Yes, I too have seen "Mary Poppins"... leaving me aware, still, that along with advocacy for "values"... there is a subversive element in Mary Poppins, in the suggestion she's needed, as without her, things aren't entirely all aright ?
And, as should be clear from my posting history... I am no anarchist... and not posting in opposition to adopting core values and fundamental principle that are the basis of western civilization. But, also, not one to wallow in nostalgia... using an aging snapshot as a proxy for "principle"... used as a means to whitewash historical realities ?
In reality we should always see "this, and that"... co-existing... as that requires one to be aware of the overly narrow in the delusions one chooses to believe in... that far more in error seen as "history" than in the aspirational... when a single point of view is selected ?
I have repeatedly advocated, here, that one must be deliberate in understanding the world from multiple perspectives... all viewed at the same time... to have a hope of seeing it clearly.
That's no less true in seeing British history with clear eyes than it is in seeing "truth, justice and the American way"... through the filter of 1950's era propaganda... or as "Apocalypse Now"... telling us again, that yes, Yosarian was right...
The American revolution... addressed many of those same issues... relevant then, and today... which are not obviated by adopting a stiff upper lip... and a heavier dose of pretense... along with a bit heavier hand in suppression of free speech ? American's objections began in being denied the same basic rights other British subjects enjoyed... but, with monarchical persistence, morphed into a more philosophical understanding of the nature of the problems that monarchy, and its innate lack of principle, inherently enables ? Today, as "globalists" seek to enable a modern re-branding of feudalism... where "no difference between communists and kings" is proven obviously true... it remains essential to understand that "bait and switch" in substitution of principle "as a brand"... is not different than Disney's supposedly subversive presentation of the original "The Wizard of Oz" as it conflicts with the reality of what Disney, today, actually represents ?
So, I'm not a critic of virtue... but of virtue signalling... and purposeful myopia adopted in that sort of "branding" done... in the hope a brand will be accepted as self consistent enough in its own right... to obviate any deeper consideration of the component elements seen in more complex context... from more than one viewpoint.
And, in our current context... the "bait and switch" potential in claiming "virtue signalling" naturally ages well ?
The benefits of social cohesion are real enough... and I'm also not quibbling re "values" having value ? But, a delightful Victorian era fox hunt undertaken as an afternoon's entertainment... still belies a view adopted with a particularly narrow social filter... that errs as it pretends Jack the Ripper (or various Sherlock Holmes story themes) are not cut from the same cloth and just as much a part of the reality of that era... which is only seen fully by adopting those other views... ?
So, I note Mary Poppin's seen as advocacy of British tradition... post dates the American Revolution and the expressions of British tradition experienced in the colonies ? Our separate view of our history has us well enough aware that the Enlightenment, and its elevation of virtues... [perhaps usefully seen as the "globalism" of that era, only then standing in opposition to accepting or submitting to feudalism as the status quo]... was not entirely a British invention gifted to the rest of us ? But, Mary... while popping into our literature only after those events... and seen as a champion of some bit of what the Enlightenment represents... still has her failing to pop in to set things to rights in Hong Kong, Saragarhi... or Kabul ? And, here we are... still at all of it... if having had to re-brand it a few times... all the way up until 2021 ?
I'm with you, still... in thinking that even adopting an ridiculously over romantic and nostalgic view is better... than "the same thing" being undertaken... as today... without any mask in pretense in adherence to principle ?
The principle then... "you are what you think you are, so be careful what you think you are"... conflicts with the reality in the core of principle as advocated... when "rules for thee, but not for me" means it having never really been adopted by leadership ?
But, that mask being removed, now... leaves the quibbles below as only ones of... whether or not wearing the mask... ever really mattered... and how it may have... when it was only intended as a ruse to deflect the gullible ?
Or, was it...
 |
