Author Comment    
Annya



May 31, 05 - 4:13 PM
Thoughts on Britain France and America

We are in France. The papers are shouting about the French rejection of a European constitution - odd how one sees these things when one is travelling, that one never sees standing still. Is that something to do with relativity, I wonder.

Of course it makes little difference, and Britain is a gone coney with or without the Enemy Union, but it did not stop some of the younger and foolisher dancing round singing "Johnny got a kick in the pants!"

Cultural notes: French advertising is a lot more deformist than American - at least what we saw in the South. Closer to British.

A thought. Intelligent Conservative English people, such as those who write for The Spectator, are right-wing type-3s. They have the same cynicism as their leftist counterparts, they collaborate with the cultural and class destruction. They are part of the Cockney Raj. I suspect that American conservatives are different. They are not, on the whole, type-3s as they still have a culture to be loyal to.

On the other hand, seeing American Catholic monks speak, they seemed like fish out of water. The sattwic garb and style seemed utterly alien to them. They seemed like "Americans dressed up".

The two phenomena are not unconnected. America serems still well-seated in rajasic solidity and relatively impervious to both sattwa and tamas. One is not unaware that many, if not most, tamasic movements originate in America. One is speaking of the overall state of the culture at this precise point in time.

Just a few pens?es as I pass!
Roberta



May 31st, 2005 - 11:50 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

What are the "Cockney Raj"? and I don't know what Satwwic and Tamas are either? I thought your message showed me some interesting thoughts, but I didn't understand all of it. Please explain if you have time.

Roberta Cowen
Isabel Trent



Jun 1st, 2005 - 1:41 AM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Dear Roberta,

Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas are the three gunas (cosmic tendencies). Miss Alice Lucy Trent wrote of them extensively in The Feminine Universe, her systematic exposition of the traditional philosophy that underlies Aristasia. Luckily for you, the relevant chapter is available online. It is absolutely fascinating; anyone here who hasn't read it ought to zip over and take a guzz immediately.

The Cockney Raj is simply what England has become under the influence of Tamas!

Miss Isabel Trent
Roberta



Jun 1st, 2005 - 6:55 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

I tried to find information about "cockney" and it seems to be a kind of person from London? but I couldn't find any information that I understood about "Raj" I think it is an Indian King or something, but I don't understand how this explains "what England has become" I really want to understand about your world, but there are many things I find unusual and difficult to understand
Sarah-Andrea



Jun 2nd, 2005 - 12:36 AM
Freedom from Bongoism requires a 'Copernican' change of perspectives...

As one may see in the current state of political affairs, people are too obsessed with the notion of whether a person is 'left' or 'right'. This usually comes with a faulty assumption that either the 'left' or the 'right' -- only one over the other -- can deliver freedom to the people.

This over-simplistic way of thinking is linear in nature, with (usually) only two viable options presented for the deracinated 'masses' to choose. This can be in America a choice between George W. Bush and John Kerry; in France a choice between 'Pan-Europeanism' and 'Nationalism'; or in a more common, day-to-day scenario, a choice between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, a choice between Visa and MasterCard, a choice between 'patriarchy' and 'feminism' (sic), a choice between Burger King and McDonald's, and so forth (ad nauseum).

What one fails to see is that either option serves the interest of the Bongo masters. A true choice to shift her thinking, a genuine choice to follow her conscience, and a genuine choice to think for herself, are entirely considered non-existent by the dominant cultural paradigm exactly because Bongoism requires such options to be strictly off-limits, since they can threaten the very base of the Bongo economic/political/cultural/social [Please do excuse my pittish writing style here] power apparatus. The so-called 'freedom' the Bongoist regime offers is indeed no freedom at all; simply a 'freedom' to choose between one of pre-approved, prescribed options for one's own consumption.

This explains why people no longer have enough attention span or ability to comprehend anything that cannot be easily explained in a nice, short 10-second sound-bite, those that cannot easily be categorised under the schemes of the Bongo taxonomy. The Eclipse, then, was not only an assault on cultures but also is an assault on human intellect and resulting freedom. This point can be easily proven by comparing the struggles for liberty and freedom in prior to the mid-1960s with what passes in the recent decades as a 'quest for freedom.' No longer are thinking advocates for freedom, but only 'celebrity' political showmen who clamour for media attentions and their financiers. There are no true political platforms, no genuine political programmes, and certainly are no guiding values or principles. All what matters today is about polls, campaign contributions and media-generated 'public' images.

Only once a maid can understand this machinery of deception and manipulation, she can know how to break free. Yet, such a change of perspective today is indeed 'Copernican' in nature.
Miss Drusilla



Jun 2nd, 2005 - 4:07 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Dear Roberta,

You are on the right track. "The Raj" is an informal term for Britain's colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947, and a Cockney is indeed a lower class Londoner.

