monarchism

[Anonymous No.20537270]

lately, I've been encountering many "monarchists". is this some kind of larp or do people really think it's a great set up? any books in defense of monarchism to help me understand what's so great about it?

[Anonymous No.20537284]

>>20537270
>any books in defense of monarchism to help me understand what's so great about it?
Leviathan by Hobbes

[Anonymous No.20537351]

>>20537270
Given the current state of liberal democracies, it isn't surprising that people are looking to alternative ways of government. That being said, the amount of people who want to restore the monarchy in most western republics are fairly small. There are some larpers or people only drawn because of the aesthetics, but that's inevitable with any radical political group, and their existence shouldn't make you dismiss monarchy as a legitimate alternative to our current system.

[Anonymous No.20537362]

>>20537351
Largely this, but the revived interest in Guenon and Evola has definitely also played a role

[Anonymous No.20537371]

>>20537270
Democracy: The God that Failed

Has had a very large influence on this trend through nrx types.

[Anonymous No.20537374]

>>20537270
>any books in defense of monarchism to help me understand what's so great about it?
Nietzsche, Aristotle and Aquinas

[Anonymous No.20537386]

>>20537374
Bro just stop

[Anonymous No.20537421]

E-monarchism is entirely a larp created by people who like Paradox games too much.

[Anonymous No.20537554]

>>20537270
Look into Nigel Carlsbad's commentaries on Karl Ludwig von Haller

[Anonymous No.20537564]

>>20537554
Keith Woods(pbuh) btfo that Twitter account

[Anonymous No.20537565]

>>20537421
This basically. Cover to cover reading of Leviathan should be bear minimum before calling yourself a monarchist.

[Anonymous No.20537597]

>>20537565
Disagree on Hobbes. I’d say even Gregory of Tours (just an example, you could probably pick a better example) would be a better read for a monarchist as they reveal more about traditional views of the King and his role than any modern political theory.

[Anonymous No.20537628]

>>20537597
I would agree with you, but the arguments these guys use (Moldbug types) are generally very modernist.

[Anonymous No.20537633]

So no one going to mention moldbug?

[Anonymous No.20537654]

>>20537633
No.

[Anonymous No.20537656]

>>20537633
No, he's an insufferable blowhard in dire need of an editor. Just read the primary sources and you'll be better off. The essentials on monarchism are Leviathan, Patriarcha, and Considerations on France.

[Anonymous No.20537658]

>>20537633
>it’s le wasp puritans
>also the Palestine lobby has more power than the Israel lobby. The fact that the Israel lobby has more power is just proof of this.
>*writes 50,000 page obscurantist essay*

[Anonymous No.20537675]

>>20537270
Define encounter. Engaging with the extremely online orbiters of disaffected bloggers? Truly a worthy post on /lit/ - Slower Moving /pol/ Threads

[Anonymous No.20537737]

>>20537658
The WASP thing really rubs me the wrong way about him.

>>20537656
This pretty much

[Anonymous No.20537757]

>>20537270
Schopenhauer wrote some defense of monarchy as opposed to the republic, but it's a pretty lame argument.

[Anonymous No.20537873]

>>20537597
Which books of him do you recommend?

[Anonymous No.20538727]

It's less about monarchism in general and more about just being completely anti-liberalism. I know that it the case with me currently. You can trace back a lot of the societal problems and tragic events due to liberalism.

Pretty much all modern ideologies that we see as evil such as communism, national socialism, fascism, progressivism, etc. are just off-shoots of liberalism. These ideologies could never exist within a real monarchy without separation of church and state. They all came about after that fact. You look at our world wars and they were all driven by a combination of globalism and nationalism, ironically.

New world order, new motivations entirely. We are most likely socially unrecognizable as people today compared to human beings in the 1500s, for example.

I just think we flew too close to the sun with the enlightenment. Something went very, very wrong in the process.

[Anonymous No.20538738]

>>20538727
The Thirty Years War was, relative to population, the most destructive conflict in European history.

[Anonymous No.20538749]

>>20537270
Considerations on France by De Maistre
Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism, and Socialism by Donoso Cortes
Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola

[Anonymous No.20538760]

>>20538727
John Stuart Mill has a lot to answer for

[Anonymous No.20538767]

>>20538738
Sure and in the 1600s Liberalism was already starting to develop. Imperialism is a byproduct of Globalism. They go hand in hand.

You can look at it from a surface-level pov and say all of the belligerents were kings but even kings can get pozzed. Hell, the french revolution happened first and foremost because the king himself became a shitlib.

[Anonymous No.20538852]

>>20537270
>>20537270
Evola, Guenon, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Mencius, Laozi, Zhuangzi, The Bible, Church Fathers, Dante, Aquinas, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Tolkien…

[Anonymous No.20538895]

>>20537351
None of the monarchists I've met want to do away with liberal democracy though. They just want liberal democracy with a king instead of with a president. Spain instead of Portugal.
They just like the pageantry and find it a but embarrassing when the head of state indulges in political squabbling.

[Anonymous No.20538904]

>>20537284
Libshit. Try Filmer or learn German and read Ludwig von Haller

[Anonymous No.20538906]

>>20538895
kek how fitting—people with an irrelevant and outmoded ideology want a ceremonial figurehead whose main role is to santificy whatever demotic policies are affected

[Anonymous No.20538909]

>>20538895
Those are just classy liberals. Actual monarchists don't care much for the glorified kardashians of modern europe.

[Anonymous No.20538916]

>>20538852
Pretty much anyone before the age of enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.20538917]

>>20538767
Based and directionbrained. Everything has always been red states vs blue states.

[Anonymous No.20538919]

It's the same people who think the Brit royals are fascinating and romantic. Nothing to see here.

[Anonymous No.20538937]

>>20537362
PBUH

[Anonymous No.20538945]

>>20537270
Start with A Confederacy of Dunces.

>Do you think that I want to live in a communal society with people like that Battaglia acquaintance of yours, sweeping streets and breaking up rocks or whatever it is people are always doing in those blighted countries? What I want is a good, strong monarchy with a tasteful and decent king who has some knowledge of theology and geometry and to cultivate a Rich Inner Life

[Anonymous No.20538952]

The Czech monarchist party all got together to pay for a replica of the St Wenceslas crown and sent it to the 'rightful heir', Karl Hapsburg, for his 60th birthday.
It's all a bit embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.20539025]

>>20538767

>Imperialism is a byproduct of Globalism.

Imperialism is one of the oldest forms of government, and vastly predates Christ. It has nothing necessarily to do with globalism, you spaz.

[Anonymous No.20539139]

>>20537873
History of the Franks

[Anonymous No.20539146]

>>20538945
>I pointed that people who think this exist, therefore it’s le wrong, chuds btfo

[Anonymous No.20539157]

>>20537270
Kek monarchism is the most /lit/ governance system supported by the greatest minds in the canon, and this retarded newfag makes this thread in 2022

[Anonymous No.20539439]

>>20537270
The monarchy of the Capital.

[Anonymous No.20539498]

>>20539157
there are still a lot of retards enamored with shitlibism out there, even on 4chan

it's gonna take a few decades to beat the retardation out of the populace

[Anonymous No.20539727]

hard times make people grasp at straws, and these aren't easy times
not that monarchy with a virtuous monarch wouldn't be close to ideal, but it's not realistic

[Anonymous No.20539778]

>>20537374
rope and chair

[Anonymous No.20539817]

>>20537270
>lately, I've been encountering many "monarchists".
Where?

[Anonymous No.20540033]

>>20539817
twatter

[Anonymous No.20540075]

>>20538952
>It's all a bit embarrassing.
Tradition is never embarassing. Monarchy worked and worked for thousands of years, while liberal democracy, with its ~200 year run, is, perhaps, on the brink of collpase. The monarch is the embodiment of a state and a people. When you mock your monarch, limit his powers or oust him from his rightful place, you are cucking your entire people out and opening your people to be violated by the tentacles of the global liberal octopus.

[Anonymous No.20540085]

>>20538909
Then it sounds like actual monarchists are a figment of their own imaginations.

[Anonymous No.20540097]

>>20540075
Monarchies have existed for thousands of years. Whether they've actually worked is another question.

[Anonymous No.20540104]

>>20538727
>communist is offshot of liberalism
>one party system is liberalism
>that's why every libtard redittor just loves communism and never mention holomodr etc
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.20540131]

>>20540097
>Whether they've actually worked is another question
The very fact that Monarchy has existed for thousands of years proves this. Monarchy is the natural state of government. But elective monarchy(in the bounds of a royal house) is stronger than inherited monarchy.

[Anonymous No.20540217]

>>20540075
These people don't want whatever retarded medieval revivalism you're fantasising about though, anon. They want to be like all the other European monarchies, all of which are liberal democracies.
His Royal Majesty Karl von Hapsburg is a liberal democrat, a campaigner for European integration, and an active participant in the sorts global organisations you would consider to be part of this liberal octopus.

[Anonymous No.20540221]

>>20540217
Monarchysisters...

[Anonymous No.20540284]

>>20540217
All European monarchs today are trained to be figure heads. A Prince must be trained to be a monarch from birth, elected and compelled to sit the throne. But of course, he doesn't have to be rightful, just righteous. And the royal participation in globohomo is only out of necessity and an attempt to grasp for relevance in constitutional monarchies.

[Anonymous No.20540311]

>>20537564
proof?

[Anonymous No.20540328]

>>20538727
>I just think we flew too close to the sun with the enlightenment. Something went very, very wrong in the process.

blaming the enlightenment is a midwit´s excuse

https://carlsbad1819.wordpress.com/2021/10/03/why-post-liberalism-failed/

[Anonymous No.20540346]

>>20537270
Us Monarchists don't care about "forms of government", we simply believe in the divine rights of the warrior caste in favor of the petit bourgeois.

