Eternal Unity

Queen Elizabeth II has passed away

164 posts in this topic

Buckingham Palace confirmed.


"I believe you are more afraid of condemning me to the stake than for me to receive your cruel and disproportionate punishment."

- Giordano Bruno, Campo de' Fiori, Rome, Italy. February 17th, 1600.

Cosmic pluralist, mathematician and poet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just going to make a thread about this. 

My mom just became devastated by this news. She has always been a major fan of the British royal family. My dad, on the other hand, while he's sorry for her loss, doesn't think that it's that sad because she did obviously live a very long and exceptionally lavish life.

I am shocked by it because I didn't think or know of any signs of her health seriously declining. I know she was very old, but yesterday she seemed was in realtively good health. I mean, it's not like she was in a hospital or in need of any kind of intensive care for any health related issue.

May she rest in peace.

Also, "The queen is dead, long live the king!" Prince Charles will now become King Charles III of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.

Edited by Hardkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP Lizzy! May she rest in Peace for all Eternity.


"Find what you love and let it kill you." - Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the brits will take the opportunity to abolish the monarchy? They should.

What's more sad than the queen being dead is that there even exists a queen in the 21st century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, BenG said:

Think the brits will take the opportunity to abolish the monarchy? They should.

What's more sad than the queen being dead is that there even exists a queen in the 21st century.

One of the reasons they loved the queen so much and didn't want to abolish the monarchy was because the queen worked alongside them during the second world war. When she was a princess she drove trucks and ambulances as she worked as a mechanic. I went to the palace on a tour and I was told that although the queen is expensive And the economy would be better off without her, the people love the royal family too much to get rid of them. Otherwise they would be better off without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@trenton That makes sense. I have family from the UK and I can at least see how they perceive the royals. It also seems like Charles is a lot less popular and it makes sense why. The racism doesn't do him any favors...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIP - Rest in peace. 

I hope the Brits (and the Japs as well) one day follow Orwell's advice really to the heart and abolish those outdated, tradionalist sociocultural political institutions (and when that follows, hopefully that will also soon afterward trigger and spell the end in kind of domino-effect of all the other tradionalist, rigid and repressive, cost-insufficient, and taxpayer drain maintenance of borderline economic vampirism of monarchist regimes across the globe after their legitimization narrative and world finger-pointing excuses of other cases still in existence is gone after the abolition of these two-three most famous cases) , connected with the hereditary landlord classes privellege legitimizations in Britain and with the desire to via interconnected royal houses inbreeding and intermarrying bloodlines and symbolical historical hereditary traditionalist legitimizations still hold Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in the political Union. 

As Orwell postulated the remnants of the monarchy in Britain was not supposed to and should not have survived World War Two, "The Lion and The Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius (1941)":

"The Lion and The Unicorn, which adressed the question of the division of British class and how the "family loyalties" (Orwell preferst his term to "British tradition") is mingled by class divisions, however, reaffirming them. And the relation of the British ruling classes to civil liberties and democracy seems to represent well this idea:

The British ruling class believes in democracy and civil liberty of a narrow shape and hypocritical part. Anyway they believe in the letter of the law and sometimes will do it when it's not to your advantage. They show no sign of developing a truly fascist mentality. Freedom of every kind must obviously decrease as a result of the war, but given the current structure of society and its atmosphere there is a point beyond which it will not fall. Britain may be "fascistizaded" outside or as a result of an internal revolution, but the old ruling class can not, in my opinion, produce a true totalitarianism on their own. They are very stupid. It is largely because they have been unable to understand the nature of fascism, first we are in this whole mess.

(Orwell, 1941, Apud DAVISON, 1998, p.476)

Finally, finishing this letter, Orwell returned to the issue of the need to combine the war effort with a turn to the left, towards a socialist revolution as an essential condition for the defeat of fascism. Any comparison between the British domestic situation - the scarcity of products, the downturn in the economy and its shift to a predominantly war economy, increased state control over daily life, etc. - in 1914-18 and during the Second World War established the land on which Orwell was based this idea. One certainty was clear to him: the old capitalism had died.

