Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Wednesday, 5 December 2007

First on the road to hell?

Mark Steyn's middle name is, I can only assume, Jeremiah. This month's Maclean's bears his latest prophecy; and the prophet has England in his eyes; and not just England, but England crumbling, dead and blithe all the while – we can almost see it caught in his lenses as they well at the corners, and the anathema is pronounced – and it has left me wondering something.

Is the story merely that? Is it merely just goodbye to England - definitely to the English? It certainly could be. But as one surveys the Anglosphere emigration options – a Brisbane suburb, perhaps, or something modest in British Columbia; or maybe a farmhouse in Steyn’s vigorously individual New Hampshire… As one does so, a nagging, awful thought occurs. Under the red, white and blue of Australia’s great emblem I could live and die at peace; or under New Zealand’s. But is this peculiar horror, this ugly death of England – and death it is, though as in all decay or scorching, there is established a hope of renewal through the fertility left by fire – merely the single, traumatic, wicked psychological blow it seems to be? Will it merely knock the civilised world as the transformation on the ground gradually breaks in the minds of men? As, say, the top-hatted chivalry of the English gentleman, a stereotype sustained over the years in the face of all reason, is written over by the happy-slapping, knife-possessing, porn-swallowing, rape-endorsing (half the male population, according to statistics cited by Her Majesty’s Leader of the Loyal Opposition, do not believe it wrong to force a woman to have sex against her will), alcopop-sucking, drug-in-nose-stuffing, shop-lifting wrecks – the reality all around us?

Such facts as these now begin to take inevitable purchase in the world’s brains. The stout Georgian farmhouse, or the slender, voluminous Edwardian terrace, give way to squalid high-rise death-traps; and tea and cream and scones become stinking burgers, falafel and kebabs. The changes have long been happening, but they are now at a critical mass; and at last the old caricatures must yield and the new ones take hold. It is my prediction that in short order the old affectionate stereotypes of England will be gone, unsustainable in the face of the brutal, godless, wretched –and very real – mess of the 21st century. But is that – awful as it is, and honest as it is – all?

For there is a reading of history – indeed the mainstream one for many a century – that England is England, and a triumph in the world, because it has been early; in a sense, the punctual country in history. For the punctual country has as much to its advantage as the punctual man. We had our middle class, and our contracts, trading, books and legal system when Europe squatted in the medieval mire; there are more 13th, 14th, 15th century houses standing in England than in all of the European continent combined. Then we had our revolution and civil war, well over a hundred (almost two hundred) years or more before the Continent: and all the lessons learned, absolutism curbed, and conflicts, stresses and tensions in the body politic decanted into beautiful, complex and effective parliament long before they were even throwing up the barricades. Then because of this, of course, we had the Industrial Revolution before anyone else – the small, cold islands of Britain trumped the marvels of Alexandria, Greece and Rome in the space of a few decades.

So. Now we are sitting in puddles of our own making; and thoroughly stupid and dangerous it is to do so. But will be the only ones for long?

Given this past dynamic of history, isn’t our predicament terrifying for Anglo-civilisation outside Britain? I just wonder if the Mother of all Parliaments will be repeated in the Mother of all Declines; are we about to birth ruin in the English world? Or presage it, at least? Have we just reached critical mass before everyone else – experiencing the kind of cultural, physical and moral problems from mass immigration, increasing irreligiosity and relativism that countries such as America are only now experiencing in patches or sewing on a larger scale?

Because we were first in prosperity and democracy, we were first in modernity; and perhaps will be first out of it. I mean: though we no longer lead the world – as a densely-populated, advanced, diverse, socialism-soaked, multicultural-mobbed, economically prosperous, supremely irreligious, divided, fearful, unconfident, unpatriotic nation – all of this *beyond* any equivalent nation, though they are all increasingly so – do we represent what much of the English-speaking-world is set to become, along with much of the European, unless it is somehow averted? Perhaps we are simply, as we have long been, farther ahead in the process. Certainly, as one looks over at the British-Australasian countries, there is a sense that they lag behind us, but are keen to catch up as we take the steps down to hell at full gallop. Gay marriage is illegal in Australia, and there in no question of that changing, apparently. And yet now the Liberals propose civil partnerships - gay marriage, as we have learnt in Britain, in all but name, and an accelerant for gay adoption, gay IVF, and all sorts of exotic, contrived social experiments. And now of course a mainstream comedy programme (ABC’s Chaser’s War on Everything) use their editing and technological skills to mimic the Prime Minister fellating the Foreign Secretary. I have nothing against homosexuals, just as I have nothing against those who like playing Scrabble, but where this leaves decency, tradition, majority culture and civilisational stability, I don’t know… Not in good health, I should say.

We have been at the forefront of the troop of mankind as the long war of time and the world and modernity confronted us all, and more than anything this has been a boon and a help. But now, perhaps, we are something in the way of the canary, or the first row going over the top from our trenches and into inevitable death. "Watch ye, and learn!"