[Anonymous No.20540362]

monarchy doesn´t work if you attached an ideology to this form of government, why the king existed? because he believed in himself, not because of silly ideologies, so groups of people like the NRx are just circlejerking about how awesome it would be to have a king without putting the effort which is just larping

do you want to be a king? ok if that´s your thing....

do you want to act and feel like a rebellious kid because you prefer X over Y? you´re just a larper

[Anonymous No.20540377]

>>20540362
>why the king existed
The Will of God

[Anonymous No.20540392]

>>20540377
tradlarpers should get the rope

[Anonymous No.20540395]

>>20540284
Monarchs were participating in globohomo before anyone else. It was the nature of the monarchist system, with its constant intermarriages, that Europe's royal houses formed a continent-spanning elite that all participated in the same culture; one that was generally different from that of their subjects.
In his support for European integration, Karl Hapsburg is not only following the trends of modern liberalism; but is following in the traditions of his royal lineage; which spent several centuries trying to unite Europe (and other parts of the world) beneath their sceptre.

[Anonymous No.20540396]

>>20540328
tl;dr

>not TRUE liberalism!!!!
Yawn.

[Anonymous No.20540406]

>>20540392
Why do you type in lower case like an effeminate passive-aggressive fag?

[Anonymous No.20540408]

>>20537270
>lately, I've been encountering many "monarchists". is this some kind of larp or do people really think it's a great set up?
Well if you're talking about the internet, then the sad truth is that the monarchists are LAPRers who think we can somehow bring back absolute rule and feudalism.

However, in real life there are plenty of not LARPing monarchists who recognize that a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy is the greatest form of government we have.

[Anonymous No.20540421]

>>20540392
It is only through the grace and will of God that a dynasty continues, through their piety and righteousness in enacting God's law upon his subjects and in acting in God's plan upon the Earth and spreading His Word. It is a fallacy to say that the Monarch is sovereign in monarchy when in fact, God is sovereign, as He enacts His will upon the monarchs, causing strife and bringing prosperity as He pleases. He causes kings to rise and fall.

[Anonymous No.20540422]

>>20540406
>caring about lower or upper case in a third rate weeb forum

i can assume you´re effeminate one, whining like a little bitch

[Anonymous No.20540424]

>>20540392
Ropes of cum, actually

[Anonymous No.20540428]

>>20540408
>However, in real life there are plenty of not LARPing monarchists who recognize that a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy is the greatest form of government we have.
aka "I'm actually a neoliberal bourgeois pretending to be a transgressive right winger."

[Anonymous No.20540431]

>>20540428
Touch grass

[Anonymous No.20540441]

>>20540421
ad-hoc argument that make the kings legitimize their rule in a religious world

that´s how you got bronze age kingdoms, they claim themselves to be the high priest of their respective gods

christianity isn´t as special as you want to claim it is

[Anonymous No.20540457]

>>20540408
>constitutional or parliamentary monarchy is the greatest form of government we have.
It is, in fact, the worst. I find oligarchies to be easily subverted and bended. The largest empire ever is the British Empire(a parliamentary oligarchy), that lost all it's empire due to subversion and pressure. And when that happens, you don't know who to blame.

[Anonymous No.20540489]

>>20540441
What a reductive and bugman thing to say. The kings of old claimed to be gods and were vanquished by God, establishing the notion of a royal viceroy to God through David and Solomon. And Christianity is indeed special in its delusions and innovations.

[Anonymous No.20540497]

>>20540457
>I find oligarchies to be easily subverted and bended.
I'm not sure I would call the British empire an Oligarchy per se. Certainly not in the 1800's where commoners were able to achieve high military and political office.
>that lost all it's empire due to subversion and pressure
I would say that it lost it's empire due to total exhaustion from two successive World Wars.

[Anonymous No.20540526]

>>20540497
>I would say that it lost it's empire due to total exhaustion from two successive World Wars.
The Russian suffered more from the Second World War than the British but expanded their empire anyway. And even France was more unwilling to lose it's empire. I believe whig liberalism was ultimately incompatible with explicit imperialism. Nonetheless, the British were much more graceful in the colonization of my country(for example) than other more centralized european powers were.

[Anonymous No.20540542]

>>20540217
these people are imposters in my opinion; any noble family who does't resemble the phenotype of centuries of their ancestors is just a mongrel and they can be expected not to be able to grasp the situation happening around themselves.

but then, all of these noble households were barbarian animals in the first place.

[Anonymous No.20540554]

>>20540075
>When you mock your monarch, limit his powers or oust him from his rightful place, you are cucking your entire people out and opening your people to be violated by the tentacles of the global liberal octopus.

what, like the English in the 11th century?

[Anonymous No.20540563]

>>20540131
The fact of its long existence proves it's an effective way for an elite ruling class to maintain power, but it doesn't prove it works well for the average person living under monarchic rule.

[Anonymous No.20540565]

>>20540497
>I'm not sure I would call the British empire an Oligarchy per se. Certainly not in the 1800's
This is a really underrated point to be honest: the monarch of england had not held real power for a long time prior even to this,

The story of George III, for example, is a story of an all powerful king with soldiers and guard at his beck and call who was nonetheless held prisoner in his own house by doctors and tortured to death because he dared to take an interest in the economic affairs of the time.

Sadly few people realize or care what this represented.

that said,
>>20540542
>barbarian animals
this is also true. roma invicta.

[Anonymous No.20540571]

>>20540328
This article is the definition of midwit

[Anonymous No.20540573]

>>20540489
you can be all hippy with your religious delusions, you don´t have the monopoly on truth whatever that entails

[Anonymous No.20540581]

>>20540571
>i believe in this meme, now that this meme has been discredited, i feel resentful about the fact

ok

[Anonymous No.20540582]

>>20540431
“Touch grass” is the most retarded meme popularized by zoomers. As if anyone who actually does “touch grass” even knows what that meme is.

[Anonymous No.20540584]

>>20540554
I don't know who you're referring to in that century, but yes, I despise what was done to John, Henry III and Richard II, though they weren't very good kings. Magna Carta was a mistake, so was the Glorious Revolution and the English Civil War. Though pic related (and his daughters) fucked things up too.

[Anonymous No.20540590]

>>20540573
God will prove His own existence and His prophet's piety in time.

[Anonymous No.20540592]

>>20540584
11th century is the 1000s, silly. England bent over and took it hard from the Danes and Normans that century.

[dago No.20540597]

There is only Evola

[Anonymous No.20540598]

>>20540590

[Anonymous No.20540600]

>>20540581
That article didn’t “discredit” shit. He just cherrypicked quotes and insulted easy targets like post liberals.

[Anonymous No.20540604]

>>20540600
read again bucko!

[Anonymous No.20540608]

>>20540604
>n-no you just DIDN’T GET IT!
The eternal cope of the pseud.

[Anonymous No.20540617]

>>20540592
Norman rule over England was destiny, it is why the English language is so beautiful and the Danes were beat back eventually, though they had more cultural connection to the Angles than Normans.

[Anonymous No.20540618]

>>20540608
refute carlsbad´s argument then

[Anonymous No.20540627]

>>20540598
The rise of popular atheism is a sign of the end of the world.

[Anonymous No.20540633]

>>20540618
I don’t have to take every random e blogger seriously enough to write a detailed critique.

[Anonymous No.20540634]

>>20540592
>>20540617
protip: there has never been an english monarch.

[dago No.20540638]

>>20540617
Absolutely based

[Anonymous No.20540645]

>>20539498
>beat the retardation out of the populace
Perhaps we should start with you, Mr. “Enamored With.”

[Anonymous No.20540652]

>>20540634
Most monarchic nations are ruled by foreigners. Famously, the ruling class of India had white skin(IE), while their subjects had dark skin(Dravidian)

[Anonymous No.20540660]

>>20540652
The Ottoman Empire was so soulless

[Anonymous No.20540735]

>>20540652
hm yes, the white welsh overlords triumphing over the brown faced anglo saxons really springs to mind when considering the tudor age.

[Anonymous No.20540758]

>>20540735
Lol at sheepfuckers thinking they are aren't human trash like niggers.

[Anonymous No.20540787]

>>20540758
Lol literally destroyed the catholics and seeded englishmen into the americas and founded a new religion.

HEN RY TUDOR best king ever, pass the fucking sheep son

[Anonymous No.20540890]

>>20538727
Republicanism and liberalism are are. It new ideologies, and while nationalism is Europe did stem from the formation of democracies, it's hardly an offshoot. In fact Fascism and Communism are more do an offshoot of despotism and a communal society respectively. None of these are really new ideas, theyve been around, they've failed, and they've come back.
Society is circular and no single system really works forever. Monarchism eventually leads to a lack of stability to unrest, democracy through infighting, and communal societies from out groups. This is the way the world works, it's not new and it's not the fault of the systems but rather people.
You can have a perfect dictatorship with one perfect man, but a perfect democracy requires a country of perfect men. Since perfect men don't exist, tland enlightened despots were the exception rather than the rule, there needs to be some middle ground.

[Anonymous No.20540897]

>>20540890
Hell communism and fascism we're reactionary to nationalism much more than to liberalism. The weaknesses of liberalism, that being how easy it is for mob control to take over, is what enabled those authoritarian states.

[Anonymous No.20541028]

>>20537633
He was a social outcast at Brown, attending at 16 year old.
Understand this fact, understand the stereotypical Brown student in the 80s/90s as opposed to Curtis, and you may understand his unrelenting rage toward the Establishment and desire to replace it with a Nerd King, the type of rage that compels you to type one million words for free while married with children.