This last point of the argument - the necessity of social revolution as the only way for the defeat of fascism - is basically the same point that Orwell presented at The Lion and the Unicorn, released that same year, 1941, when he defends the need for a socialist revolution in Britain as a path to defeat, internal and external fascism, as seen above in this article and to which we will analyze in more detail now.

In many measures, this is precisely the theme of the first Orwell's “London Letters” (published in Partisan Review, March-April 1941)

In it, Orwell writes, analyzing British political and economic situation at the beginning of the year 1941:

"Well, as the political situation, I think it's safe to say that we are currently in the middle of a cleaning that will not make much difference anyway. The reactionaries, which means more or less the people who read Times, had a scare in the summer, but saved by the skin of their teeth, and they are now consolidating its position against the new crisis that is likely to emerge in the spring. In the summer, there was the equivalent of a revolutionary situation in England, although there was no one to take advantage of it. After twenty years of being fed with sugar and water, the nation suddenly realized who were his rulers, and that there was a widespread availability of radical economic and social changes, combined with the absolute determination to prevent the [Nazi] invasion. At the moment, I believe that the opportunity exists to isolate the moneyed class and swing the mass of the nation behind a policy that resistance to Hitler and the destruction of the class with privileges can be combined." (Orwell, 1941, Apud Davison, 1998, p.352)

As I've told, the idea of linking the victory against fascism to a socialist revolution, which Orwell refers in his first letter to Partisan Review, is not alone in his work. Rather, it would take shape during the year 1941, especially in the essay The Lion and the Unicorn. It was clear to Orwell that the war plunged the country into a revolutionary moment and the anti-fascist national mobilization could at the same time, isolate the elites and political force to the working classes and British averages.

Considered his main political manifesto, The Lion and the Unicorn, the first part, "England your England" would be first published in London in Horizon magazine in December 1940 and later published in full text also in London in 1941. The internal debates of British politics; the role of the left intelligentsia and its alignment with Stalinism; and the possibilities for implementing a kind of democratic socialism (as opposed to "orthodox socialism" spent the Stalinist USSR) as a way of overcoming fascism and liberal democracy. All will be central themes in discussions of that text.

In Part III of the text, entitled, "The English Revolution" Orwell traces the lines of what he perceived to be an ongoing revolution in England. Orwell opens the last part of his essay, arguing, on page 64, that a transition – which he defined as a "revolution" - was already under way in England, and that was only accelerated with the outbreak of World War II. Still on page 64, Orwell points out the war - and the necessary victory over Hitler - again, as a necessary catalyst of social and economic transformations. But he adds that it is also the driving force of the definitive break with the past and the Victorian liberal tradition of England - a war also between the "past" and "future". For Orwell, as it appear in the sequence of his essay (ORWELL, 1982, p.65), the ground rules of this process in motion, must be taken, however, by a popular social movement at the same time it should recognize the "failures" of "English socialism”. What is clear, at least in the reading proposed here, is the disruption with the hegemonic political left in England - communist and labor - but without abandoning the idea of the possibility of a "socialist revolution" in a Marxist sense. 

As we saw above, this view proposed by Rahv, looks a lot like Orwell's own prepositions during the World War. Even under intense bombardment of the Luftwaffe over London between 1940 and 1941, Orwell still rather defended The Lion and The Unicorn (1941), the need for socialist revolution guide the defeat of fascism in and out of Britain. However, Orwell believed, as Rahv, that direct war was the only possible response against the fascist advance and the danger it represented. With that, and there again the thought of Orwell is a kind of bridge between the arguments of Rahv and Macdonald, the socialist revolution (as advocated Macdonald) should lead to military defeat (as advocated Rahv) of fascism.

