks for the explanation, the defence of tradition on the basis that tradition is tradition is cheap. I agree there, I'm just arguing against attacking tradition on the basis that tradition is tradition. We're faces on the same coin xD
I honestly don't think you need to attack tradition to force necessary or desirable change amongst a populace or culture, even a race that upholds its culture fiercely will find the culture mutates and evolves with time as generations come and go in new world conditions. That is why I see no fear in upholding tradition transforming into upholding static dogma that has long outlived its usefulness - even in the most fundamentalist doctrines, interpretations change to effect change whilst maintaining the appearance of the unchanging, and change indeed occurs regardless of their consent owing to the simple cycle of life and death. Dogmas do not live forever, cultures do not remain static, that is why I don't like the name "conservative" for the conservative party, because the image it conjures is not one of cultivating culture, but merely preserving it. This is not only insufficient, but doomed to failure, whereas cultivating it maintains its appeal and relevancy - Westerners abandoned their roots and cultures for many reasons, one chief reason I reckon is that they see little appealing to them in their own roots.
On the flip-side I argue that actively going the route of denouncing tradition as pointless does not effect mutation or evolution, merely deletion, the death of the culture. Migrant cultures would not be taking over if Western cultures had not already done their best to attain self-destruction
The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule. Power in Parliament comes from Power in Monarchy comes from God. That notion, in 2017, in a decreasingly Christian, increasingly Atheistic/Agnostic society, is being robbed of all meaning: The supports that sustain the idea are gone or are going. The idea can't last much longer without them without becoming something ugly.
The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule, that notion did not even make it close to surviving anywhere up to the current year in the United Kingdom; ending in the early 17th century with the execution of the King. Thus it is unwise to destroy one's own foundations based on conceptions regarding French monarchs two centuries ago in another world, as even before the time the French were executing absolute monarchs, the UK was already a constitutional monarchy. We can only discuss the merits of abolishing British traditions when looking at the British tradition, elsewise we're talking past ourselves
For me, I think we're at the point where the monarchy meme has lost it's foundations. Or at least, for me the foundations aren't there. Eventually, enough people come to regard the meme as irrelevant and it drifts out of the "social consciousness". That's how human ideas advance, have always advanced. On the monarchy, I'm not going to be out campaigning anytime soon. I don't care that much. But, I am content to sit back and watch and see if it will die a quiet, natural death.
I think an argument could have been made if the UK had remained within the EU for the Westminster tradition and its assembled bodies of state and governance decreasing in relevance, most especially the monarchy, which would have forfeited even its nominal role as head of state and sovereign. Will it die slowly and shrivel into nothingness? Nah, if it dies, it'll be because some monarch did something absolutely-fucking-atrocious or got in the way of an exceptionally powerful Prime Minister-turned-Lord Protector, both leading towards a significant rise in ardent Republicanism cross-country. An interesting question in regards to the maintenance of the whole crown is indeed why it hasn't died already.
We killed the King, but once more filled the throne with another. We have no issue with forcing Monarchs to abdicate, but will never allow them to dissolve the Monarchy. When the King is dead, long live the King, long may they reign over us - but we will give them no power to reign.
For these reasons (though not limited to them) which I'll spare you the boredom of repeating we keep them as continuity to the British tradition of governance.
Some other ideas adapt and survive, Christmas hasn't been about Christ in a long time and that fighting to sustain that notion as the heart of the tradition is ridiculous in an increasingly atheistic society is pointless. But the tradition of Christmas, families gathering once a year and exchanging gifts and having a big meal, manages to persist.
Basically, Gott ist tot.
Ideas only survive in implementation for as long as their adherents well... Adhere to them. Ideas don't survive because they adapt, ideas adapt because they are survived by future generations. Even the things you would expect to remain constant such as meanings told through religious canon, literary canon, philosophical canon, empirical observation and such change via changing interpretations, amendments, compromises, new information or models and even the very fact that language and meaning does not remain constant.
Take Christmas for example. 60% of the country is Christian, the vast majority practice Christian custom, beliefs or traditions, yet because the trendy bourgeoisie think it's about spending money on Bond Street sales, they are assumed to be more important than the sum total of all British tradition or the majority of the nation. Marx was right when he said they decide ideology, they are where the capital lies, thus advertising and mass media caters to them. I see the attempt to make Christmas pointless by not only stripping it of everything but commercial value, but going one step further and divorcing it entirely from its religious roots, part of a rather disturbing trend in which city-dwelling Westerners not only reject their roots, but find the very concept of allowing others to learn them as offensive. I had a rather amusing anecdote - just an anecdote, in which I was talking to this irascible vegan and a suave film student. Vegan was pure Anglo, Film student hailed from Japan, we talked of many things and one such thing was how different the West and East held the virtue of self-knowledge in different lights. To my surprise, the Anglo found this virtue as offensive, whilst I and the student held onto Taoist tradition. To my greater surprise, upon learning more of Western philosophy I found that the Western civilization itself had many philosophers who discovered these virtues, and they were learned and lived by Westerners until the 21st century, where students started rejecting them because they were white people. How can one generation that speaks so vehemently against ignorance, prize ignorance of the self? It confuses me to this day
I wasn't surprised to say the least lol. I've seen funny things, Anglo children given gifts on Christmas, complaining that they didn't get enough money - whilst in Malaysia, living in a Muslim country where there never was snow, they celebrated Christmas better than London. The only thing they didn't do better was mulled wine, which is forgivable haha. Yet in the UK, there is a severe hatred for British tradition amongst many prog circles and indifference amongst many tory circles, and this makes me sad
To avoid running off on a tangent, my point is that I don't think attacking tradition gives meaning to anything we do, I think it actually just makes it more pointless. Moreover, it actively kills your culture, ensuring you become a declining people, ripe for replacement by those on the ascension who cultivate their own culture where your people do not. I don't like that because it's unnecessary deletion, setting the British people backwards. I fear the British are dealing with their own red guard who in one cultural revolution do more damage than centuries of humiliation and invasion to the nation's people
Covenant brings up a good point too in that once you strip people of all the depth of their roots and you give them the freedom to do whatever, paradoxically they seek to bind themselves in fanatic movements that eagerly seek to dictate their lives in accordance with their own agenda. It's no surprise that fundamentalists were born in the enlightenment, or that in such times of cultural decline the far left and far right gain such large following, or even Swedes are becoming Al-Swedis
Thanks for this really well-done reply btw it was a great joy to read
Author
Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued (Read 182576 times)