So I intend to pack up my culture in my old kit bag – and all that great legacy: Magna Carta, real ale, the well-planted garden, gallantry, beef-and-yorkshire-pudding, bridge and whist, fish-and-chips, Monopoly, sleepy bookshops, mist and sun and ice in the morning sky, cattle brooding under ancient oaks, well-made tea, Evensong, hot arguments, Nativity plays and carolling, Saint George, Robin Hood, Francis Drake, Nelson, Bess, Cromwell, Victoria and the Georges, boy’s own adventures, Elgar, the Royal Fireworks Music and all – and lug it Oz-wards. Or BC-wards. Or NH-wards. We shall see. For which shall escape the modern blight?

Now where did I leave my biometric-DNA-embedded-tech-chip-enabled-wifi-pseudo-ID-card-passport?

50 comments:

Lord Best said...

Surely it isn't as bad as all that? England has seen other horrific and lawless times and yet prevailed.
The growing numbers of Young Fogeys must give some cause for hope at the very least. So long as a nucleus of English values remains there is the possibility that once "modern" society has imploded a population weary of instability may return to the 'old ways'.

Anonymous said...

Why is it, when people like you want to start ranting about the downfall of civilization, you start bashing gay people. Surely, you must know that gay people are the most pro-monarch people in the world? Or are you hiding something?

Beaverbrook said...

It is not as bad as all that, but the world is becoming transnationalized and multiculturalized and individualized and secularized at an unstoppable pace. The old things that bind us together - patriotism, Church, culture.. - are vanishing not just in England, but everywhere.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Why is it, when people like you want to start ranting about the downfall of civilization, you start bashing gay people. Surely, you must know that gay people are the most pro-monarch people in the world? Or are you hiding something?

And opposing "gay marriage" is equivalent to bashing gay people? Says who?

Beaverbrook said...

Just read the Steyn column at MacLeans. Not as poetic as Scott, but puts into better light Scott's point about societal decline. It is as bad as all that, but not just in London, in Toronto and everywhere else too.

Scott said...

Gay marriage is a very different thing to gay people. Gay marriage is a bad sign because it shows that people are more than willing to start tinkering, in revolutionary and untested ways, with the basic - the absolutely fundamental - building blocks of civilised states. It symbolises the victory of political correctness, warm mushy feelings and pressure-group-politics, over the sober-minded, conservative (socially and legally), Judaeo-Christian mindset.

That is not a good thing. Especially, in fact, for gays: because, as we see in the rise of homophobic crimes in Amsterdam, it also opens to the doors to similar favours for anti-gay minorities (in this case Islamic immigrants, who are going round beating up homosexuals, and getting away with it in the great cause of Sensitivity).

aDM said...

I hate to state something the tedious doomonger Steyn always misses but there has been more damage to English culture since American culture became its main import than via any other issue. Many of the immigrants that arrived here way back were pleased to raise their children in a country that had manners and values at its heart.

The charming youth you describe are nothing if not the by product of a cultural attack out of Los Angeles. The glorifying of violence for violence sake, the language of violence, rap etc every other word an f word because it is cooler than speaking the "Queens English". 'Manners' fashioned from nothing more than gang culture to simply mean street cred. Our high streets look like any central street you could find in America awash with McDonalds and Starbucks and the fast decidedly mannerless and un gentle rush of humanity indulging a very American Dream. Porn pop culture - trace it back to American Hugh Hefner and LA again with the latest trends for knickerless pop stars all over our press and perceived as teen role models.

The constant grind of people like Steyn, who fail to grasp the above points and factor them in, the Daily Mail Culture we have sucked up - it really is all so very un-English.

The lack of will to stop wallowing in media driven nonsense and simply stand up and get on with it, so pathetically DULL.

There are hundreds of thousands of kids out there who get a constant stream of negativity passed down through this sort of mentality - who want to grow up in a country that has some backbone and pride.

Bin your Daily Mails and your Mark Steyns for all our sakes. They really are a part of the problem.

Ive grown up in a country that was sneered at by the Americans as old hat (and the Europeans), crapped on by anti-British Labour and shovelled up by the Tories and the negative Daily Mail drivel for too long. There is too much to be proud of and too many young people out there who are NOT the feral thugs the Britney wannabees or the nose thumbing Trots who DO stand a chance in a modern era.

Get a firm grip on what is right about this country, what is right about our manners, our history our culture and lead by example. And please let's stop listening to crowd pleasers like Steyn. Misery loves company. For all I DO love about America it is it's positivity in the face of the exact same problems of 21st century modernity that stands out. Im increasingly aware that we are being used by some of their bloggers and 'voices' to expound their own frustration at what is happening around them.

Alison

adirtymartini.typepad.com

Scott said...

I love an awful lot about America, Americans especially. And particularly the decent majority - you will hardly meet a nicer, humbler, more helpful person than an average Midwesterner, for instance.