[Anonymous No.20541339]

>>20541028
that's a long winded way to say
'I can't answer his arguments at all'

[Anonymous No.20543054]

>>20537270
>any books in defense of monarchism to help me understand what's so great about it?
Leviathan by Hobbes

[Anonymous No.20543421]

>>20537351
Many of these monarchists are young people in the colonies. The powers that be continue to distance themselves from their only history, with the results of which expressed frankly in the youth of these colonies. Furthering the distance from their history with no provision for the future makes it mighty hard to sustain an unconscious nationalism or pride. Unironically weak times create weak men meme but the weak men openly know and don’t give a fuck.
Monarchism in the colonies will only increase, because what else has places like Australia got to look to symbolically, to find pride in? A funny looking building in a harbour? Kangaroos?
They are a people of no history without monarchism. A people with no direction but the schemes and plots of republicans.

[Anonymous No.20543746]

>>20537658
He is either an autist who can't see past his dumb ideology or he is just willfully lying about this stuff. Blaming the WASPS is essentially just the white privilege theory repackaged for right wing whites who rightfully distrust the Anglo.

[Anonymous No.20543796]

>>20537270
kings two bodies
dantes de monarchia
hunderwassers political interviews

[Anonymous No.20543798]

>>20537386
>>20539778
seethe more trannycel

[Anonymous No.20543802]

Most monarchists think theyre gonna be the monarchs lol. They wont

[Anonymous No.20543875]

>>20537270
what's her name?

[Anonymous No.20543879]

>>20537270
wow, she's just perfect

[Anonymous No.20543923]

>>20537270

Evola makes quite a convincing case for monarchy, and I suspect that his renewed popularity over the past decade is at least partly responsible. He's very widely read in Fascist and Traditionalist circles. It has absolutely nothing to do with modern day monarchs, who are either figureheads for the Western oligarchy, or debauched Third World autocrats.

[Anonymous No.20544008]

>>20537270
>what's so great about it
It doesn't have to be great for you, it's just God's way and it's unavoidable. Human ideologies are just futile intents to beat monarchism. Spoiler: they will never beat it.

[Anonymous No.20544017]

>>20537270
Are they not just people that are too afraid to look into fascism because it's so thoroughly demonized? It just seems like they're all trying to shy away from the scary F word by way of looking for another system that already exists without the same political baggage

[Anonymous No.20544027]

>>20537284
Leviathan isn't a defense of monarchy

[Anonymous No.20544033]

>>20537270
Monarchism is just what happens in the absence of any politics. It's the natural way. Even today, human ideologies ike demicracy, republicanism, liberalism and socialism can't beat monarchism. They only hide the monarch under a thick layer of an aristocratical political class.

Nobody can escape from Monarchism. Monarchism is life itself. You can kill a king, but you'll never kill the monarch. If you like it or not it's simply irrelevant. It's a natural phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.20544037]

>>20544033
This is why the fall of western "civilization" is a good thing. Let the Euro liberal politics die. A new glorious Monarchy will emerge from it. I hope I live to see it.

[Anonymous No.20544170]

liberty or equality - erik von kuehnelt-leddihn

[Anonymous No.20544200]

>>20540328
Thanks for sharing. I thoroughly enjoyed the article since it forced me to carefully rethink about what truly defines the current political order. Because he's right. "Liberal", whether we're referring to the "theory" taken to its absurdist ends (do whatever you like) or its traditional "spirit" (virtuous republicanism), doesn't capture what's going on. On one hand, you the embrace of libidinal, do whatever you like culture. On the other hand, you have totalitarian measures to ensure the collective good when it comes to COVID, BLM, etc. I've been thinking about it for a while. I genuinely do not understand what the endgame of this system is except to maintain power for its own sake, even if today's elites are replaced by tomorrow's in a game of musical chairs.

So, what is the current political order? What kind of post-liberalism is it? Why does it try to inherit the legacy of liberalism, even if it is illiberal? And how can the dissident right transcend it, or at least come up with novel critiques that don't end up looking like a delusional blend of past ideologies?

All good questions. If this Carlsbad guy has an answer, let me know.

[Anonymous No.20544225]

>>20538738
Compare this to the 2 word wars combined , created by ''''''''''''''''''''enlightened'''''''''''''' humanists

[Anonymous No.20544274]

>>20544200
>genuinely do not understand what the endgame of this system is
To make as much money as possible while ensuring the little people are divided and ready to spend more money
There's obviously no goal or even forethought, it's just people with lots of capital becoming politicians because then they can get more capital from lobbyists, fundraisers, etc. while they leave their assets to be run by someone else and force policy that allows those assets to make more money
Any apparent concerted effort toward certain ideals or values is just lipservice that follows market trends - there's no money to be made in traditionalism and there's far more money to be made by pandering to every demographic at once and embracing every miniscule vocal group while forcing everyone to embrace those ensures a homogenized consumer culture that will buy whatever branded dogshit is being peddled at the time and keep the money flowing
Reactionary conservatism is obviously opposed to such changes, so a different class of grifter has latched onto that market by way of deliberate pretentions of being opposed to the nascent monoculture of enforced diversity and tolerance, though even those efforts fail when the reactionary group demands more opposition that would hurt profits by way of alienating too many consumers, see Black Rifle Coffee
It's all just cost-benefits analysis taken to extremes and no one actually has any principles once you progress past small business and local politics

[Anonymous No.20544291]

>>20544274
so it's liberalism but materialistic and anti-humanist? then why are we seeing the return of collectivist trends like BLM? we could have doubled down on third world exploitation through "the white man's burden" if we wanted to. the culture industry could have reinforced that in perpetuity, too. I think it's more confusing than "making as much money as possible while keeping people divided", people could have been divided in alternative ways that reinforced the in-group towards some other distant out-group.

[Anonymous No.20544314]

>>20544200
>I genuinely do not understand what the endgame of this system is
there is no endgame. capitalism is just an emergent phenomenon from humans with sufficiently advanced technology.

[Anonymous No.20544322]

I think the problem with online monarchism tradcath larpers is that they'll always assume that their monarch would automatically be the defender of their own traditional values. Maybe they could choose such traditional monarch but after that it's just genetic lottery. There's no quarantee that the next in line wouldn't be using his powers to push subversive wokeism.

[Anonymous No.20544329]

>>20537351
Spbp

[Anonymous No.20544330]

>>20544291
>then why are we seeing the return of collectivist trends like BLM
Money, it's not even collectivist, it's just a shiny trinket to make people think they're actually bringing some meaning into their empty lives while allowing more venues for capital to be made - all the blm branded merch, donations, contracts for repairs after riots, etc
>people could have been divided in alternative ways that reinforced the in-group towards some other distant out-group.
If we reinforce the ingroup, they might see that the problems lie with the upper classes that are constantly exploiting them, while focusing on a foreign outgroup as enemy is only sustainable for a relatively short period of time (war on terror is a great example) due to waning public interest and obstructs possible markets that could grow in those nations while also potentially causing bigger problems when that outgroup, connected by the global hegemony, eventually seeks restitution
The reason that we don't vilify foreigners despite their inherent differences and strangeness is because they are also an untapped market and integrating them into the global order will produce more capital when they are inevitably forced into outsourced labor to make ends meet (see Mexico, india)

[Anonymous No.20544355]

>>20544330
>If we reinforce the ingroup, they might see that the problems lie with the upper classes that are constantly exploiting them, while focusing on a foreign outgroup as enemy is only sustainable for a relatively short period of time (war on terror is a great example) due to waning public interest and obstructs possible markets that could grow in those nations while also potentially causing bigger problems when that outgroup, connected by the global hegemony, eventually seeks restitution
it's just kicking the can down the road. eventually, the BLM movement will have exhausted all its possibilities, and the sociopolitical sphere will evolve. especially when there's no more white people to extract reparations from. then what? blacks vs. Latinos? new narrative engineering? I don't see how they'll be able to blame Latinos for anything in America's past, considering most arrived post slavery, post Jim Crow, etc., and were also victims of alleged white supremacy.

the musical chairs of internal conflict to distract against class contradictions can't go on forever. they'll eventually run out of meaningful internal divisions that aren't economic. even if people are mind-numbingly stupid and don't realize the ruse before then, they'll be forced to look at the last distinction left in society: haves vs. have-nots. and the have-nots will outnumber the haves in droves.

[Anonymous No.20544362]

>>20544291
Also it's not "liberalism" because that implies anyone actually has a choice in anything that could affect change and that self determination isn't inherently dangerous to the systems at play
Unless you mean the new definition of liberalism as defined by socially conservative ideologues that are willing pawns of the divisive system, then sure, everything trends that way because a fully open market means more avenues for money and any kind of scattershot attempt to make capital will find fertile ground somewhere

[Anonymous No.20544370]

>>20544362
>it's not "liberalism"
who do you think created the economic Frankenstein creature that has taken a life of its own?

