Skip to main content

Look Ma! I'm a can i have my knighthood now?

So Christopher Lee has been given the knighthood

I wonder why court jesters in past times weren’t given knighthoods.

I wonder if the ascent of wo/man to the position of political masters simultaneously leads to their assuming that since they are wise enough to ballot the course of their socio-political fates, their proclivities are unquestionable by association. Are all their inclinations transfigured in the hallowed glow of their political primacy and their ability to bonk their genes into the next generation?

I have to wonder, at times, if the masses' ability to accord value to something is compromised by their overarching roles as little more than appropriately 'educated' cogs and wheels in a hierarchically ordered society that thus increases the value of those they thus live vicariously through.

Can we then say that their tastes and that which they thus deem to be 'cool' are actually by-products of their attempt to compensate and recuperate for their less than ideal status and experiences? That renders their tastes suspect, i think. So, affording such awards to these, well, 'taste-traffickers' would seem apt - actors, singers, sportstars, models.....would it not simultaneously validate their interests and perspectives underlying these as worthy of maintaining in perpetuity?

What’s happening here?

Are the tastes of the masses being indirectly maintained by affording great awards for those who satisfy them? Something like paying large amounts of money for shiny stones so that they may be appreciated as ‘diamonds’ and generate further sales in perpetuity. Are we supposed to award knighthoods and other such accolades because its winners satisfy the appetites of the masses, or because it bodes well for humanity despite appetites? I don't blame those who returned their knighthoods when the Beatles got it some time back - though being a 'fan' at that time, i discounted it as nothing more than exclusive snobbery on their part.

When we lump saints and sinners together, by giving knighthoods to those who sacrifice their lives for the people along with those who make the masses laugh or cringe and make millions and live in great luxury with their progeny for that, we make a virtue out of subjectivity and kings out of those who determine its orientation. In other words, we aren’t going to be able to objectively value anything and will simply determine the value of all things by how it makes us personally feel. Looks like the scientific perspective has indeed been monopolised by the elite. The objective sense of the people is certainly receiving a battering here. I can’t believe people traded their saints of the past for one pretending to be a blood-sucker. And many call themselves ‘atheists’ as well whilst deeming nothing amiss here.

Methinks that the bosses of drug cartels would probably receive a knighthood if drugs were decriminalised.

Chis Lee can kiss my posterior for not realising. But then again, he wouldn't know better would he. He is, after all, just an overpaid jester.




Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…