Yes, states in and of themselves are not morality-driven entities, nor are they inherently consistent. They’re survival-driven and advantage-driven. This is how democracy is intended to function, because you can threaten the top leaders with being removed from office every few years, providing a strong incentive for good behavior that is in-line with their most fundamental goal of survival.
No other system provides the same degree of incentive to the top leadership, who can police the citizens into fearful docility with overwhelming force if no mechanism for their regular removal is provided.
I’ve lived in a couple of countries in Europe, including over a decade in Britain.
In general the British elites, mainly high middle-class and the very wealthy, are the single most fake people in Europe and they’re actually brought up thinking that’s exactly how people should behave - what they call there “Public Schools” (which, in an interesting demonstration of the exact principles I describe below, are in fact private schools rather than state-funded) which are frequented by the scions of the upper and upper-middle classes often teach kids this kind of behaviour, especially the more “elite” (in the sense of being for the children of the very rich) ones.
The “English Gentleman” stereotype is not at all a person who does the right thing, it’s a person who projects the right impression, something altogether different.
So it’s absolutelly normal for British Politics to have things like two seemingly opposite policies, one done with great fanfarre but de facto low effectiveness for the purpose of projecting the right impression and another which is done much more quietly and more effectivelly to achieving the true desired aims of the politicians over there (who at the moment, are all people who were born in wealth). Another very common strategy is to do something that overtly seems to produce a certain, positive, result but is done in such as way that the side-effects are much more powerful that the primary effect and produce a very different result (which at a later data, and adding insult to injury, is claimed to have been “totally unexpected”).
Every single piece of policy from Britain (as the politicans are all from upper middle and upper class) as well as all the stuff done for the Press by members of the upper classes (especially the older landed kind), namelly the Royal Family, should be treated as a theatrical performance and not at all believed to be what first appearences make it seem.
FYI they are called “public schools” because historically, anyone could go to them as long as they could afford the fee. The only other schools around at the time were faith schools. State schools in England would not exist until the 1880s, and in a form we’d recognize today until the 1940s
Well, it massivelly depends on social class - the higher it goes, the worst it gets - plus it’s more of an English thing.
Even in England, for example a working class scouse (somebody from Liverpool) is unlikelly to be a two faced bastard:
Somewhat violent? - possibly.
Prejudiced, maybe even racist? - quite likely.
A bastard? - you can ask his mom but you’ll probably get punched.
Two faced? - not likely.
IMHO it’s unsurprising that back in the days when social mobility was still decent in Britain and young working class lads actually had a real chance to make it in the Arts, the country made some of its best music and had its most iconic bands - you’re not going to get something like Punk from kids born with a golden spoon in their mouths.
The “English Gentleman” stereotype is not at all a person who does the right thing, it’s a person who projects the right impression, something altogether different.
Tbf, this is the “genteel” of every Western nation, afaict, to varying degrees.
Yes, states in and of themselves are not morality-driven entities, nor are they inherently consistent. They’re survival-driven and advantage-driven. This is how democracy is intended to function, because you can threaten the top leaders with being removed from office every few years, providing a strong incentive for good behavior that is in-line with their most fundamental goal of survival.
No other system provides the same degree of incentive to the top leadership, who can police the citizens into fearful docility with overwhelming force if no mechanism for their regular removal is provided.
I’ve lived in a couple of countries in Europe, including over a decade in Britain.
In general the British elites, mainly high middle-class and the very wealthy, are the single most fake people in Europe and they’re actually brought up thinking that’s exactly how people should behave - what they call there “Public Schools” (which, in an interesting demonstration of the exact principles I describe below, are in fact private schools rather than state-funded) which are frequented by the scions of the upper and upper-middle classes often teach kids this kind of behaviour, especially the more “elite” (in the sense of being for the children of the very rich) ones.
The “English Gentleman” stereotype is not at all a person who does the right thing, it’s a person who projects the right impression, something altogether different.
So it’s absolutelly normal for British Politics to have things like two seemingly opposite policies, one done with great fanfarre but de facto low effectiveness for the purpose of projecting the right impression and another which is done much more quietly and more effectivelly to achieving the true desired aims of the politicians over there (who at the moment, are all people who were born in wealth). Another very common strategy is to do something that overtly seems to produce a certain, positive, result but is done in such as way that the side-effects are much more powerful that the primary effect and produce a very different result (which at a later data, and adding insult to injury, is claimed to have been “totally unexpected”).
Every single piece of policy from Britain (as the politicans are all from upper middle and upper class) as well as all the stuff done for the Press by members of the upper classes (especially the older landed kind), namelly the Royal Family, should be treated as a theatrical performance and not at all believed to be what first appearences make it seem.
FYI they are called “public schools” because historically, anyone could go to them as long as they could afford the fee. The only other schools around at the time were faith schools. State schools in England would not exist until the 1880s, and in a form we’d recognize today until the 1940s
Yeah, “public” in the same way as the The Ritz is “public” - anybody can get a rooms there if the can afford the £700 a night.
The rest of the World calls that “private”, because de facto they are not for the public.
Spot on. The British are indeed masters of being two faced bastards.
Well, it massivelly depends on social class - the higher it goes, the worst it gets - plus it’s more of an English thing.
Even in England, for example a working class scouse (somebody from Liverpool) is unlikelly to be a two faced bastard:
Somewhat violent? - possibly.
Prejudiced, maybe even racist? - quite likely.
A bastard? - you can ask his mom but you’ll probably get punched.
Two faced? - not likely.
IMHO it’s unsurprising that back in the days when social mobility was still decent in Britain and young working class lads actually had a real chance to make it in the Arts, the country made some of its best music and had its most iconic bands - you’re not going to get something like Punk from kids born with a golden spoon in their mouths.
You had me at
Tbf, this is the “genteel” of every Western nation, afaict, to varying degrees.