Greetings good citizen, seems some things never change. Princess Kate delivered a third heir to the British crown and today's NY Times asks if it's 'wrong' that many are still enthralled by Royalty.
Well, I guess that depends on how you define 'enthralled'. What is it (specifically) that people find so 'fascinating' about Royals? Is it that 'master of all you survey' baloney or does the 'interesting' part have more to do with the obscene wealth [that only SOME royals enjoy?]
There's a certain mythos associated with royal blood [that is often self-perpetuated] What mythos is that? The one where royalty were selected by God himself!
One of the common threads of royalty is how the position is hereditary BECAUSE God personally selected your ancestor to be his 'representative' in perpetuity.
Apparently death doesn't revoke this choice despite God having chosen poorly in almost 100% of the cases studied. There are exceptions but it's more degrees of 'less bad' than anything even remotely resembling 'good'.
So it is the Royals of old, through mad intermarriage [thanks to this 'God ordained' attribute] paired with their cousins (or sometimes their own siblings) worldwide.
Do we need to circle back to mankind's opportunist nature? Nope, you can fill in your own blanks.
Although if you ask me (and no one is) this serves as further proof that this planet is some race's orbiting insane asylum.
I guess it depends on how closely fascination is associated with insane? Some find insanity compelling (but mostly from a confounding point of view.)
Which brings us full circle to 'Spirit in the Sky', with all of that power and glory [made that much more terrible when it's completely devoid of sanity or even a hint of reason...]
Yup, fascinating alright.
It's crap like this that makes us ponder if we weren't formulated/bred to be this stupid or if our widespread inability to sort fact from fiction is by accident or design?
The opportunists among us exploit this, er, 'weakness' every chance they get [despite being likewise afflicted themselves. Remember that callous disregard for consequences I keep pointing at?]
If you've ever wondered where the saying 'like the blind leading the blind' came from, now you know!
Since my observations overlap [considerably] let's return to the theorem that most of our, er, 'prejudices' are learned things...inorganic and unnatural, they are force fed to us at the knee of those who only want the best for us.
After all, we are just babies when we are taught about our brave and self-less nobles.
[STOP]
So it is we return to the question at hand, is our 'fascination' for/with 'the Royals' unseemly?
If we separate fact from fiction it is bizarre indeed. Monarchy wasn't overthrown for nothing [not that it's overthrow was completely successful if you can hear what I'm telling you.] The Royals were synonymous with tyrants so our 'fascination' is solely with the 'romanticized version' of royalty (although there are some sickos out there who worship the Royal's 'darker side'...the current POTUS is a fan and so are most flag waving Rethuglicans.)
Is this unhealthy? I have my opinion but it is NEVER my intention to tell you what to think...make up your own mind.
Perhaps the thing to keep in mind is how the Royals viewed their subjects. [Rabble and vermin jump to the forefront, you were never 'faithful & beloved subjects' unless they we asking you to fight their wars for them...[it is here our abject inability to sort fact from fiction bites us on the backside yet again!]
Yes, the Royals were going to protect us [from the safety of their castle] while YOU marched off to get slaughtered [usually for no good reason, the Holy Wars were a perfect example of this!]
Fact or fiction...only you can decide, if you're capable.
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
Well, I guess that depends on how you define 'enthralled'. What is it (specifically) that people find so 'fascinating' about Royals? Is it that 'master of all you survey' baloney or does the 'interesting' part have more to do with the obscene wealth [that only SOME royals enjoy?]
There's a certain mythos associated with royal blood [that is often self-perpetuated] What mythos is that? The one where royalty were selected by God himself!
One of the common threads of royalty is how the position is hereditary BECAUSE God personally selected your ancestor to be his 'representative' in perpetuity.
Apparently death doesn't revoke this choice despite God having chosen poorly in almost 100% of the cases studied. There are exceptions but it's more degrees of 'less bad' than anything even remotely resembling 'good'.
So it is the Royals of old, through mad intermarriage [thanks to this 'God ordained' attribute] paired with their cousins (or sometimes their own siblings) worldwide.
Do we need to circle back to mankind's opportunist nature? Nope, you can fill in your own blanks.
Although if you ask me (and no one is) this serves as further proof that this planet is some race's orbiting insane asylum.
I guess it depends on how closely fascination is associated with insane? Some find insanity compelling (but mostly from a confounding point of view.)
Which brings us full circle to 'Spirit in the Sky', with all of that power and glory [made that much more terrible when it's completely devoid of sanity or even a hint of reason...]
Yup, fascinating alright.
It's crap like this that makes us ponder if we weren't formulated/bred to be this stupid or if our widespread inability to sort fact from fiction is by accident or design?
The opportunists among us exploit this, er, 'weakness' every chance they get [despite being likewise afflicted themselves. Remember that callous disregard for consequences I keep pointing at?]
If you've ever wondered where the saying 'like the blind leading the blind' came from, now you know!
Since my observations overlap [considerably] let's return to the theorem that most of our, er, 'prejudices' are learned things...inorganic and unnatural, they are force fed to us at the knee of those who only want the best for us.
After all, we are just babies when we are taught about our brave and self-less nobles.
[STOP]
So it is we return to the question at hand, is our 'fascination' for/with 'the Royals' unseemly?
If we separate fact from fiction it is bizarre indeed. Monarchy wasn't overthrown for nothing [not that it's overthrow was completely successful if you can hear what I'm telling you.] The Royals were synonymous with tyrants so our 'fascination' is solely with the 'romanticized version' of royalty (although there are some sickos out there who worship the Royal's 'darker side'...the current POTUS is a fan and so are most flag waving Rethuglicans.)
Is this unhealthy? I have my opinion but it is NEVER my intention to tell you what to think...make up your own mind.
Perhaps the thing to keep in mind is how the Royals viewed their subjects. [Rabble and vermin jump to the forefront, you were never 'faithful & beloved subjects' unless they we asking you to fight their wars for them...[it is here our abject inability to sort fact from fiction bites us on the backside yet again!]
Yes, the Royals were going to protect us [from the safety of their castle] while YOU marched off to get slaughtered [usually for no good reason, the Holy Wars were a perfect example of this!]
Fact or fiction...only you can decide, if you're capable.
Thanks for letting me inside your head,
Gegner
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you can't stay on topic then don't say anything...