As we have seen, the ideal of the socialist revolution was present both in the reworking of the political discourse of Partisan Review, as in Orwell's texts. This is the critical content of the British left intelligentsia, present in the first of the "London Letters", published by Orwell in Partisan Review in March-April, 1941, as seen above. The point of that text was maintaining the idea of the fight against Hitler and fascism represent the way for the promotion of the socialist revolution in England, similar arguments that presented in his first major work of the 1940s, The Lion and The Unicorn, published a month earlier.

In another edition of his "London Letter to Partisan Review", now in July-August 1943, with the central theme the dissolution of the Comintern, Orwell begins to sketch a critique that assume a consistent way in their texts throughout the 1940s :

"the image of the USSR and Stalinism (and its“ mystique” representation “of the [October] Revolution") as "myths" on the British left intelligentsia, gradually shattered among many communist intellectuals" (Orwell, 1943 Apud DAVISON, p. 286).

The idea of "myth" will be reaffirmed years later in the edition of "London Letter" of June 5, 1945, when Orwell reflect on the permanence of a pro-Soviet sentiment among intellectuals of the British left, including the maintenance of a extremely favorable to Stalinism press - ignoring the crimes already revealed, as the purges, the political persecution of dissent, etc .. He writes, for example, about this:

"(...) I always understood that the maintenance of this pro-russia feeling in England during the last ten years was due much more the need for an external paradise than any real interest in the Soviet regime, and that can not be contained by a appeal to facts, even when they are known." (Orwell, 1945, Apud ANGUS;ORWELL, 1968 [3], p.382)

In the critique presented in his articles for the Partisan Review, since the mid-1940s, Orwell defines the Stalinist regime as a "myth" which appropriates the collective memory of the international socialist movement on the Russian Revolution of 1917, taking it as a founder event of Stalinism - and, therefore, Stalin, as a historical continuer of Lenin. He also states the inevitable condition of the need to "destruction" of the Soviet "myth", that the socialist movement reassume their democratic basis in the struggle for equality and social justice. This double movement will be explicit in Orwell's criticism, for example, in the introduction to the Ukrainian translation of Animal Farm, published in November 1947, and distributed in Munich, Germany, by the Ukranian Displaced Persons Organisation. There, Orwell is adamant in stating: 

"[...] I understand, more clearly than ever, the negative influence of the Soviet myth about the Western socialist movement. (...) And so far from the last ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted to revive the socialist movement." (Orwell, 1947, Apud ANGUS; Orwell [1968 [3], p.404-5])

Ideal which seemed very close with anti-Stalinist left's feelings lying around the Partisan Review in New York, through the new political projects outlined as alternatives to political narratives in dispute during the years of World War II."

Source: 

Going 80 years or so forward in retrospect and hindsight, abolition of something in this situation seems like a pretty straightforward political moderate position in this case  xD😁

 

 

 

 

The_London_Letters_George_Orwells_partic.pdf

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be many generations before the monarchy is abolished. It will happen eventually but it's too deeply embedded into British culture. Like how the US will eventually ban guns, but it will be many many generations and decades in the future. All the traditionalists need to die off basically.


"Find what you love and let it kill you." - Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this thread is completely opposite of what others online are saying about Queen Elizabeth lol.

I need to brush up on my history…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Space said:

It will be many generations before the monarchy is abolished. It will happen eventually but it's too deeply embedded into British culture. Like how the US will eventually ban guns, but it will be many many generations and decades in the future. All the traditionalists need to die off basically.

I understand from your point of view and living experience living there, with what all that entails, with cultural norms, values and identity maintenances in the society. 

But the fact is that this political institution is highly outdated, no matter how much deep it is steeped in tradition, historical-civilizational narratives and national identity it is, and actually only now serves as a traditionalist veener for the political legitimization narratives and services of maintenance of a certain status quo in Britain in relation to keeping Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the political Union. 

The biggest problem with the indefinite maintenance of the status quo regarding this institution and political legitimizing order of things should be with the Welshmen, Scotts and Irish in Northern Ireland who want independent republics or some sort of a new national union on a more equitable republican basis in regards to autonomy on domestic and foreign policy and EU relationships. 