Thus, calling England the Cockney Raj is a way of saying that it is a society ruled from the bottom up, wherein all that is pure and good and noble is trampled upon and all that is corrupt and vile and vulgar is raised on high. If you doubt, a quick glance out the window will usually serve to underline the point!

Welcome to the club, child. If you have any more questions, it would be my pleasure to answer them.

Miss Drusilla
Lady Aquila



Jun 6th, 2005 - 4:55 AM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Splendid thoughts, Miss Sarah-Andrea. Your contributions are absolutrely top-notch. Wonderful to have you aboard.

On the "Cockney Raj", I should just mention that a chief reason for the use of the term is a phenomenon that some would say more or less defines Pit-britain: the adoption of lower-class vowels by broadcasters, politicians, teachers and (as a result) virtually every better-class person under 50.

This may seem a small and even confusing matter to people outside Britain, but it is much more important than it seems, because it is central to the attack on the gentlemanly (Aristasian equivalent: raihiralan) class-structure which is fundamental to authentic culture.

For a more in-depth analysis of this question, taken from the Aristasian novel Children of the Void, go to A Speech Lesson. You will find further links there if you wish to pursue the matter yet further.
Sarah-Andrea



Jun 6th, 2005 - 6:13 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

This discussion reminded me of what I was taught several years ago when I was working for a library.
The library director at that time taught me how to 'deal with out-of-control children and difficult people' by giving them two or three choices 'within an acceptable range' that lead to the same ultimate ends but would not actually give them any option to control the situation. In so doing, Miss MacAllister (her name is slightly changed here for her protection) explained, one can give that person in question a (false) sense of them having a power of control, even though all of these 'options' would lead to the singular ultimate goal as desired by those who are giving them 'choices', in this case a librarian or a library technician.

Apparently this method is widely taught in librarian schools such as the Emporia State University, as well as in other fields of profession, as a way to de-escalate a conflict and to gain a quick command of any given situation.
Roberta



Jun 6th, 2005 - 9:39 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Thank you for replying to me. It is beginning to make this information rather clearer. Unfortunately I cannot look out of my window to see England, as I am not in that country! Also, I am afraid I am not a child. I am certainly an adult. Perhaps my language sounds like children language as I do not speak English too well. I try to be clear, but I can see now it is obvious that English is not my Mother language!
I have never been to England. Is it truly that bad? I understandd that it is a rich country. Richer than my country and I think it is probably better. But I would like to know more. Are you unhappy with England? This is a shame.

Is "Cockney Raj" your idea, or do many people in England say this? Is it something like a joke, or is it a serious saying?

I am sorry I do not know about France or America.
Princess Mushroom



Jun 6th, 2005 - 10:47 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Your English is not bad, dear Roberta! Miss Drusilla refers to many of us as "child" even if we are not physically children. It is not a comment on your English.

England is a rich country in material ways, but much of the culture has been lost. We are not unhappy, for we have a delightful time together.

"Cockney Raj" is a sort of joke, but with a serious meaning as well. I think only Aristasians use it, though when I used the expression to a gentleman who is (obviously) not an Aristasian, he laughed enormously -- so obviously he understood the point.
Umm Jack



Jun 8th, 2005 - 9:00 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

What a perceptive point to make about American monks.

I have had the opportunity to take darshan, so to speak, of a number of holy men and women from a number of traditions in America, and I knew instantly what you describing, at least I think I do - that sense of having been "dressed up for religion." However, I suspect very strongly that those monks were Protestants by birth.

One may see where I live men and women whose robes of holy office seem indissoluably part of them (as in a way they truly are) cheek by jowl with those who seem overgrown children playing dress-up. Of course, I am not sure I trust my own clouded perception of these things.
Miss Juliana



Jun 8th, 2005 - 11:22 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Not being much of an expert on all types of monks, I should have to say that this is not really definitive as a comment! However, I have seen what I believe are both types of monk and the ones they showed on those religious broadcasts were definitely the 'dressed up' variety. In the Philippines and in France (and I daresay in many other places too) the 'genuine article' still exists. The person who holds the sort of religious positions these people hold must be respected and admired for the level of traditional thinking they maintain, surely.