But I am in complete agreement with you on the cultural things. American civilisation, when it is weighed, will be found a contemptible thing. It has flooded the world with glamorous violence, pornography, trash, venality, grot, questionable ethics, the wickedness of "built-in obsolescence", celebrity obsessiveness, and much else. It happened to - and continues to - light upon the most ruthlessly appealing things, without any restraint or self-censure or self-control or morality.

It has invented some pieces fit to stand proud in any museum, next to any treasure of the past. Coca cola is the water of Parnassus! But too much is crap, I agree.

As for the negativity thing... I am generally inclined to agree. I think Steyn's "The end of the world as we know it" sub-title on America Alone, and his constant self-defeatism, at times a little frustrating. But the short, sharp shock at what reality has become must be administered. Then we can move on - and must move on - to solutions. This post is trying to provoke that, by suggesting that moving away won't necessarily be much help, unless lessons are learned...

Anonymous said...

"Gay marriage is a bad sign because it shows that people are more than willing to start tinkering, in revolutionary and untested ways, with the basic - the absolutely fundamental - building blocks of civilised states."

Please provide peer-reviewed citations that show that discriminatory and bigoted marriage rules are the "basic and fundamental building blocks of a civilized state."

First an article that tacitly approves of racial segregation and now this. This is a monarchist blog, not an arch-conservative judeo-christian ethnicist blog.

This entry will, like the one on the anti-monarchist and anti-democratic Ian Smith, only reinforce negative stereotypes about monarchists.

Lord Strathcona's Horse said...

Ian Smith stood for freedom and civilisation. Robert Mugabe stands for tyranny and goonism. Smith was pro-monarchy and pro-British but felt betrayed on the issue of how best to progress to an enlightened African democracy.

According to your logic, this site defending the history and legacy of the British Imperial Monarchy, which colonized a third of the world, is tacitly approving of racial segregation. Don't be ridiculous!

Scott said...

Discriminatory and bigoted marriage rules? But don't you tremble, don't you shrink, don't you pause for a moment before confidently re-writing one of the longest established, most successful, unquestioned, basic organising principles of our society?

Don't you flinch, instinctively from it - and from renaming its millenia-old permutation as merely bigoted and discriminatory? Do you really reject your past so quickly and so absolutely? Do you really see in it nothing but hateful hypocrisy?

If you do, then you are no conservative, and if no conservative, the Monarchy will likely not last long in your hands. It might survive a while, of course - at least at until the exigencies of sensitivity confront it.

I have far less confidence or pride in my own ability or prescience. I think there is an inexpressible and very practical wisdom and efficiency compacted in the habits and institutions of the past that have endured; and none have endured like marriage.

Who knows what the fall out of these vast social experiments will be? Already marriage-rates fall and divorce rates soar, in countries like Holland, since the introduction of the new ways. If you make marriage even less about children, less about the expanding web of family (for obvious biological reasons in gay marriage), less about growing up into the rhythms and ways of our parents - and more about a commitment simply of love to another individual, important as that is, though liable, too, as it is, to the waxing and waning tempers of life - then of course you encounter problems.

It is only for the past 50 years of civilisation that homosexuality has been anything other than disapproved and illegal. Do you think it might have been for a reason, or just because people were spoilsports? Do you think it really wise that we start according it the same status as the majority, traditional way of life - and really harmless to that way of life, and how people perceive it and live it, to do so?

If I started demanding that football fans and the football industry admitted my own invented sport as their equal, admitted me and it to their leagues, and into their transfer and sponsorship systems, don't you think it would rather change football and football fans, and not for the better? Indeed, degrade, confuse, and demote it and them? And hardly be something I should, as a purveyor of my minority sport, be interested in?

aDM said...

Scott

I'm glad you agree. You put it much more succinctly. I rambled :P
I should have added i think it is a very well written post.

We funnel all this through OUR media of course. Which is a part of the problem. I am not sure how we shake off their horrible grip but I hope blogs like this are the start.

A

Viscount Feldon said...

I (formerly anonymous) do not support anything just because of "tradition." I support the monarchy because it works, not because of any misplaced sentiment for the days of yore.

"Discriminatory and bigoted marriage rules? But don't you tremble, don't you shrink, don't you pause for a moment before confidently re-writing one of the longest established, most successful, unquestioned, basic organising principles of our society?"

I don't tremble or shrink before allowing something that can do no harm to anybody.

"It is only for the past 50 years of civilisation that homosexuality has been anything other than disapproved and illegal. Do you think it might have been for a reason, or just because people were spoilsports? Do you think it really wise that we start according it the same status as the majority, traditional way of life - and really harmless to that way of life, and how people perceive it and live it, to do so?"

What good is a "traditional way of life" if it is a lie? Telling a homosexual "not to be" because it's "illegal" or "wrong" is like telling a black person to become white.

