So, you admit to having no feasible plan and are just blustering ideology the same as every other alternative on the right does?
General political philosophy discussion
- Thread starter Aldarion
- Start date
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
None of those existed in the 18th century.
And still, losing one of your 3 most crucial ports and being locked up via another level of impediments in the form of Crimea would have been bad, and they would have had to lose all the naval facilities there.
And not necessarily, if the rate of inflation and money creation is below the interest rate then interest would be positive, but the ECB is both creating new money and keeping interest on that money low to keep Super Mario and Macaron from being guillotined.
I took a quick look at his post, I think what he is getting at is the so called Benedict option, with the right basically forming its own parallel society and hierarchy separate from that of the left and basically using the same group preference and patronage mechanisms the left does, as well as building its own hierarchy of intellectuals with the end result being a whole new world view, not just merely single issue fights with conservatism being liberalism with a speed limit and a bunch of single issue voters that can be swayed when the issues change.
AA has spoken on this subject and is actively pushing the idea I believe.
Last edited:
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I have a plan, and I had bloody outlined it in my post. What I don't know is how to put it in effect - and I certainly can't do it on my own, seeing how I am not a billionaire, or a God.
Or even a realist apparently. Nobody is going to go for this in the numbers to enforce it on a scale of 1/100 I literally would rank this idea as a -100 on the scale of society ever implementing it.
There is literally a mountain of plot holes in your ideas here chiefly it would require all humans to be foolish enough to give up absolute power to a monarch, beyond that even just trusting that somehow nobody gets fed up when that monarch ends up being the next Nicholas II and bringing them to ruin via incompetence or ignorance.
Or the fact that this ideology to me seems to be borderline neo-luddite because it would literally require the complete destruction of the information age or at the very least the restriction of it to the allegedly higher nobles who would need to rule over us effectively.
Either way forgive me If I don't see a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Are you confused or just pretending to be? Literally nothing I had written in my post requires a monarchy, much less an absolute monarchy which I had never even mentioned or advocated for. I basically wrote "monarchy not required" in my post.
Please go back and actually read what I had written, because otherwise this discussion is pointless.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
The Benedict option wont work because the left hates you and wants to invade, humiliate and abuse you. Unless you are willing to defend your spaces with actual physical force, then its pointless. Unless you are willing to eliminate the left from your spaces and punish interlopers to the maximum possible extent, your spaces but cultural and physical will continue to be invaded and taken over.
The left wins because it employs a dialectic approach. The left proposes, the right reacts and everything moves in one direction. The right has to develop moral courage, and start proposing. It has to organise and use its power to *punish*, suppress and cancel.
The age of the lolbertarian is over.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I don't understand why anybody would think it is possible to achieve something without what you had just written? Gatekeeping is absolutely necessary, and once you secure the gate, you go on to invade Left's ideological space.
How are these gains permanent?
That's a pattern with more holes than Swiss cheese. If that is so, why the poorest of post-communist countries still democratic, while oil monarchies, Venezuela and the like despite having more money than sense turned to authoritarianism or monarchy instead?
Not to mention that by historical standard, most of the world is living at a varying degrees of high or ridiculously high standard. And i would agree that's where 90% of the pattern sits - to have a population willing and able to create a democracy successfully beyond the scale of a city-state, they really could use some material boons and tools that the poorest countries may not have on a large scale.
Government expansion is almost always permanent, he has a point here.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
yeah, and the "temporary" measures and agencies just become more bloated and more powerful.
Basically. That's not to say progress doesn't get made, it just gets made rarely. Oddly, up until recently a lot of the progress for individual rights and shrinking government power came from the left: see what the ACLU once did for a broad example (Skokie, Brandenburg, Miranda, etc.), but by no means the only. The right made more progress outside of America. The fall of the USSR and Thatcher are two prominent examples. Inside of America, there was no real progress one way or another against the left under a republican administration (Welfare reform happened under Clinton, for example).
So don't take the black pill yet.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
1) Compare how powerful government was in 1900 and how powerful it was in 2000. Even US conservatives are Big Government tyrants by 1900s standards. And then compare the extent of the government in 1900 to the extent of the government in 1800, and extent of the government in 1800 to that in 1500.
2) Entire structure of society has changed. Media and the state are raising the children nowadays, not families. And try to suggest that women should focus on family first.
3) Nature of progressive gains makes pushback much more difficult. They are not just changing things, they are literally dissolving everything a normal, non-sick society requires to function. So even if people eventually realize that progressive stuff is evil, it will be extremely difficult to impossible to roll everything back, because the structure necessary to do so will simply not be there.
The answer to your question is literally part of the question.
You are looking at the wrong thing. What matters is not the total amount of wealth in the country, but rather its distribution. Democracy is created by strong middle class. Oil monarchies have no middle class at all, they have a minor plutocratic class, and then the proletariat that is being held in check by military. As a result, they are simply not in the position of creating a democracy.
As for the "historical standard", well, yes - that is why we have more "democracy" than ever before.
And none of what you are proposing or want will come to fruition, because what you desire is disconnected from what the majority of modern society wants, regardless of political leaning.
The fact is the reactionary right you embody is effectively powerless and set on trying to undue everything since the Enlightenment is also part of why the Left love your type; you're a walking, talking billboard for 'out-of-touch European far righter who wants a return to monarchy and to make the Handmaiden's Tale a reality'.