I know the traditionalists need to die off, but people fed up with these rigid, outdated hierarchical social structures and rules should also lift a little bit more of their own weight in order to be more solidarious with their countrymen in other Union states who want to go eventually out of this voluntary or involuntary arrangement skewed more towards mostly one-side. 

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rip  Queen. But the monarchy needs to be done with. Too much drama politically. A group of people living lavishly at taxpayers expense. 

 

Edited by Tyler Robinson

♡✸♡.

I'm a Mormon. I don't get notifications when quoted, just mentions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hardkill

4 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I was just going to make a thread about this. 

My mom just became devastated by this news. She has always been a major fan of the British royal family. My dad, on the other hand, while he's sorry for her loss, doesn't think that it's that sad because she did obviously live a very long and exceptionally lavish life.

I am shocked by it because I didn't think or know of any signs of her health seriously declining. I know she was very old, but yesterday she seemed was in realtively good health. I mean, it's not like she was in a hospital or in need of any kind of intensive care for any health related issue.

May she rest in peace.

Also, "The queen is dead, long live the king!" Prince Charles will now become King Charles III of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.

   Yes, I was also going to open a thread as well.

   May she rest in peace.

   Also, let us all take the time to observe all the stories and write offs we'll be doing in these posts to those in support or opposition to the Queen and monarchy, and hopefully observe a one-week silence out of respect for the Queen and her family.

   To those writing their wish for the desolation of the Monarchy and complaining about it, sorry, that's easily multi-generational, long enough that you'd be dead 5 times over.

   If you want to bring up those issues of desolation of the monarchy and have a discussion, do it in on another thread, I can easily see that turning very heated and would cause this thread to be locked.

Edited by Danioover9000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average westerners live reaction on deaths of famous old, still living remnants and relics of the Cold-war era people in a nutshell over the past week. 

Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the men most responsible preventing a full-scale and on nuclear showdown with the West at time of the critical period of the acceptance of the slow dissolution of Soviet Union and overseeing a relatively remarkably peaceful implosion and attempted democratic transition, never before seen on that scale in that point in history, of one of the world's largest in land mass totalitarian empires, at the expense of his own country of origin and upbringing background, in history relatively internationally insulated from the rest of the world and armed to teeth in nuclear warheads and weapons, dies at 91 years of age. 

Westerners: Meh. 

Elizabeth the Second of the Royal House of Windsor becomes Queen of the UK on the sole virtue of existing as the closest heir to earn that dynastic instituted hereditary royal title, essentially during her elongated reign serves as symbolic figurehead to cushion and procrastinate the collapse of the last remnants of the British Empire, and serves exclusively as a happen to be chosen this time about symbolic person to keep extending the lifeline and postponing indefinitely as much as possible the eventually inevitable wavering of UK traditionalist unitarist influence on and power the people's inhabiting the British Isles, in order to save face, live in the nostalgic never-ending memory and cope with the lost power and prestige of the collapsed, long-gone old civilization and empire of old for a few more decades, in a sort of an extended induced fantasy land trip of hyperreality simulacra version of British politics, dies at 96 years of age. 

Westerners: Ooooooh my God!!! I can't believe she died, we thought she was going to live forever!!! 😱😱😱 We are so sorry, our deep condolences and sympathies to the still existing next-in-heir hereditary house royal family and all the people now hurting across the world!!! There should be 7 days mourning and silence everywhere possible!!! God save the Queen.

This is not the time for questioning the reasoning and logic behind the maintenance of such an old, questionable custom in place and outdated political institution, not just used for show, prestige and pomp but for other hidden internal and external political status quo purposes as well, in the first place, you irreverent insensitive heathen scum (on an open-end "democratic" forum of all places were nothing should be declared sacred or holier than thou or left unquestioned). 

 

Edited by Fleetinglife

''society is culpable in not providing free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.” ― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fleetinglife

13 hours ago, Fleetinglife said:

Average westerners live reaction on deaths of famous old, still living remnants and relics of the Cold-war era people in a nutshell over the past week. 