"If I started demanding that football fans and the football industry admitted my own invented sport as their equal, admitted me and it to their leagues, and into their transfer and sponsorship systems, don't you think it would rather change football and football fans, and not for the better? Indeed, degrade, confuse, and demote it and them? And hardly be something I should, as a purveyor of my minority sport, be interested in?"

As homosexuality is not "invented" by homosexuals, your analogy is false.

Slavery was a tradition of the past. We got rid of it because it was wrong. I don't see anybody on here waxing for those days, although given recent postings I wouldn't be surprised.

"Who knows what the fall out of these vast social experiments will be? Already marriage-rates fall and divorce rates soar, in countries like Holland, since the introduction of the new ways. If you make marriage even less about children, less about the expanding web of family (for obvious biological reasons in gay marriage), less about growing up into the rhythms and ways of our parents - and more about a commitment simply of love to another individual, important as that is, though liable, too, as it is, to the waxing and waning tempers of life - then of course you encounter problems."

Marriage is today primarily a commitment of love between two individuals, though. Would you support banning sterile persons from getting married as their marriage could not "expand the web of family."

Divorce rates soaring because of homosexuality? Please spare me while I restrain myself from laughter.

"If you do, then you are no conservative, and if no conservative, the Monarchy will likely not last long in your hands. It might survive a while, of course - at least at until the exigencies of sensitivity confront it."

I do not self-identify as a conservative, you are correct.

Scott said...

1) My point was that in tradition both sentiment and efficiency are combined; they have persisted smoothly and have naturally developed affection in the populace because THEY DO WORK.

2) Change "invented sport" to "ping-pong", and try the analogy again.

3) Sterile heterosexuals are the exception that prove the rule, in a sense. One does not junk one's parameters or rules or ideals because of statistically insignificant exceptions. Don't forget that a lot of people *won't* marry someone who cannot have children; or at least agonise about it, or plot and pray to correct it.

4) Divorce rates soar, not because of homosexual marriage, but *because marriage is devalued, redefined, and disconnected from what once it promoted, and what once sustained it: namely, children and family and faith*. Homosexual marriage is a key part of that - or, rather, a key symptom of it - or, indeed, *both*.

Viscount Feldon said...

So gay people are people trying to play the "wrong sport" in a football league. How condescending and rude. Thank you for promoting republicanism by portraying monarchism as the bastion of white male heterosexual christian conservatives.

A better analogy would be that people who have a sport should be allowed to form their own leagues. Football shouldn't be the only league that exists, because like it or not, not everyone is a football fan.

Many of those sterile couples also go for adoption, which is something many homosexual couples are also given the right to do. They have children then, they have family then, and many of them have faith. Sounds like the ideal marriage.

Scott said...

1) They may be playing a sport they enjoy, but it is not the same sport that the majority play. Not everyone is a football fan, but what if everyone but 1 or 2% were, and those who didn't like it were demanding their leagues must not remain as they were, and were intent on vandalising them for the sake of their own peace of mind. We would find their interest in football extraordinary and bizarre. Just so, the burden of argument falls entirely upon those in favour of homosexual marriage - they must rationalise such a baffling concept, in terms other than those which suggest they are only really half-gay, and long for much of the heterosexual life after all.

2) "Sounds like an ideal marriage". Except it's nothing like a marriage, is it? Because it isn't the union of complementary halves, but an obviously falsified and unprecedented organisation. It is definitionally unnatural, I'm afraid. You must concede that. If either God or evolution meant it - take your pick - you wouldn't need the handy devices of IVF or the Adoption Agency.

3) Gay marriage is having your cake and eating it. If you are a gay man, of course you can marry: you can marry a woman. But to wish the beautifully logical and traditional institution of heterosexual marriage to bend to your own behaviour, is to make a mockery both of it and of you. Look around! Can you imagine Churchill, or Roosevelt, or anyone pre-1950 smiling upon the idea of people who wish to monogamously sodomise each other being granted equivalence with married couples of old, and allowed to adopt children?

4) Monarchy is above politics. This blog is not just about the Monrachy, as has been said and shown repeatedly, and my post here, along with my comments, was obviously not made in connection with anything to do with the Monarchy. Please do not connect what were never connected. You began with outrage and cliched innuendo; somehow we must end amiably. This won't do it!

Viscount Feldon said...

1) Why should the majority define what sport the 1% or 2% can like or play, or even form a league for? The 98-99% are not forced to involve themselves with that league or sport. There is no "homosexual life" or "heterosexual life." Homosexuality is sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. There is no lifestyle or any other thing attached to that.

2) It's like a marriage in that two people who (ideally) are devoted to each other raising their family and supporting each other.

Personally, I would lean towards the side of evolution, but I don't think there is any one specific reason someone is gay. What matters, in the end though, is that they are and they shouldn't be told by the state that they are inferior.