The Far-Left has lost the plot, but classical liberalism is still valuable and 'far-right neo-monarchist conservatism' is not the end all, be all of 'sane' political alignments.
The fact is the Right will not be rolling back most of the Left's gains, simply because most on the Right want to grill more than 'march through the institutions' like the Left did.
The best the Right can hope for, in terms or realistic results, is that people like DeSantis keep and protect sanity in their own fiefdoms and that is slowing spreads outwards. Taking your path would remove even that hope.
Batrix2070
RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
In my opinion, you are both right and wrong at the same time. Why? Because one of you is an American and for him right-wing will always be democracy/republic and the other is a Croat and for him right-wing will be monarchy. You are trying to convince each other that you are right, committing a common mistake of the right wing, which, like the intenationalist left wing, creates a universal standard and tries to apply it everywhere.
Hell no! You're both from different nations, you come from different cultures with completely different experiences and instead of trying to create some kind of universal standard you should focus on what fits your cultures, your nations and build a scenario and plan for the perfect counter-revolution for your country that way and not try to impose it on other nations because it won't work!
Therefore, I propose to stop this idle argument because it will lead to nothing.
Let's use a simple example here, the famous Nazism and more specifically National Socialism. It as we know it will be exclusively a German phenomenon and any attempt to implement it in another country without twisting it to fit the characteristics of the nation will end in disaster.
In the same way, an American-style republic will always end in the downfall of a country if it is not the United States of America, no matter how rich it is.
The other thing is that both of you are talking nonsense and your arguments are hitting the nail on the head. From my point of view one does not understand the other and attacks where there is nothing.
Last edited:
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Depends what you're looking at. For all the whining, it's much better being a minority religion now than it was in 1900 or 1800. And you've heard of the Alien and Sedition acts, yes? And the Espionage Act?
edit: on second thought, my post is more on how tryannical the use of power is/was versus the practical scope of such power, which I would agree is greater today.
Last edited:
These two points are a direct consequence of economic and technological situation changing over the last few hundred years, it has nothing to do with any political ideology.
Of course a frontier settler country of 1800 had far smaller government than a superpower of 2000.
Bureaucracy overgrowth applies even to countries that have little to do with western progressivism, like Iran or Japan.
Of course rolling back everything back to past equivalents will be impossible, just due to different economics and status quo than what was in the past if nothing else. But it is possible to change things again to saner directions is absolutely possible.
Post communist countries didn't have a strong middle class.
OTOH China has a strong middle class but absolutely no democracy.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I think a somewhat more simple way of arresting, if not reversing the advance of leftism is to research, understand it, know how it operates, and keep it out of the sodding schools.
You'll have essentially killed off modern, woke, leftism within two generations if you do that, if not radicalism in general. It is always in the schools where this sort of sickness gestates so if you nip it in the bud it doesn't spread. And whilst you're at it, set up a curriculum that effectively whacks the young uns over the head with the horrors of radicalism.
You'll have essentially killed off modern, woke, leftism within two generations if you do that, if not radicalism in general. It is always in the schools where this sort of sickness gestates so if you nip it in the bud it doesn't spread. And whilst you're at it, set up a curriculum that effectively whacks the young uns over the head with the horrors of radicalism.
Turkish progressives are not aligned with the West?
Also, re: Russia:
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
You are missing the point. This growth of power of government has directly facilitated all the great evils of 20th century, including Marxism / progressivism / socialism, and is one of reasons why Left is winning, because Left is all about utilizing power of the government while dissolving more traditional power centres such as family, the Church and so on. The Right is trying to rely on those, but said bases are being destroyed. Meaning, it might have to accept the Left's idea of big government to win... which basically turns it to half-Leftism, and yeah. Not a good idea if you care about ethics, but then, the Left is literally defined by Me ne frego.
True. But my point is, this change to saner things will never be able to push society back to sanity because necessary structures had been destroyed. That is why the Right is described as merely applying the brakes, as this destruction means that they are only ever able to achieve the "slightly less insane" level, but never to completely eliminate the leftist/modernist insanity that has taken over.
And their democracy was not a natural evolution either, it was basically imported.
First, as you mention, my post was more about the scope of power.
Second, if you look at Progressivism as a religion - which it is - you will realize that religious freedom doesn't really exist except on the paper, because Progressivism is basically assimilating all the other religions.
Also, Alien and Sedition act and the Espionage act are... basically how any sane government acts in a time of war. Problem starts when government concludes that it is at war against its own people and starts using such measures in peacetime (see: Nazis, Communists, modern-day democracies).
Which the Left will never allow either. Also, what you are saying is that there is basically no hope, because in order to win the Right has to accept the Leftist narrative... pray tell, how do you win when you had accepted the battle on your enemy's terms?
First thing that needs to be done is destroying the narrative the Left has built up. Question is, how? The reason why I believe that monarchy should be defended is not so much to turn the people monarchist, but to help deconstruct the Leftist narrative, because the modern Leftism and its narrative literally began with the French Revolution and "monarchy bad" - that is the reason why World War I is being blamed on monarchs, it is an ideological project to secure supremacy of leftist beliefs.
And it has to be done, because if you accept the "equality good, hierarchy bad" and "progress good, tradition bad" narratives that are based on the "democracy good, monarchy bad" narrative - then you have already accepted the leftism.