[Anonymous No.20544436]

>>20544355
>it's just kicking the can down the road.
That's the idea, yeah, BLM might have started with actual intentions at change but it was co-opted to make money
>especially when there's no more white people to extract reparations from. then what? blacks vs. Latinos? new narrative engineering?
You're missing the point, it's not about any of that, the idea of racial justice in the movement is ancillary to the goal of making money. At one point it was maybe about that, but grifters found that it can be capitalized for profit; the fact that it is divisive politically in itself is just a bonus
Pretty much any issue like gay marriage rights, abortion (which is being leveraged in this way currently), lgbtq stuff - those as politically motivating factors are the dividers that are applied for distraction from actual policy that we never get to see, while inevitably those issues always slide towards "acceptance" to open up more avenues for marketing. Organizations that attach themselves to those are capital creation engines, whether by design or by slow corruption/infiltration and subversion of the originators
>the musical chairs of internal conflict to distract against class contradictions can't go on forever. they'll eventually run out of meaningful internal divisions that aren't economic.
They won't, they literally cannot at this point with how divided people are from even each other on a community level
Individualism taken to the logical end point ensures that there are so many distinguishing factors between people that it's simple to just grab on to one or another that most have a strong opinion on(very easy now when social media exists to identify and sell that information on a personal basis) and push it through the media as the next issue du jour that people will inevitably attach themselves to one side or the other of because they lack meaning and actually knowledge to see through the blinders
>even if people are mind-numbingly stupid and don't realize the ruse before then, they'll be forced to look at the last distinction left in society: haves vs. have-nots
This is why Occupy failed spectacularly and why QAnon was only permitted for so long by conservatives, once you have a movement that takes aim at the Haves that isn't easily able to be subverted for capital gain or used as a distraction divider it has to be stopped
>>20544370
You're using their definition as I stated in the second part there. Classical liberalism as in true personal freedom and individual determination, it is assuredly not. It's starbucks "liberalism" that wants everyone to move towards embracing everything without compunction because if you have scruples you won't consume everything and that hurts profits

[Anonymous No.20544453]

>>20544370
Further, the Haves created it with neo-liberal economic theory that was pushed by purported social conservatives like Reagan and Thatcher and it was further focus tested into the machine it is now over the last four decades
Outsourcing and labor importation are the most apparent results of this and embracing both and marketing to the nations that the labor goes to and comes from makes more money

[Anonymous No.20544471]

>>20544436
>You're using their definition as I stated in the second part there. Classical liberalism as in true personal freedom and individual determination, it is assuredly not. It's starbucks "liberalism" that wants everyone to move towards embracing everything without compunction because if you have scruples you won't consume everything and that hurts profits
you're missing the point because you're placing too much emphasis on explaining what happened and the various intermediate-level mechanisms in which these social dynamics unfolded. unfortunately, you're not attentive enough to 1) what could have happened with different choices by leadership; 2) what may happen, given current trends and contradictions; and 3) what are the underlying "oughts" in play, for all political players involved.

I'm trying to identify what the philosophical foundation of the political order "is". and if you believe it's unchecked capitalism, which I largely agree with at least on a surface level analysis, then we have to figure out how did this monstrosity spiral out of control to the point where we no longer try hold onto the reins and steer our own destinies. wasn't autonomy the point of modernity all along? this is why the dissident right has an impulse to genealogy, as Carlsbad pointed out. but maybe the problem is just we haven't looked carefully enough at what our society truly is right now, a particular mixture of liberal and illiberal commitments (like all societies that are capable of functioning).

what is progressive liberalism? it's just classical liberalism with the focus on prosperity and individual liberty intact (and the illiberal tendency to protect both at all costs) but without the exhortation towards virtue. classical liberals thought virtue were necessary to keep the system going. now that the Frankenstein monster of capital has become self-sustaining and successful beyond Adam Smith's wildest dreams, you don't need virtue to sustain the modern republic, since technology has disposed of the need for virtue. and the nihilistic core of liberalism cannot provide an argument stronger than subjective aesthetic preference—it's just an (outdated) opinion.

there really is no direction anymore besides a Taoist-like current, dissolving the last remaining traditional bonds and unleashing chaotic and ungrounded libidinal forces towards the path of least resistance. and that's the scary part.

[Anonymous No.20544610]

>>20544471
>what could have happened with different choices by leadership
What ifs that add nothing but fuel for speculative fiction and despair
>what may happen, given current trends and contradictions
Judging by current events and the past few decades the same things that are happening now just more streamlined, but this is worth examining
I'd imagine trends continue towards a society that thinks it is in a state of anarchic freedom while being limited in truth by self imposed values that a parasitic oligarchic ruling class inculcates within those cattle
>what are the underlying "oughts" in play, for all political players involved.
That's largely subjective and seems like more wishful thinking in the face of a monolithic hegemony that resists unprofitable change and only benefits those that see their own set of "oughts" in terms of maximizing profit
>I'm trying to identify what the philosophical foundation of the political order "is".
Yeah, I dont have strong theories on that point, but unchecked greed from industrialization and enlightenment values of equality allowing true sociopaths to rise above everyone else and entrench themselves in positions of power are my guess
Technology and distraction are the main tools that keep those sorts in power and flooding the market with toys to prevent any sort of a drive from flourishing in individuals towards actualization and change
I feel that society is at this point is so fractured and schizophrenic that any sort of objective look at things isn't even possible, but I'm pessimistic on the whole
>what is progressive liberalism
I'd argue that it's a desire for complete social equality and that's it, individual freedom and liberty are nice, but interfere with pure equality so there's also a desire for governmental oversight to ensure fair play - economics isn't even a consideration outside of trends towards bastardized social programs to benefit the ideal of equality
>there really is no direction anymore besides a Taoist-like current, dissolving the last remaining traditional bonds and unleashing chaotic and ungrounded libidinal forces towards the path of least resistance. and that's the scary part.
Agree completely, everything is increasingly geared towards instant gratification and easy money

[Anonymous No.20544620]

>>20540592
The Norman Invasion is what made the Anglo man great.
Change my mind.

[Anonymous No.20544622]

>>20544610
>easy money
On the obverse here, the famed protestant work ethic and popularized Chriatian values also went a long way to instilling a pliant personality within the sort of obsessively working class that keeps the shitshow running in western nations

[Anonymous No.20544657]

>>20544610
>What ifs that add nothing but fuel for speculative fiction and despair
fear not, my fellow philosopher-historian. we can handle it. it helps us get to the root of the issue.
>I'd argue that it's a desire for complete social equality and that's it
social equality as a drive (or equity or whatever) doesn't make sense to me. it seems like a tertiary value. most of it seems to go away with all basic needs are met, with some disposable income and time to spare. even if I were a lazy resentful peasant who resented people who were wealthier than me, could that resentment be placated without equality? this is what I think the drive behind the welfare state and UBI is. taken to an extreme, if you gave him two Lambos and a mansion, I think he would be preoccupied too much with his belongings to care that the highest echelons of society have private garages with thousands of luxury cars, etc. perhaps a case can be made that, eventually, this will not be enough for the peasant, but then it becomes a game of whether the economy can grow fast enough to prevent a libidinal revolt. and maybe that can happen indefinitely, especially if we're able to become a galactic civilization. idk.

if I can offer three preliminary principles for describing postliberal progressivism, liberalism, it's this: 1) it's always "pro-machine" (administrative-managerial-technocratic state); it's always pro-desire (it can't be wrong); and it's always anti-virtue (unnecessary, judgmental, fascistic). That seems to explain everything about clown world except for the emotional drive for identity politics. I can understand how identity politics is an effective tool, at least for now, to prop up the system in favor the elite. But I can't understand what people see in them if they're supposedly only progressive and, at least not consciously, thinking about gibs like greedy goblins. Which means that identity politics is taking advantage of some residual "anti-progressive" spirit within us.

[Anonymous No.20544674]

>>20544657
>>>20544610
>>What ifs that add nothing but fuel for speculative fiction and despair
>fear not, my fellow philosopher-historian. we can handle it. it helps us get to the root of the issue.
>>I'd argue that it's a desire for complete social equality and that's it
>social equality as a drive (or equity or whatever) doesn't make sense to me. it seems like a tertiary value. most of it seems to go away with all basic needs are met, with some disposable income and time to spare. even if I were a lazy resentful peasant who resented people who were wealthier than me, could that resentment be placated without equality? this is what I think the drive behind the welfare state and UBI is. taken to an extreme, if you gave him two Lambos and a mansion, I think he would be preoccupied too much with his belongings to care that the highest echelons of society have private garages with thousands of luxury cars, etc. perhaps a case can be made that, eventually, this will not be enough for the peasant, but then it becomes a game of whether the economy can grow fast enough to prevent a libidinal revolt. and maybe that can happen indefinitely, especially if we're able to become a galactic civilization. idk.
>if I can offer three preliminary principles for describing postliberal progressivism, liberalism, it's this: 1) it's always "pro-machine" (administrative-managerial-technocratic state); 2) it's always pro-desire (it can't be wrong); and 3) it's always anti-virtue (unnecessary, judgmental, fascistic). It may even be in that order from least to most importance, see how nobody was willing to advocate for abstinence or to campaign against obesity to prevent COVID. That seems to explain everything about clown world except for the emotional drive for identity politics.

I can understand how identity politics is an effective tool, at least for now, to prop up the system in favor the elite. But I can't understand what people see in them if they're supposedly only progressive and, at least not consciously, thinking about gibs like greedy goblins. Which means that identity politics is taking advantage of some residual "anti-progressive" spirit within us. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.20544704]

>>>20544610
>What ifs that add nothing but fuel for speculative fiction and despair
fear not, my fellow philosopher-historian. we can handle it. it helps us get to the root of the issue.
>I'd argue that it's a desire for complete social equality and that's it
social equality as a drive (or equity or whatever) doesn't make much sense to me. it seems like a tertiary value that has to be dissected to get to the root of the matter. most of it seems to go away with all basic needs are met, with some disposable income and time to spare. even if I were a lazy resentful peasant who resented people who were wealthier than me, could that resentment be placated without equality? this is what I think the drive behind the welfare state and UBI is. taken to an extreme, if you gave him two Lambos and a mansion, I think he would be preoccupied too much with his belongings to care that the highest echelons of society have private garages with thousands of luxury cars, etc. perhaps a case can be made that, eventually, this will not be enough for the peasant, but then it becomes a game of whether the economy can grow fast enough to prevent a libidinal revolt. and maybe that can happen indefinitely, especially if we're able to become a galactic civilization. idk.

if I can offer three preliminary principles for describing the essence of progressive liberalism, it's this: 1) it's always "pro-machine" (administrative-managerial-technocratic state); 2) it's always pro-desire (it can't be wrong); and 3) it's always anti-virtue (unnecessary, judgmental, fascistic). It may even be in that order from least to most importance, see how nobody was willing to advocate for abstinence or to campaign against obesity to prevent COVID. That seems to explain everything about clown world except for the emotional drive for identity politics.