3) Oh please, that's always been the most silly argument I've ever heard. "If you're a gay man, you can still marry a woman."

A homosexual is not free to marry the person that they are attracted to. A heterosexual is.

The use of the word "sodomize" further discredits you in my view. Why not call it "buggery" and make it a crime again as well?

I don't care what Churchill or Roosevelt would have thought of it.

Homosexuality is more than a behavior. You must realize that to see where I'm coming from.

"Having your cake and eating it" implies that there is some clearly defined wall between the traditional lifestyle and homosexuality. There isn't. I would even venture to say that the daily life of most gay people in Western states is the same as the typical heterosexual.

4) I'm sorry, but I will not end amiably with someone who wants to trample on freedom-loving people in the name of the monarchy (or not, as you state). I cannot do that and have my values or conscience. As of right now, I see you as an enemy of freedom, and thus the monarchy. No constitutional monarchist wishes to deny freedoms because "they didn't have them a long time ago." Sometimes, every once in a while, we have to acknowledge that the past was wrong.

This blog presents itself as a blog on the values of the monarchy. Given several of the last posts, it should be named "The Traditionalist," not "The Monarchist."

Viscount Feldon said...

I was perhaps too strong (and hyperbolic) when I said that we couldn't end amiably. I still cannot see anyone who sees homosexuality as a mere behavior and aberration as correct or freedom-loving, however.

Living in a free society means that you don't have to agree with everything that happens in it. For me, it also means that the state should err on the side of too many liberties.

Scott said...

1) I love freedom. But I do not love it without order and boundaries. I think, more than you know, you agree. Do you believe a man should be allowed to marry two wives? Or three husbands? Or seven dogs? Why not, if their daily lives are otherwise indistinguishable from old-fashioned heterosexual life? As indeed, it seems, are their affection and capacity for love - if not its targets?

2) The Monarchist is a broad church. I would not wish to exclude views or temperaments such as yours. I don't think, if you were truly liberal, you would wish to prohibit mine.

This blog is generally traditionalist. Regard for the Monarchy and all it entails often provokes, or follows, that. Traditionalist posts have been uploaded for years now. It's odd that you dislike it all of a sudden. I certainly am almost absolutely traditionalist. But since I have hardly ever posted, I find it very hard to believe you can feel yourself absolutely saturated at this point with my views!

3) Marriage isn't a liberty but a privelige and a compact between two humans, and between society and couples. It is about how we are to organise ourselves; and how we are to raise our children. That's why the concept of divorce exists. Were it but a liberty, it might dissolve overnight, on a whim, in a heartbeat. There is too much involved in it for it to be just that.

Viscount Feldon said...

1) If dogs can be proven to be able to understand and consent, I don't particularly care, but as I'm quite sure that they can't, I don't.

Giving something legal recognition isn't suddenly going to make it more popular. I've never heard of a person, homosexual or heterosexual, stating "Well, gee, I'd sure like to enter into a relationship right now, but since the state isn't going to confer legal rights upon it, I'm going to be celibate for the rest of my life." That's not the way the world works. A denial of equal marriage rights is akin to closing our eyes and pretending they don't exist, all while they must suffer significant legal punishment in regards to taxation and inheritance (in countries without it or similar legal unions).

Order and boundaries should only be forced onto the freedom of the people where it infringes on the freedoms of other people. Anything else is forcing the people into compliance with the ideals of the majority.

2) I don't wish to prohibit it. I might be happier if it didn't exist, but I know that's overly idealistic of me.

I've only become a reader of the blog in the past 2 or 3 months, so I've had little time to become saturated. It just seems that there's been more of it in recent weeks.

3) Something conferred by the state with privileges and rights attached to it is, in the end, a liberty. Anyone, provided they meet the current guidelines, can get married. There is no court hearing to determine if two people truly love each other. There are no tests given by the state as there are to obtain a driving license.

For instance, in the United Kingdom, two people who, provided they are of the opposite sex, over 18 (or 16 depending on the jurisdiction), not married to someone else, and not Royal could meet on the street, walk into a registry office, show documentation, select a date, and get married on that date without ever having met each other before.

That is a liberty in its truest form.

If marriage is but a privilege, why should it not be extended to those who truly wish to use it in every manner that you describe save having biological children?

Lord Best said...

Marriage is and has always been a religious institution. Most religions are openly hostile towards hommosexuals. Why the hell are some homosexuals (supported by people who want to appear to be open minded) so obsessed with being allowed to enter a system which considers them unnatural at best and rotten with sin at worst? For Gods sake, it would be like a socialist demanding membership of the Conservative party in the interest of 'fairness'.
By all means live together, get a civil union* if that is legal where you are, whatever you like.

*Which is *not* marriage.

Beaverbrook said...

A fascinating debate, gentlemen. I commend you both for sticking to the code.