Mikhail Gorbachev, one of the men most responsible preventing a full-scale and on nuclear showdown with the West at time of the critical period of the acceptance of the slow dissolution of Soviet Union and overseeing a relatively remarkably peaceful implosion and attempted democratic transition, never before seen on that scale in that point in history, of one of the world's largest in land mass totalitarian empires, at the expense of his own country of origin and upbringing background, in history relatively internationally insulated from the rest of the world and armed to teeth in nuclear warheads and weapons, dies at 91 years of age. 

Westerners: Meh. 

Elizabeth the Second of the Royal House of Windsor becomes Queen of the UK on the sole virtue of existing as the closest heir to earn that dynastic instituted hereditary royal title, essentially during her elongated reign serves as symbolic figurehead to cushion and procrastinate the collapse of the last remnants of the British Empire, and serves exclusively as a happen to be chosen this time about symbolic person to keep extending the lifeline and postponing indefinitely as much as possible the eventually inevitable wavering of UK traditionalist unitarist influence on and power the people's inhabiting the British Isles, in order to save face, live in the nostalgic never-ending memory and cope with the lost power and prestige of the collapsed, long-gone old civilization and empire of old for a few more decades, in a sort of an extended induced fantasy land trip of hyperreality simulacra version of British politics, dies at 96 years of age. 

Westerners: Ooooooh my God!!! I can't believe she died, we thought she was going to live forever!!! 😱😱😱 We are so sorry, our deep condolences and sympathies to the still existing next-in-heir hereditary house royal family and all the people now hurting across the world!!! There should be 7 days mourning and silence everywhere possible!!! God save the Queen.

This is not the time for questioning the reasoning and logic behind the maintenance of such an old, questionable custom in place and outdated political institution, not just used for show, prestige and pomp but for other hidden internal and external political status quo purposes as well, in the first place, you irreverent insensitive heathen scum (on an open-end "democratic" forum of all places were nothing should be declared sacred or holier than thou or left unquestioned). 

 

   So, is it acceptable to show condemnation when somebody died very recently? I mean, if that's how much your level of compassion and empathy and understanding is, that makes sense, but it's just socially not tactful to be indignant to a famous person dying,

   Again, you're touching on topics like hypocrisy, double standards, and worldview biases between western and eastern divisions, stage of development, cognitive and moral development, personalities, states of consciousness, life experiences and other lines of development of this situation and making an apple to orange comparison of some military guy versus a royalty figure head. I don't think you care enough of the nuances of this situation, and instead want to write up a story to wind up users here who are right leaning to moderate conservatives.

   Which do you think is the more mature thing here: Make passive aggressive statements at me, trying to anger me and derail this thread into unnecessary drama because you are biased and bored, or make your own thread to open discussion of what the significance of this situation could entail?

   

   

Edited by Danioover9000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She handover part of her spirit to Elizabeth Truss the prime minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@trenton

19 hours ago, trenton said:

One of the reasons they loved the queen so much and didn't want to abolish the monarchy was because the queen worked alongside them during the second world war. When she was a princess she drove trucks and ambulances as she worked as a mechanic. I went to the palace on a tour and I was told that although the queen is expensive And the economy would be better off without her, the people love the royal family too much to get rid of them. Otherwise they would be better off without it.

   True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tyler Robinson

18 hours ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Rip  Queen. But the monarchy needs to be done with. Too much drama politically. A group of people living lavishly at taxpayers expense. 

 

   The Monarchy is already done with for the most part, and they do still bring in more tourist money, but that's a tangent that's better discussed in another forum. Same argument could be had with India, they need to do away with their patriarchy, and those temples as well, so antiquated. Or with the USA, what and why the hell do we keep the white house? or the statue of liberty? or those historic sites in the southern states?

   It's far more complex and bigger of an issue than merely trimming away what makes that culture unique, and don't Pikachu face when it's collective peoples come after you for threatening to take away their identity from them.

Edited by Danioover9000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now