I can understand how identity politics is an effective tool, at least for now, to prop up the system in favor the elite. But I can't understand what people see in them if they're supposedly only progressive and, at least not consciously, thinking about gibs like greedy goblins. Which means that, in some way, identity politics is taking advantage of some residual "anti-progressive" spirit within us. I know Schmitt has a clear answer for this, but I'd like to go deeper into the essence than Schmitt's anti-prescriptive analysis is willing to go. Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.20544712]

>>20544704
if they're not consciously thinking about gibs like greedy goblins*

[Anonymous No.20544762]

A King is nothing more than a dictator with a crown. You are extremely retarded if you are dazzled by pomp and ceremony into thinking otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20544840]

>>20540328
>The new order based on non-white, non-male and sodomite radicalism against the historical European nations and their mores can be acknowledged unabashedly for what it is without dreaming of some revival of a liberal-labor consensus by organizing Uber Eats drivers, taxing Google, nationalizing British Rail again, “industrial policy” (which is nothing more than the inverse of the Chamber of Commerce Republican and his own supply-side economism), or whatever else the American Affairs post-Trump populist crowd may be coming out with.

lol

[Anonymous No.20544862]

>>20544762
A dictator crowned by God, heathen.

[Anonymous No.20544872]

>>20544704
>social equality as a drive (or equity or whatever) doesn't make much sense to me.
I'd imagine for most people, being individuals that have been divided from a true consensus on matters like that, it varies wildly. Some want equality because they want a better percieved station in life, some want a crusade or purpose, some want to feel better about themselves by helping others, some want to feel better by appearing to help others, etc. The goal is so vague as to apply to a broad amount of people because, while movements like that seem monolithic, the humans that comprise them aren't
>even if I were a lazy resentful peasant who resented people who were wealthier than me, could that resentment be placated without equality
It really depends on how much one buys into the ideology I'd suppose, some would, some wouldn't, it's just a matter of how much they're willing to deceive themselves and go against their own principles when faced with how their station upsets their idea of equity
It's like the rich claiming to uphold the same ideals that unionists blue collar workers have in that they likely rationalize it by way of saying their wealth helps the little guy, or that they had to join the system to change it, etc
>perhaps a case can be made that, eventually, this will not be enough for the peasant
On an individual level, the hedonic treadmill is a very real thing and people frequently get complacent and comfortable only for a time before the Schopenhauerian type striving sets back in and they crave more - especially exacerbated by our disposable instantly-gratifying way of life
On the macro societal level, everyone being provided for to the extent that they are comfy and blissful is unsustainable, obviously, but the bigger problem I see is that no one really wants to be "equal" enough to keep everything from collapsing and no one will relinquish established rights or dispensation to meet that end - further there's the inherent issue of where the line that determines average is drawn
I feel that the distraction we're provided by constant manufactured conflict and technology is going to be the deciding factor here, not so much material possessions, though, like some of the people I work with are fine working 80 hours a week and living in a trailer so long as they can keep watching American Idol every night (anecdotal, but I imagine the situation is much the same across western society)
>1) it's always "pro-machine" (administrative-managerial-technocratic state); 2) it's always pro-desire (it can't be wrong); and 3) it's always anti-virtue (unnecessary, judgmental, fascistic
The pro machine part, I'd think is more a need to be told what to do in absence of internal goals or a higher power of some sort, pro-desire for sure, though if that follows the first logically in the frame of a parentless child wanting everything or if it is the liberal ideal of individual freedom, but it seems like it depends on the person
cont

[Anonymous No.20544911]

>>20544322
>I think the problem with online monarchism tradcath larpers is that they'll always assume that their monarch would automatically be the defender of their own traditional values. Maybe they could choose such traditional monarch but after that it's just genetic lottery. There's no quarantee that the next in line wouldn't be using his powers to push subversive wokeism.

'Sup.

[Anonymous No.20544917]

>>20540328
>Of course we don’t live in the bourgeois-liberal epoch.
we really do though
Bourgeois want to base the society on the commerce of goods and services, and guess what, it is exactly what we have had over the last 300 fucking centuries.
Commerce is intellectually barren, materially very fertile, but at the end of the day, it's a shit society, no matter.

The guy who wrote this dont understand that all the ''rule of law'' and ''separations of power'' were scams by the bourgeoisie to sell their crappy republics or neutered monarchies.
In other words, he take to the letter what the bourgeois said, and then he says rightly that whatever he fuck we have today is not what the bourgeois talked about. T Hat's right, and guess what, it's what you get from ''merchants''. merchants lie all the fucking time, especially before any sell. After the sell, the support is always super poor.

[Anonymous No.20544929]

>>20544872
It does seem to follow a sort of ordered program like you're thinking in that freedom to have or consume is subordinate to the order at nearly all times
>Which means that, in some way, identity politics is taking advantage of some residual "anti-progressive" spirit within us
It feels like that's the case for a lot of people, certainly, in that if you have to stoop to help another, it proves that you are above them. It again applies on an individual level because there are certainly people that have experienced racism and had their lives effected negatively by such and want to be considered equal to others, but of course, like the striving of the hedonic treadmill, where does that end? Would one be happy with pure equality or is it the human drive to impose hierarchies and order on an orderless world? To want to be above someone else as proof to oneself that they're superior or whatever?
It just felt like the whole identity politics issue is another one of those vague things that was able to be applied all over existing issues to both placate and divide as the situation demands

Great conversation by the way, this has been pretty enjoyable despite the feelings of hopelessness that these topics usually engender within me

[Anonymous No.20544932]

>>20544471
>I'm trying to identify what the philosophical foundation of the political order "is".

There is none. Or rather, all philosophical foundations were developed long after political orders came into existence. Humans are naturally hierarchical and our societies are based on following instructions from higher authority. All political orders are variations on that principle.

[Anonymous No.20544997]

>>20544932
>Or rather, all philosophical foundations were developed long after political orders came into existence.
Seeing how common after the fact rationalization happens on an individual level this is the most likely situation. Things are a way and then we seek to define their being that way through moralistic or scientific terms to make it appear that there was any forethought or planning done on our part

[Anonymous No.20545017]

>>20544872
>>20544932
>they want a better percieved station in life, some want a crusade or purpose, some want to feel better about themselves by helping others, some want to feel better by appearing to help other
Some thoughts. Some of your examples are libidinal. Otherwise are more on the side of virtue, e.g., a crusade. The most "virtuous" impulses that our society is willing to entertain is the impulse to equalize everything. However, virtue by definition is anti-egalitarian. It demarcates between better and worse. This is an unstable moral tension. A society that tries to smooth out moral concerns in general will also have to smooth out the moral concern for itself. You can't care "too much", lest you become a Marxist-Leninist. This is also why I think Marxist-Leninists and other class-first leftists are increasingly being seen as "reactionary" from the perspective of the mainstream left. Virtue is seen as a right-wing drive, regardless if the ends are similar or the same.
>On the macro societal level, everyone being provided for to the extent that they are comfy and blissful is unsustainable, obviously, but the bigger problem I see is that no one really wants to be "equal" enough to keep everything from collapsing and no one will relinquish established rights or dispensation to meet that end
Agree on all ends. Talks about "rights" are so meaningless without the big picture of what we ought to strive for as a society, how we earned our rights, and what we need to do to sustain them (e.g. corresponding duties). Hell, America is founded on language like "rights endowed to us by our creator", yet we neither believe in the religious (God) nor the secular (Founding Fathers, WASP civic culture) interpretations of this anymore. It's a axiological void.
>The pro machine part, I'd think is more a need to be told what to do in absence of internal goals or a higher power of some sort
Before we psychoanalyze the regime, there's one element I forgot to mention. Peace and prosperity. The mechanistic Leviathan provides that in spades, which was the whole point of the original liberal venture. In other words, it's working as intended, to operate in lieu of humans to accomplish a certain goal for all humanity. The only problem is technical—which repairs do we make? Do we focus on creating wealth or redistributing it? For progressive liberals, it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the right time. Otherwise, the progressives, the ruling technocrats, and the Democratic Party are fundamentally in agreement.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.20545024]

>>20540563
what you call work well is just ''life of the wageslave under the liberal bourgeois'', so yeah it's bound to fail. And caring about the peasants is inherently liberal.

[Anonymous No.20545051]

>>20544929
>It feels like that's the case for a lot of people, certainly, in that if you have to stoop to help another, it proves that you are above them. It again applies on an individual level because there are certainly people that have experienced racism and had their lives effected negatively by such and want to be considered equal to others, but of course, like the striving of the hedonic treadmill, where does that end?
The more that I think about it, the more that it makes sense that the Schmittian analysis shines through here. "White" people are ceding power, partly out of an attempt to retain control, partly out of a lack of faith their own ability to lead, and the minority coalition is seizing the opportunity. There is certainly a shift in hierarchy happening, motivated by revanchist tendencies, a belief in the "right side" of history, and especially loyalty to a community that cannot be said to be grounded in libidinal forces alone (e.g. LGBT, feminism, etc.). Race, especially in America, is a proxy for nation, and in lieu of our failure to create "one" nation, white people have given up the mantle, which will be eventually taken over by the strongest.