Yes, this blog does deliberately take on a Victorian romantic persona, as reflected in its black and white austerity, which means it is not entirely with it in terms of reflecting modern values. I make no apologies for cultivating such an identity - we are, after all, just a blog, and make no attempt to pass ourselves off as anything but. The monarchy movement is much bigger than this humble space.

I also support the monarchy because it works, but it's much more than that. People don't have a heritage because it works, they have it because it defines who they are. Identity, tradition, history, symbols...all of these matter, the stately ornaments that Burke called the decent draperies of life. How lame it would be without them.

Viscount Feldon said...

Marriage is a civil institution. It has been for many years. That is why homosexuals are demanding it from the state and typically not churches*.

You can be legally married in nearly every country without ever having set foot in a church.

My comments have been about the civil and legal benefits of marriage, not the spiritual benefits of it, which I am quite lacking in knowledge of.

I would be content with having everyone get civil unions or whatever from the state and calling themselves whatever they want in practice.

*Some churches yes, some no.

Lord Best said...

Sorry to double post.
When it comes to immigration, I do not believe that the migrants themselves are the issue. Most migrants want to keep their heads down and integrate with the minimum of fuss. The issue is the state of the Western cultures. We are having integration troubles (I say we, I mean you, Australia only has a few integration problems in Sydney) not because of migrants but because our culture and society has been so weakened by left with fantasist policies that we are incapable of integrating migrants. Another issue is American culture, and the expansion of the underclass. 'Gangsta' culture is now so entrenched in youth culture, from the underclass to middle class, that migrant youths are adopting it, in an effort to fit in. This coupled with the fact some migrants are being integrated into the underclasses rather than the middle or working class is leading to a perception of migrants as dangerous and criminal.

Some historical perspective is needed, I fancy. England and Europe have successfully been integrating different cultural groups for centuries, always with problems, always with claims that the mainstream culture will be 'swamped'. It always settles down eventually. Poisonous theories of multi-cultural societies may slow the process but I do not believe they will stop it.

Multi-ethnic society is fine and functional.
Multi-cultural society is poison and dysfunctional.

Viscount Feldon said...

I think I made myself open for misunderstanding when I said I support the monarchy because it works. Of course it does, and that is still my primary reason, but I do value, respect, and admire tradition (as beaverbrook said, it defines who we are), but only where it has minimal negative effects on the people or where changing it will do nothing to help or hurt anyone.

For instance, I don't think that any of the somewhat peculiar Lords reform plans will suddenly bring some new democratic era to the UK. I don't think they'll do anything at all, really, other than muddy the waters of which house is more important when dealing with the government.

Personally, I've always felt that the monarchy was more likely to be approved of by socialist elements than conservative elements. (at least the reform-type that I'm most used to from Canada)

Beaverbrook said...

Lord's Best and Feldon:

Send me an email to themonarchist "at" rogers.com

If you are interested in contributing.

Yours aye,

Scott said...

Well I am glad there was a happy ending after all!

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Since we in this day and age are well into this business of redefining terms, why not say that my bike is a car?

After all, it is discriminatory that I cannot truthfully say I have car. So let's redefine terms, and I can say I have a car with no problem at all.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Viscount Feldon said...

"Since we in this day and age are well into this business of redefining terms, why not say that my bike is a car?

After all, it is discriminatory that I cannot truthfully say I have car. So let's redefine terms, and I can say I have a car with no problem at all."

What's discriminatory is being told by the state that no matter what your car is, it can't be registered or driven on public roads because the chromosomes of the passengers happen to be the same.

I think everybody should be allowed to buy a car and drive it, including bikers.

Scott said...

Okay. This is making no sense now. It seems to me, in a kind of closing statement, that the burden of proof rests with the homosexuals - and heavily, dreadfully, absolutely, everlastingly heavily with them. I still have not heard anything better than appeals to sensitivity, sympathy and equivalence, all of which are pretty thin stuff. As for chromosomes and whatnot, the trifling genetic difference between gays and hetereosexuals you are trying to posit: that's a no-hoper, too. Aren't we about 2% of DNA off from being cabbages, or something, after all? In genetics, little is large.

Monogamous sodomy? It is NOT the same as marriage, and never will be, even if you can persuade a few people to politely and condescendingly agree with you that it is.

Beaverbrook said...

My own view on this divisive matter is that the state should leave the marriage business to the Churches, lest it undermine the institution through tinkering. The state has no business defining "marriage", if by defining it they are seeking to change the traditional definition. They should leave it well enough alone, and if they can't, they should get the bloody heck out of the way, and leave us to our definitions.

Viscount Feldon said...

"As for chromosomes and whatnot, the trifling genetic difference between gays and hetereosexuals you are trying to posit: that's a no-hoper, too. Aren't we about 2% of DNA off from being cabbages, or something, after all? In genetics, little is large."

I was referring to the two people in the car being males or females. I hope you'll agree that their chromosomes are different!