The trouble with the televised versions we saw was that they had all the casual sloppiness of posture, the looseness of expression and the "I'm-just-like-all-of-you-teenagers-and-hippies-out-there"-ness of a Type 3 musician or social worker. Perhaps it was just my tiredness after driving too far in the hot sun with the top of the car down (take me back!) but I could have sworn one of them suggested the new Pope was a "cool" choice. In his defence, he did raise his eyebrows slightly when he said it. His Holiness had obviously not been driving as much in the sun as I had if that was the case!
Lady Aquila



Jun 14th, 2005 - 8:18 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Further to Miss Annya's statement that the sort of people who write in The Spectator are part of the Cockney Raj, I can supply a fascinating confirmation of the fact.

Some one showed me the issue of June the 4th, in which Charles Moore (who I believe was once its editor) writes:

"Toilets", says a notice in the offices of The Spectator. This is final confirmation that that word, once a key class indicator, is now universal. No one under the age of 30 winces when it is spoken.

But of course not. What is the function of class indicators in the Cockney Raj, where every one is an oik?

No doubt the Spectator-wallahs also call their drawing-rooms "the layunge", along with their estate-agent friends. That, after all, is where they lounge in front of the octovision having both their class-instincts and their moral fibre slowly but surely sapped.

One wonders, indeed, if they still pronounce the "t" on the end of "toilet". Probably they do. That step will be taken by the next generation, and they will no doubt deplore it.

By what imagined right, one wonders.

But really. Universal? Do you say "toilet"? Do you know any one who does?
Umm Jack



Jun 15th, 2005 - 4:20 AM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

No, my lady, but I am an American and we say "bathroom."
Princess Mushroom



Jun 15th, 2005 - 1:09 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

In America the term "rest room" seemed to be universal, though I believe "powder room" is also used (sounds explosive!) but perhaps these are for public facilities (known in Britain as "public conveniences").

The term "lavatory" is correct in England, though some Aristasians say "lavvy", "little girls' room", and among some girls in our District "lavery" has become popular. The semi-archaic "privy" is also used among some Aristasians, while rough brunettes are prone to say "bog" - but not in front of any one in authority!

"Toilet" is not used by the roughest brunette (unless she is genuinely lower-class). "Bog" may be vulgar, but "toilet" is common.

I suppose every one has heard the story of the lavatory attendant who was told that she could take her holidays at her own convenience.
Umm Jack



Jun 15th, 2005 - 7:40 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

"Restroom" is only used in businesses, your Highness, at least on the coasts and in the cities. We do not have a vocabulary for class distinctions in America, but they exist, and the word "restroom" used anywhere except on sign in a commercial establishment would strike me as being a little - common is the wrong word for an American to use, of course. Some very strong regionalisms are not markers of lower status but indeed the opposite, as they indicate that a maid has retained a strong connection with her family. The use of "commercialisms," on the other hand, carry a strong connotation of family dissolution, which is America is a indication of lower class status.
Lady Aquila



Jun 15th, 2005 - 8:51 PM
Socio-linguistics

During a discussion about the centrality of class to the British cultural entity, and how, by destroying class-identification, the Octopus has successfully destroyed British culture, a friend made a very pertinent comment:

"If you want to see Britain stripped of its class-heart, look at Australia."

Well, of course, on does not need to look that far afield. One only has to look at the Yeek. But Australia has typified the class-stripped Britain for longer and is probably a clearer example in the eyes of those who are too far away (or too near) fully to apreciate what has been done to Britain.

While meditating upon this thought, another, even more interesting one came to my mind.

You will no doubt be aware that in the 16th Century, English pronunciation underwent a relatively sudden and rather radical change, usually known as the Great Vowel Shift. Before that we had pronounced "mine" as "meen" and "house" as "hoos" etc.

What is less known is that exactly the same vowel-shift took place in Germany at about the same time. Whereas we kept our old orthography, so that we still spell "wine" and "mouse" as if they were pronounced "ween" and "moose" (we are used to it, but it confuses the deuce out of foreigners), the germans changed the spellings to "wein" and "maus" etc., which phonetically represent the current pronunciations in both countries.

I mention this because the phenomenon is in itself fascinating. Why should two countries experience the same phonetic shift at much the same time, when the influence of one spoken language on the other must have been no more than negligible?

One possible answer (and however strange it may seem to the rationalistic mind, it is hard to find a better one) is that the 16th Century is an important turning-point in European culture. It was (especially in Northern Europe the century in which the shift from a Sattwic to a Rajasic orientation took place. Of course the process was not completed until the next century, and had begun as far back as Chaucer's time; but the 16th Century was definitely the real turning-point. If one wishes to use a less Aristasian terminology, we may say that it was the century that saw the shift from the mediaeval to the modern outlook.

And it seems that this major cultural shift was somehow linked to a major shift in pronunciation. A shift that took place in two languages wholly independently of one another.