My greatest critique of identity politics is that the dividing lines are so arbitrary and counterproductive, at the end of the day. In some ways, race has an underlying "essence", but we have freedom to draw the lines wherever we please, especially from the top-down perspective. We make our own social constructs, and then society will mold itself to fit into the new boundaries. Whatever we've been doing makes no sense. Previously, the goal was to make the whole world "white", starting with Benjamin Franklin's "white" Anglo-Saxons and upper Germans, before extending to broader Europe and even some Hispanic and Asian elements (eventually black people, probably). Then, in the 1960s, all that was reversed. Now whiteness is the worst possible thing, and we want to remove all vestiges of it from the United States, regardless of its innate virtue. But what to replace it with? I hope "the machine" can handle the additional bloat, especially if we insist on replacing the people with the blueprints.
>Would one be happy with pure equality or is it the human drive to impose hierarchies and order on an orderless world?
Lastly, I want to push back against this sentiment. Our world IS ordered by natural law. We impose additional order for our own benefit. That's what civilization and technological progress is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm detecting a strand of "sovereign individual" anarchism here that insists that all hierarchies are bad and that we ought to be able to opt out of them. That yearning for freedom is a liberal sentiment in itself, don't you think?

And thanks for the conversation, too. I appreciate talking with somebody who can help me get to the root of the problem. I'll be around all day.

[Anonymous No.20545054]

>>20537270
Monarchists are retarded. No reason to learn about and debate someone with down syndrome

[Anonymous No.20545061]

Reminder that Voltaire was a bourgeois who destroyed France forever. To this day, all the french atheists still praise him.

[Anonymous No.20545109]

>>20539025
Yeah, if at all, globalism is a byproduct of imperialism's natural progression of expanding your influence as much as possible, combined with the modern technology that allows the worldwide spread of influences.

[Anonymous No.20545132]

>>20537270
Most royals are woke, anyone who thinks monarchy would be a return of tradition is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.20545355]

>>20545017
I feel like the society itself doesn't tolerate virtue, especially if it has the potential to disrupt, but I'd say more people than not would consider themselves "virtuous" and don't think about things to the extent that we would as far as how it's irreconcilable with egalitarianism. It's definitely something everyone needs to explore on their own, if only by way of reading Plato, I'm not sure. I'm not certain most anyone even could define virtue to any sufficient lengths and just would rely on "if you know you know" type justification.
Marx and Lenin falling out of vogue I feel has more to do with the same internet aided cancel culture type mentality that plague every historical figure as much as their ideas being either outdated or superceded by newer shiner ones that are easier to digest. Lenin in particular seems increasingly outmoded and relegated to edgy teen paraphernalia like Che Guevara. Some of my super liberal friends still like Marx as more a figurehead idealized figure I suppose, but his thought is definitely more persistently influential than Lenin or Bolshevism these days.
The US is a void, in many regards, I'd certainly agree. It feels like everything is trying to be the equal of what was conceived and developed elsewhere; culture, ideology, mythology, etc. all seem like childlike attempts at pretending to be the same as the adults. Nothing that supposedly defines us seems to have the weight or depth that it does anywhere else, even in younger Latin nations.
At this point, can "we" make repairs to any of the system? It seems as if only a select few that abide by the established tenets of self serving narcissism are even permitted entry to the server room to change the program, and, since it benefits them, no changes happen. What can people that would actually want change, any kind of change if even violent accelerationism, do at this point in the process? The main program is functioning as it always has in preventing our lives being nasty, brutish, and short, but is that all that we should be asking of it?
>>20545051
Do you have some recommendations to read there? I'm not familiar with that particular analysis. It seems less like there's any sort of ceding of power happening so much as "whiteness" has been deconstructed into meaninglessness and disavowed as a source of community like "blackness" or whatever racial groups have. Even going into historic ideals of the term, we didn't consider practically anyone save anglos and small groups of Europeans entry to the classification, so it's difficult to come to a consensus that others have. That's a big part of why I think Identity Politics have taken root in what passes for White America - there's so little to actually identify with that you see people attuning themselves to "homosexuality" or "overweight" as distinguishing characteristics as "white."

[Anonymous No.20545361]

It's because of Moldbug unironically. Almost every staffer under 35 knows his name. I've been to his Washington meetup.

[Anonymous No.20545367]

>>20537675
I appreciate this post, but perhaps only because it's something I would post.

[Anonymous No.20545387]

I imagine the people who want to go back to monarchy are just sick of democracy and the endless red tape, committees, and etc that goes with it. Combine this with a lack of knowledge of how monarchies worked (they were more complex and had more layers of government than people realize) and waxing wistful for the ascetic, you have a perfect storm for a return to monarchy. People just want the government to do a thing, without it having to go through hundreds of committees, haggling, and etc.

[Anonymous No.20545391]

>>20543802
They don't lol.

[Anonymous No.20545393]

>>20537270

[Anonymous No.20545399]

>>20545051
Also, I wouldn't really say that I'm an anrchist or even libertarian at this point, but I'm not sold on the idea that our natural law is to form complex hierarchies when our historical record only comes from times dominated by such and anything prior is scientific speculation and deduction that itself would be informed by the ideas of the culture producing it. I'd prefer to live unimpeded by laws and do whatever I'd like, sure, but I also know that I wouldn't be able to truly live to my full potential without the support of hierarchical structures. Most people wouldn't even be able to function without hierarchies in place, nevermind the judgments on how poorly they function currently with them in place.
The best idea I can imagine is some sort of AI ruled technofascist regime that enforces the sort of Mosleyan ideas of universal labor and its value, but I feel it pointless to theorize about what others would see as a sci-fi dystopia.

[Anonymous No.20545402]

>>20537658
Israel is a client state of America. It's not jews. Progressivism is just a mind-virus.

[Anonymous No.20545410]

>>20537564
Keith woods is a crypto marxist. Antisemitism is also just retarded

[Anonymous No.20545412]

>>20537628
How so?

[Anonymous No.20545418]

>>20545387
This, but also >>20544017

[Anonymous No.20545421]

>>20545132
Culture is downstream of politics anyway and monarchism just means rule by one. Not rule by kardashians

[Anonymous No.20545424]

>>20544017
Nah, it's mostly because fascism is liberal in nature and hegelian.

[Anonymous No.20545447]

>>20545424
>fascism is liberal in nature
Outside of the ubiquity of social programs in fascism I thought that criticism was just because we are all obligated to call our political enemies Nazis regardless of the presence of actual fascistic elements

[Anonymous No.20545450]

>>20544017
>>20545424
Also, fascism just comes with more larpy baggage and attracts social retards. Monarchy just means rule by one, not inane drivel about jews and crypto-marxist tendencies

[Anonymous No.20545469]

>>20545447
I was more thinking about the fascist regimes public insecurities in the past and hunger for validation from its populace and for relying heavily on party politics as Evola said. Good governance isn't insecure and doesn't rely on ubiquitous party programs nor intimately involve the masses in its governance. Hope that's cogent, I'm busy.

[Anonymous No.20545493]

Also, just to add on one more thing, people want monarchies because they hate a significant portion of their fellow countrymen. They hate that people who disagree with them can vote. So usually when they imagine a monarchy, they imagine a King who has the same political beliefs as them, who does away with the things they don't like and promotes the things they do like.

[Anonymous No.20545514]

>>20544862
>crowned by my make-belief sky-daddy
Fuck off to /x/

[Anonymous No.20545530]

>>20545514
That is essentially the only difference between a King and a Dictator.

[Anonymous No.20545537]

>>20545493
Most demotists are of a similar belief when they see reactionaries. Except, they usually believe we shouldn't stop voting but should 'test' people in order to allow them to vote. Ofc, when you ask them what they would test them in it's certainly never mathematics or philosophy even. Also, stop pretending to be me.

[Anonymous No.20545544]

>>20545493
Besides, why should society bow to your values and beliefs? What is even the purpose of a good government?

[Anonymous No.20545555]

>>20545493
Nobody wants their enemies to be able to influence politics. See Marcusian "liberating tolerance" for how this manifests itself in western liberal democracies.

[Anonymous No.20545562]

>>20545530
There's really no difference. A king is a tyrant is a dictator, whether enabled through force or by claiming divine mandate. I think anyone who supports for oligarchs or dictatorships of any form are delusional. Just like how communist supporters imagine they'll be wealthy communist party members after their revolution, I imagine people who'd want a so-called 'king' would imagine themselves given lordship.

[Anonymous No.20545563]

>>20545537
If they created a test to gain the privilege of voting, most Americans would fail it, regardless of topic.

>>20545544
Why shouldn't society bow to my values and beliefs? Or anyones values or beliefs?

[Anonymous No.20545593]

>>20545562
I imagine most monarchies were first established the same way as a dictator, through force. Afterwards they claim divine mandate as to why the kingship should pass to their heirs.

[Anonymous No.20545606]

>>20545563
>why shouldn’t society bow to my values and beliefs?
Kek. You’re posting on a degenerate social media site. Get over yourself. If you want people to bow to you, then make them by becoming a tyrant. Otherwise just sit down

[Anonymous No.20545633]

>>20545606
I'm not saying they should bow to me specifically, just that every society bows to some form of system or beliefs and how that came about was largely accidental. A significant portion of the western world gets their values from the followers of a middle eastern jew. If you want to go further than that you can talk about how he was shaped by the Torah, which was shaped by Babylon, which was shaped by Sumer.

[Anonymous No.20545665]

>>20544997
>Seeing how common after the fact rationalization happens on an individual level this is the most likely situation. Things are a way and then we seek to define their being that way through moralistic or scientific terms to make it appear that there was any forethought or planning done on our part

Definitely. There was some planning and philosophy that went into various modern constitutions, but those are still based on previous systems of law and governance that developed organically over centuries.