"Monogamous sodomy? It is NOT the same as marriage, and never will be, even if you can persuade a few people to politely and condescendingly agree with you that it is."

In the legal view, it is the same in Canada and several other countries or federal jurisdictions.

I don't care about anything but the legal view. Churches and popular culture and what personal views of marriage are should matter not in the view of the law.

"Monogamous sodomy" relegates homosexuality to a mere act, while calling heterosexual relationships "marriage" grants them some higher status just for their genitalia.

"My own view on this divisive matter is that the state should leave the marriage business to the Churches, lest it undermine the institution through tinkering. The state has no business defining "marriage", if by defining it they are seeking to change the traditional definition. They should leave it well enough alone, and if they can't, they should get the bloody heck out of the way, and leave us to our definitions."

I agree that the state shouldn't be involved in defining marriage. They should have some kind of civil partnership for legal purposes and nothing else.

Unfortunately, I don't see a marriage abolition bill coming up in any countries.

What "marriage" is should be up to the couple and, if applicable, their God(s).

Scott said...

You clearly don't understand marriage, then, if you believe that.

The very premise of marriage is a contract between two people on the one hand, and those two people and the state and wider society, on the other. The bands of marriage being read, the call for witnesses, the legal rights and duties bestowed and imposed in consequence, the very idea of "Mr and Mrs", etc, etc, all flow from that.

It's useless having this debate here, and even more useless having it with someone who is very clearly willing to drag society and the past into whatever waters he believes best, even whilst vast fogbanks of ignorance and immaturity surround him.

As for "monogamous sodomy" - the whole point is that, divorced as homosexuality is from reproduction, heredity, complimentarity, etc, it can never be anything more than that. But of course heterosexual marriage is. (Regardless of statistically insignificant exceptions, such as infertility).

Look. Gay marriage is bizarre. It is extraordinary that gays even want it, letalone get it. We might as well have a binding agreement between trapeize artists called marriage, or a model train club called marriage. A contract, founded on affection, does not a marriage make. You might eke it out as a parodic shadow of a marriage, but you will have toppled and redefined the original thing that cast that shadow, and soon find yourself with nothing.

Viscount Feldon said...

Why are infertile couples "statistically insignificant" but homosexuals aren't? According to you earlier, only 1-2% of people are homosexual, and I would, if forced to guess, say that's the same as or less than the number of infertile couples or couples that are completely opposed to the idea of having children.

I'm talking about the legal rights conferred by the state on a form with the word "marriage" at the top. Inheritance rights, tax rights, etc. Those should be the same for all couples. Whether or not you call it a true marriage should be irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

At this point, I support the complete absence of the state in that, and support allowing people to designate any person, be they a spouse, partner, family member, or friend as a legal heir and proxy, thereby getting the state out of such a matter. The only thing that leaves out is certain tax situations in certain countries, and that can be changed.

Sodomy:Homosexual::Vaginal intercourse:Heterosexual

"It's useless having this debate here, and even more useless having it with someone who is very clearly willing to drag society and the past into whatever waters he believes best, even whilst vast fogbanks of ignorance and immaturity surround him."

I feel the same way.

Viscount Feldon said...

"You clearly don't understand marriage, then, if you believe that."

I don't care about understanding what individual views on marriages are. I care about the state choosing which couples are somehow deserving of more legal rights than others on the basis of the sex of each partner.

Like I said, abolish the artificial legal construct called "marriage" and be done with such arguments. You want to call yourself "married", have a ceremony, etc. Knock yourself out and leave the state out of it for good and for all.

Scott said...

You do? I am glad you are so self-aware and humble; I had thought you would have been insulted by the description.

(Ho ho!)

Again, re: fertility. Homosexuals INHERENTLY cannot have children. Infertile heterosexuals ACCIDENTALLY cannot. Your arguments are hinging on the most trivial and weak things.

Anyway, it seems clear that you wish a bargain with the world and I don't. I have given my reasons. I don't think your arguments really justify the same kind of exasperation as I have occassionally expressed. All you have are very weak, tendentious, slightly begging, illogical propositions. It is fun, but a little tiring, exploding them out of the water one by one. Perhaps we should move on...?

Viscount Feldon said...

I was slightly insulted, that's why I directed it back at you as well!

(Ha Ha!)

I don't think whether or not a couple can have children should matter as to their legal rights.

If a couple knows going into marriage that they cannot have children, then they are by your logic the same as homosexuals, whether accidentally or not. The only reason you make homosexuals a separate class is because it's much easier to look at a couple and tell if they are of the same sex then whether or not they can bear children.

Arguments like this are why I think the best situation is to take away legally-defined marriage and let churches, individuals, and whosoever wants to to define the word "marriage."

Considering common law marriage was recognized until comparatively recently, I think it's safe to say that recognizing only state-supported marriages as unions deserving of legal respect is an "exotic, contrived social experiment."

Scott said...

Stop!

Stop! Stop! Stop!