What has this to do with Australia and the destruction of the class-heart of British culture? Simply that at the same time that Britain had its class-heart plucked out, certain characteristics began to manifest themselves in its odd, post-British accent, which are identical to long-established Australian speech-patterns.

The two most notable of these are:

1: the thinning of the "oo" sound until it sounds almost like "ee". This has been remarked upon and satirised by Aristasians for years in "yeeth-and-byeety" jokes.

2: The habit of rising sharply in tone at the end of a sentence, as if one were asking a question, when one is not asking a question. This is known by Aristasians as the "interrogative lift", or "troggie". Among bongo academic linguists, however, it is termed the A.Q.I. or Australian Question Intonation. It is endemic among young British speakers saturated with type-3 culture.

Any one who cares to listen can confirm that a) these characteristics have existed in Australia for many decades, and b) they have become endemic in British speech over the last two or three decades.

But why? The Australian influence on British speech has been very small. American influence on vocabulary has been far greater, but has had virtually no influence on pronunciation. Why, then do we see these specifically Australian phenomena dominating current British speech?

I submit the proposition that, just as in the 16th-Century the transition to a Rajasic society had a certain effect on Teutonic languages, independently of any influence between them, so British culture with its class-heart torn out produces certain linguistic phenomena, and when, in the '80s and '90s of the last century, Britain was de-classed, certain changes in its pronunciation took place that had already taken place in Australia for the same reason in earlier generations.

While much of the Bongolese accent is explainable as a hotch-potch of cockney, northern and the general embarrassment of a bourgeoisie who, while dominating the mass-media and imitated by all, cannot speak their natural language (the Queen's English) and have to cobble together a strange, artificial, embarrassed hotch-potch; the really astonishing thing is that certain characteristics - the very ones that have come to dominate and typify the whole ghastly noise - do not come from within the hotch-potch at all, but seem to be the result of a socio-lingiuistic law.
Lady Aquila



Jun 15th, 2005 - 8:54 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

The yeeth-and-byeety yawp and the interrogative lift seem to be natural phenomena. They are the death-cries of British culture. Perhaps that is why they sound so terrible.
Princess Mushroom



Jun 16th, 2005 - 9:22 AM
Ladles and Jellyspoons

Reverting to public conveniences for a mome, another change one notices is that whereas they were once universally labelled "Ladies" and "Gentlemen", they are now often labelled "Men" and "Women", or even "Male" and "Female".

From a state where every one was treated at least as an honorary lady or gentleman we have moved to one where every one is treated as a prole.
Candre



Jun 16th, 2005 - 9:34 AM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Seeing Her Fungal Highness's statement, another thought occurs to me.

Bongo feminists often like to change the natural spoken order of words and say "women and men" rather than "men and women". Like most of their coinages, it sounds awkward and artificial.

On the other hand "Ladies and Gentlemen" is the natural spoken order.

When we are speaking of men and wonem - the mere animal beings - men barge to the front using their brute strength. When we speak of the civilised and spiritual beings, ladies and gentlemen, it is always, and always has been, ladies first.

It is somehow typical of the bongo feminist that she merely wants to change the barging order rather than resore civilisation.
Princess Mushroom



Jun 18th, 2005 - 10:23 AM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

Of course, calling Pit-britain "the Yeek" is in itself a yeeth-and-byeety joke. The term comes from the fact that:

a) Bongo british people tend to call their country "the U.K." rather than the more normal Britain or England, and

b) In a British Bongolese accent, "U.K." sounds like "Yeekay".
Diana



Jul 1st, 2005 - 9:59 PM
Re: Thoughts on Britain France and America

I am sure yeeth-and-byeety has to do with something particular to the decline of British culture both in Britain and Australia.

I am not so sure about the "troggie", or interrogative lift, though. This seems more pronounced in America even than Britain - and perhaps helps to answer the question "is there an American bongo accent?"

A British journalist quotes his daughter who has been at camp with American children and who has caught their habit of trogging - or going up in tone at the end of non-question statements. When asked what she had done that day she replied:

"Well, we went canoeing on the lake? Which was, like, really really fun? And then we had storytelling in the barn? And we all had to tell a story about, like, where we're from or our family or something?"

One thing about this kind of trogging is that I wonder if it does not actually imply questions. Think of the kind of speaker and tone. She might just as easily be saying:

"Well, we went canoeing on the lake, you know? Which was, like, really really fun, right? And then we had storytelling in the barn you know? And we all had to tell a story about, like, where we're from or our family or something, know what I mean?"

You see what I mean? Is the troggie here actually eliptical for the missing rhetorical question? Is it a style of speech that was becoming so littered with needless questions that the next step was to leave them off and just imply them with a querying tone?

What do readers think of this theory?




Back