[Anonymous No.20545667]

>>20545355
>The US is a void, in many regards, I'd certainly agree. It feels like everything is trying to be the equal of what was conceived and developed elsewhere; culture, ideology, mythology, etc. all seem like childlike attempts at pretending to be the same as the adults. Nothing that supposedly defines us seems to have the weight or depth that it does anywhere else, even in younger Latin nations.
Because most traditions are formed out of necessity. And what isn't formed out of necessity, is formed out of worship of the divine. We have neither in the United States, having conquered necessity and largely thrown away the divine. So now we have this soulless, materialistic landscape in its stead. Which is a damn shame. We have all of this potential to create, to sculpt something magnificent, a reflection of the whole world in its greatest possible glory, and instead we waste it on a superficial bacchanal.

To drive this point home, fashion. Why is trying to copy Napoleon's drip in pic-rel cringe now? Because Napoleon's drip was both functional and beautiful with the times. Now, it's neither functional (why would I wear that sash? I don't have to carry a sword or a pistol) nor is it in accordance with the times. It still looks cool, objectively speaking, but it would be considered a cumbersome LARP to adorn the whole costume, especially in a society like ours that has an increasingly deficient appreciation of the aesthetic sublime. So, what the hell do you wear when you don't need to technically "wear" anything, besides to avoid getting thrown in prison for exposure and to get the approval of other people? I guess anything novel.

>At this point, can "we" make repairs to any of the system?
The system works just fine, specs wise.

>Do you have some recommendations to read there? I'm not familiar with that particular analysis.
I'm afraid not. It's just the conclusion I've come to.

If it helps, I can lay out my thought process. First I went down the race realism rabbit hole, then I read Heidegger, read Rousseau's 1st and 2nd Discourses, and then finally stumbled upon Gentile. I realized that that he has a "nominalist" understanding of nationhood, that chosen boundaries enforced by the state are arbitrary (at least until they're tested by struggle, taking cues from Hegel). And that point, I was satisfied that nobody but God really has the answers I was looking for.

So, yeah. Nations are important. They're built upon underlying essences that "spring" from the Earth, to put it as poetically as my pedestrian brain can. But the boundaries are arbitrary and are meant to be expansionist over time. Even fascist intellectuals had a "globohomo" mindset, if only from the right. And if you read these people and try to understand the implications, you'll understand that intuitively. We're in control of our destiny now, thanks to us being conscious creatures. It would be nice for our leadership to realize this too (and steer us towards virtuous ends).

[Anonymous No.20545848]

>>20544291>>20544330
>>20540328

Humanism is based on vilifying kings and priests, once those are removed from power, there only remains merchants and the merchant revolution stops. they have no enemies anymore,
But humanists are addicted to public posturing, self aggrandizing revolutionary narrative where they are the smartest and most virtuous people, even though they say objective virtue doesnt even fucking exist, besides caring for your fellow peasant lol, and since the big idea of humanists is to make the peasants part of this posturing, they dream of doing a new revolution, but this revolution can only be on the merchant state, since that's all there is. Very quickly after the merchant revolution, people realized that the merchant revolution was not about the peasants at all. The merchants gave away little goods like holidays, protoNHS, and so on, then there were their 2 word wars. The big idea of the merchant was to make Russia the left liberal equivalent of the USA.
As usual with merchants, it turned into a clusterfuck. Because merchants don't know have a fucking clue about running a country and they dont even care. Mercantilism is just marketing. Mercantilism is just a war of merchant-controlled bureaucrats with a huge ego. This is why bureaucrats are eating each other alive, especially on the left. It's jsut ego and they dont give a shit about running a country.
Those people are the same who claim that ''absolute power corrupts absolutely'', which was part of the anti-king propaganda lol.


The major utility of this revolution on the revolutionized society is too saturate the intellectual background (that the peasants love since they fall for the merchant's hype of the dream of being educated lol), with only liberal ideologies.
So the only landscape today is muh left liberal or muh right liberal. Ie it 's 100% a republic on both side, ie a 100% merchant-controlled society.

the major appeal to the BLM crap and minority is that
-minorities and white educated roasties (the species craving the most shallow posturing, all show no act) bored from their bureaucratic jobs can spend all day on the internet virtue signaling
-it's easy for mega corps to make visible how virtuous they are by hiring people of color. this is what the californinans are doing by hiring lots of Poos, of women, into CEO positions.
Plus they want to make India their new big manufacturing country, instead of china (so they refuse to have yellows in hi positions)
-little corps can't compete on the virtue signaling field like megacorps

it's all win for the merchants: the peasants got a taste of the bourgeois life with the welfare and paid holidays on so on, and now the peasants only dream of of becoming bourgeois inside a republic manufactured by the bourgeois with the only goal to keep the bourgeois in power.

[Anonymous No.20545859]

>>20544291>>20544330
>>20540328

Humanism is based on vilifying kings and priests, once those are removed from power, there only remain merchants and the merchant revolution stops. they have no enemies anymore,
But humanists are addicted to public posturing, self aggrandizing revolutionary narrative where they are the smartest and most virtuous people, even though they say objective virtue doesnt even fucking exist, besides caring for your fellow peasant lol, and since the big idea of humanists is to make the peasants part of this posturing, they dream of doing a new revolution along with them, but this revolution can only be on the merchant state, since that's all there is. Very quickly after the merchant revolution, people realized that the merchant revolution was not about the peasants at all. The merchants gave away little goods like holidays, protoNHS, and so on, then there were their 2 word wars. The big idea of the merchant was to make Russia the left liberal equivalent of the USA.
As usual with merchants, it turned into a clusterfuck. Because merchants don't know have a fucking clue about running a country and they dont even care. Mercantilism is just marketing. Mercantilism is just a war of merchant-controlled bureaucrats with a huge ego. This is why bureaucrats are eating each other alive, especially on the left. It's jsut ego and they dont give a shit about running a country.
Those people are the same who claim that ''absolute power corrupts absolutely'', which was part of the anti-king propaganda lol.


The major utility of this revolution on this already-revolutionized society is to saturate the intellectual background (that the peasants love since they fall for the merchant's hype of the dream of being educated lol), with only liberal ideologies.
So the only landscape today is muh left liberal or muh right liberal. Ie it 's 100% a republic on both side, ie a 100% merchant-controlled society.

the major appeal to the BLM crap and minority is that
-minorities and white educated roasties (the species craving the most shallow posturing, all show no act) bored from their bureaucratic jobs can spend all day on the internet virtue signaling
-it's easy for mega corps to make visible how virtuous they are by hiring people of color. this is what the californinans are doing by hiring lots of Poos, of women, into CEO positions.
Plus they want to make India their new big manufacturing country, instead of china (so they refuse to have yellows in hi positions)
-little corps can't compete on the virtue signaling field like megacorps

it's all win for the merchants: the peasants got a taste of the bourgeois life with the welfare and paid holidays on so on, and now the peasants only dream of of becoming bourgeois inside a republic manufactured by the bourgeois with the only goal to keep the bourgeois in power.

[Anonymous No.20545869]

>>20545859
>the major appeal to the BLM crap and minority is that
I don’t think you answered the motivations behind it except for the top echelons of society within each race, gender, etc., especially the sociopathic and or stupid ones. It doesn’t explain the emotional pull that it has on everybody else. People find identity politics meaningful, and it’s rapidly changing the way this country looks and operates. And, for some reason, the “system” seems to be rather agnostic in this question (except being pro whiteness deconstruction). What happens when the whites die out, Latinos take over, and the black historical grievances no longer have any legitimate target? Latinos are scot clean. Then what?

[Anonymous No.20545897]

>>20545859
>>Those people are the same who claim that ''absolute power corrupts absolutely'', which was part of the anti-king propaganda lol.
Those people are the same who claim that ''absolute power corrupts absolutely'', which was part of the anti-king propaganda lol.
Then the humanists have to be corrupted, otherwise it would invalidate their self-made religion. A non-corrupt humanist in power canNOT exist, because power always corrupt (according to them). Besides, the huge bonus of a republic is that it's the bureaucrats themselves who run the court of law so very rarely bureaucrats will first inquiry about corrupted bureaucrats, then prosecute the,, then sentencing them. The separation of power advocated by the humanists was a scam from the very beginning. So materially, there is very little risk of becoming corrupted, and intellectually it's just self fulfilling prophecy.

[Anonymous No.20545910]

>>20545859
>Those people are the same who claim that ''absolute power corrupts absolutely'', which was part of the anti-king propaganda lol.
If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then God must be absolutely corrupt because he is all-powerful. Really makes you think about the Gnostic origins of liberalism.

[Anonymous No.20545920]

>>20537270
It's another gay larp by permanently online turbolosers, just like gaytheism, SJWism, anti-SJWism, tradcaths, evolafags, breadtubefags, NRXfags and so on.

I mean just look at this shit >>20537362. Evola and Guenon are liked by a few dozen losers on twitter and this board, and they're blowing it up as if it is some major movement of the zeitgeist, it's unutterably gay.

[Anonymous No.20545928]

>>20544033
>being this much of a fucking retard unironically
Please tell me you're 21 or younger.