(Okay, in passing, and closing, hopefully: homosexual couples can never have children, infertile heterosexual couples, of course, often can, whether through chance or science, as many hope. Those who resolve never to have children also often change their mind. Etc. Also - can't you find anything other than these weak hinges for your argument? You aren't putting forward a positive case, but one based on snivelly little qualifications and exceptions. You are also hilariously odd and unconvincing in trying to make gay marriage seem casual and just as natural as sneezing. At least admit that it is a leap, and then try and justify it. We aren't likely to be hoodwinked).

Viscount Feldon said...

I'm not trying to make anything sound natural. I'm trying to state why the state should grant protections to that couple. It could be unnatural and hideously contrived, and I would see no reason for the state not to unless doing so would do measurable harm to a specific person, set of persons, or their rights to do as they so please.

"Also - can't you find anything other than these weak hinges for your argument?"

Two people want to be married. The state says no. Why should the state value one couple more than another when there is no quantifiable reason not to? That is my argument.

My arguments re children are in response to your statements that the primary reason for legally-recognized marriage is children, when clearly it is not so, otherwise infertile or post-menopausal couples would be prohibited from being married, and all marriages would dissolve upon menopause of the woman so that the man could go find somewhere else to "spread his seed," so to speak.

I'm talking about the law and its protections, not anything else. I don't care about any arguments other than why one class of couples should have different rights under the law than another.

What is "socially acceptable" or "traditional" shouldn't factor into an individual's legal rights.

I don't want the government of a country I'm in to tell me what a "social experiment" is or isn't. That is the role of moral authorities such as churches or other groups. My ideal government is the one that does not interfere in my rights to do as I please (whether "unnatural" or "odd" or anything else) and be recognized as such unless I am doing measurable harm to someone or their rights.

There is no good reason that the law should value one set of people over another

Scott said...

Well. We obviously have very different conceptions of rightheous government.

Incidentally, have you read Pitt's Radical Tory Manifesto on the main page...?

Viscount Feldon said...

I have, and I generally disagree with it.

Viscount Feldon said...

I should also say that this is the first time I've actually seen real debate over the issue. Usually, it just denigrates into "God says so" and "Icky" on one side and "No he doesn't" and "so are you" on the other. I'm quite pleased.

Scott said...

You... generally... disagree with it?

I hope I am not thought melodramatic when I say it is the kind of political, moral, cultural and historical manifesto that I would gladly die trying to achieve. In it - or similar conclusions and age-old principles, fortified in the face of modern horror - lies the only way out of this present mess we are in.

Viscount Feldon said...

The only way for me to agree with most of it would be to twist it into something that Pitt most likely did not intend when writing it.

"We strongly affirm the integral place of the natural family in our common life, affirming marriage and family life as the foundation of society. We consider that the natural family, and the marriage which binds it together, is entitled to the highest consideration and the protections of the civil government."

See, I could easily use that to promote same-sex marriage, but I won't, as I know that Pitt did not mean "natural family" to mean anything other than a man, a woman, and their children joined in what was most likely a church setting.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

I think everybody should be allowed to buy a car and drive it, including bikers.

And my bike is a car, because I choose that definition, and so I'll go and register my bike as a car.

Brian said...

As an Southerner, a Catholic, a Monarchist, an agrarian, and a sane person, the last months that I have spent studying in England have been a great shock. I wasn't expecting Arcadia, but I am amazed at the deterioration.

Every night the streets around town are full of drunken 18 year olds who seem unable to say anything but the f-word. They dress in a manner, that in a better age, not even the prostitutes would consider proper. Manchester sees 30 armed men walking around town and firing shots and nothing is done.

Last night, I came to a sad realization. I was looking for some food at 9:30pm. The choice was one of the Kebab shops or McDonald's. Support Islam or support American Globalism? Catch-22 indeed. As posted above, the filth that passes for American "culture" these days (which I think we all recognize as not really being American) is a major part of the problem.

I really feel sorry for the British. It is so sad, but then again. It is coming to my home as well. Christendom must triumph.

Scott said...

Urban, and many suburban areas, are in a lot of trouble.

Before you leave England, though, you must see Oxford on a sunny day, and the Cotswolds. There are problems in parts of Oxford, but the two of them will restore some of your faith in our future (even if we're going to have work jolly hard for it).

The tragedy is, though, that it isn't just a city-centre thing. It's not just like the old Times Square; an unusual, highly out of the way, highly urban, fractured environment. The town centres of sleepy, prosperous market towns run orange with vomit and blood, and are just as bad as the centre of some run-down council estate dump.

The rot spreads.

Lord Best said...

Sorry, buying a kebab is supporting Islam? One of the single stupidest comments I have ever read. Its grilled meat in bread for Gods sake, people were making it before Christianity or Islam had even begun.

Viscount Feldon said...

Perhaps McDonalds could sell kebabs, and buyers could support the American globalisation of Islam.