[Anonymous No.20545940]

>>20537633
What a disgusting tranny

[Anonymous No.20545951]

>>20538727
>I know that it the case with me currently
Ding ding ding, correct, that's YOUR case and YOUR problem retard

[Anonymous No.20545967]

>>20544840
Literal schizo babble

[Anonymous No.20545984]

>>20545910
If the physical world is a deception then why should one submit themselves to the authority of somatics only concerned with ensnaring their charges and preventing them from accessing the true transcendent through gnosis
In any event I dont think gnostic thought influenced liberalism any more than Bogomilism or Catharism did, all being incredibly small compared to the rest of Christendom

[Anonymous No.20546003]

>>20545984
I know, I just kidding. I think ideas rhyme throughout history. So it's funny to look at Christian liberty take on the character of Gnosticism.

[Anonymous No.20546118]

>>20545920
low iq take

[Anonymous No.20546131]

>>20546118
Hobbes is peak globohomo. it's a shame you don't have Karl Marx or Karl Popper in there or something to drive the point home.

[Anonymous No.20546476]

>>20540075
Just two more weeks!

[Anonymous No.20546482]

>>20545402
Lmao

[Anonymous No.20546500]

>>20544762
>nothing more than a dictator with a crown
I fail to see the problem.

[Anonymous No.20546519]

The aristocracy were generally some of the most depraved, degenerate people on earth. It happens to any group with too much money and spare time regardless if your dictator has a crown or not

[Anonymous No.20547438]

bump

[Anonymous No.20547468]

>>20537270
Monarchism worked for thousands of years, whereas we can barely keep it together for not even 250 years in a rational democratic society. What do you think?

[Anonymous No.20547479]

>>20547468
Check population sizes and demographics

[Anonymous No.20547486]

>>20538727
Separation of Church and state was the greatest betrayal to the Church until Vatican II.

[Anonymous No.20547494]

>>20537270
It would be funny if those clamoring for a monarch got one, and his views and policies oppressed them

[Anonymous No.20547520]

>>20547494
so just like today with the bureaucrats reppressing any non-humanist doctrine hmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.20547593]

>>20543875
sorry idk, some random indian girl

[Anonymous No.20547644]

>>20545920
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.20547939]

>>20537270
I think the ruler should be determined by a sort of battle royale. The winner would be crowned king.

[Anonymous No.20547947]

>>20547494
That already happens to me today. I'm not of the belief that a king would always share my views, but I think it is more likely that he would rather than some plebiscite elected bureaucrat.

[Anonymous No.20548055]

>>20544704
Ted was right. It's just an inherent psychological drive to cope with feelings of inferiority. Women were taken care of and were more comfortable than men, if anything. But they decided to fuck with that because they felt inferior.

Maybe when you develop your post scarcity society you can test your theory but until then I see no evidence for it. Meanwhile I do see a lot of evidence that leftists are so fixated on the ideal of "equality" that it makes them retarded.

[Anonymous No.20548466]

>>20537270
>I've been encountering many "monarchists".
Okay, I'll bite; where?

[Anonymous No.20549046]

>>20548055
>Women were taken care of and were more comfortable than men, if anything. But they decided to fuck with that because they felt inferior.
I think they were just bored, useless, and underappreciated once technology started making their jobs too easy. Tired of "Mad Men" style men getting drunk and cheating on them. But they were led astray and sold an inferior capitalistic lifestyle with the false promise of power.

[Anonymous No.20549432]

lol

[Anonymous No.20549735]

there is already a monarchy and the sovereign is the accumulation of capital, which is a demon

[Anonymous No.20549870]

>>20541028
Accusing all political ideologies and religious beliefs as a reflection of childhood trauma or adolescent resentment accomplishes nothing.

[Anonymous No.20550591]

>>20546519
Barring maybe some in the 18th-20th centuries, for most of history they’ve been less depraved than modern elites.

[Anonymous No.20551235]

>>20540428
>>20540431
Well that certainly struck a nerve

[Anonymous No.20551261]

>>20544017
No them, but my main issue with Fascism is succession, and that the most well run Fascist system would probably just become another form of Monarchy with time. However, that is not to say I dismiss it, and I would take the best ideas it had and integrate them into my own

[Anonymous No.20551266]

>>20551261
>the most well run Fascist system would probably just become another form of Monarchy with time

indeed, see Spain

[Anonymous No.20551311]

>>20547494
>and his views and policies oppressed them
So nothing changes?
>>20546519
Just like the modern elite?
The biggest problem I see for future Republicans is they themselves are guilty of the worst excess they accuse of Monarchy, which once things grow worse and easy material wealth is harder to access, will make their words utterly hollow

[Anonymous No.20551378]

>>20544170
how 'bout neither

[Anonymous No.20551407]

>>20537270
It makes.sense in a natural way. The King comes.from the greatest seed, and thus deserves/claims the top of the pyramid.

[Anonymous No.20551418]

>>20551407
Are you going to sit there and tell me that picrel was the best Spain had to offer?

[Anonymous No.20551455]

>>20547479
>Check population sizes and demographics
hmmm, I wonder what caused those? what caused technological and material "progress"? did these things exist before the "renaissance", humanism, illuminism, etc.? don't think so...

[Anonymous No.20551471]

>>20537270
Unironic monarchist sentiment in the current year stems from a combination of aesthetization of politics, non-critical readings of history and a general ignorance of historiography and a poor understanding of the workings of complex modern society.

[Anonymous No.20551478]

>>20551455
>what caused technological and material "progress"? did these things exist before the "renaissance", humanism, illuminism, etc.?
Yes they did. The renaissance would not have happened at all were it not for technological progress and increasing societal wealth.

[Anonymous No.20551548]

>>20551471
What an overelaborate way to just say they are dumb and uneducated

[Anonymous No.20551620]

>>20544027
this
leviathan is a defense of absolutism, whether it be monarchy or republicanism. while hobbes gives a qualified acceptance of monarchy, he's moreso advocating for an absolute state that cannot be dissolved by internal faction

[Anonymous No.20551654]

>>20551548
I got nothing from the thread except monarchists are dumb and uneducated

[Anonymous No.20551685]

>>20551654
Spot on bro.
These are the people who help out Nigerian Princes or send their money to their Russian GFs.

[Anonymous No.20551980]

>>20551471
Monarchism would not survive in an advanced FinTech postindustrial bureaucratic state. All 21st century monarchism hinges upon a fantastical, collapsitarian ideology.

[Anonymous No.20552067]

>>20537270
she cute

[Anonymous No.20552083]

>>20551418
What I find interesting about the portrait of this terribly inbred person is that it's clearly flattering. Imagine how he looked in real life if the official portraits look like this.

[Anonymous No.20552087]

>>20538727
What would make you change your mind? Genuinely curious

[Anonymous No.20552098]

Sex sex sex

[Anonymous No.20552103]

>>20551471
I agree but you still sound like a faggot

[Anonymous No.20552113]

I want to cum on her face

[Anonymous No.20552648]

>>20537270
People have realized that democracy is a terrible system. It's truly just a shadow oligarchy of stateless actors who couldn't give less of a fuck about the countries or people who live in them. They have absolutely no accountability, they're not even known to the general public. Blame is redirected back onto the population for voting wrong even though their choice is an illusion. Also tyranny of the majority.

Monarchy/President for Life may not be ideal but at least the leader has true authority to steer the state, with ultimate accountability and responsibility. Mandate of heaven is based and the citizenry should be militarized, violent revolution normalized.

[Anonymous No.20552798]

>>20537270
>piercings
she was almost perfect

[Anonymous No.20552817]

>>20552798
Piercings are trad in Indian culture

[Anonymous No.20552823]

>>20552817
looks like she has one in her lip/chin.
is that traditional too?

[Anonymous No.20552835]

>>20552823
She has dead skin cells on her lip and the dot on her chin is a beauty spot.

[Anonymous No.20552891]

>>20551311
Women and NPCs still believe that republicanism is awesome

[Anonymous No.20553890]

bump

[Anonymous No.20553897]

>>20540328
>>20544200
>>20544274
>>20544291
>>20544330
>>20544355
>>20544436
>>20544471
>>20544610
>>20544704
>>20544872
>>20545017
>>20545051
>>20545355
>>20545667
great comment chain talking about the political order. it really does seem like you can reduce globohomo to pro-capitalism (with administrative "adjustments" to wealth), pro-desire in the libidinal sense, but anti-virtue. that criteria can explain every clownish decision going on. only thing that escapes this definition is the stance on race, which seems more like anarchy or even self-destruction

[Anonymous No.20553958]

>>20552648
>with ultimate accountability and responsibility
Dictators tend to be the absolute opposite of that

[Anonymous No.20554038]

>>20540217
Monarchs are dainty little figureheads paraded around by plebeians so the masses canfeel like their nation has some sort of meaning, and they are somehow essential. It’s pretty pathetic. Contemporary aristocracy is the rotting placenta of the petty bourgeois.

[Anonymous No.20555216]

>>20553958
You've been compromised by propaganda. Autocratic leaders have ultimate responsibility because of their absolute authority, while democratic leaders will shift blame to various beurocratic procedure or federalism. Autocratic leaders so bare ultimate accountability because they end up getting executed for failures, where democratic leaders get golden parachutes.

This is simply reality.

[Anonymous No.20555258]

>>20555216
yeah, that's why fascist leaders were pussies for not fighting along their warriors, like medieval kings did

[Anonymous No.20555626]

>>20540565
>The story of George III, for example
Where to read more about this?

[Anonymous No.20555708]

>>20540634
"English" can describe a great many peoples. There were Gallic monarchs in England before the Roman conquest. There were Roman emperors in England when the political situation contrived it so, there were Anglo-Saxon monarchs in England when they crossed over the channel, and there were Norman monarchs in England after their conquests, etc.
I'm not trying to be a greasy Jew and claim that "Oy vey English people don't exist" I'm pointing out that the English were forged from millennia after millennia of excellent human specimens meditating upon the Thames.

[Anonymous No.20555715]

>>20545410
no, no its not. anti-white jew