Megadeath
Well-known member
You and I define "occupy" rather differently.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
And the Western "occupation" is the kind that Ukrainians themselves actually want.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
If we look at what has happened in Croatia, "democracy and de-oligarchization" as well as the "civil society" etc. are nothing but code words for infiltration of the country by foreign oligarchs.
There is no democracy, no de-oligarchization, merely a replacement of one set of tyrannical oligarchs by another set. And that latter set is far worse because, being a caste of international magnates, they do not have even a passing concern for the country they are robbing and mutilating.
And democracy is a bad thing - modern democracy at least, and for multiple reasons:
Argument for Monarchy, Part 1 – Tyrannical Nature of Democracy
This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary. Tyrannical nature of democracy Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons. Democracy formalizes pol…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Argument for Monarchy, Part 2 – Democracy as Failure of Human Nature
Democracy and professional psychopathy What is even more frightening than size of democratic government is the quality of the same. In democracy, politicians are under constant pressure to gain and…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Argument for Monarchy, Part 3 – Issue of Centralization
Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 mill…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Argument for Monarchy, Part 4 – Cult of Democracy
Cult of democracy Democracy today – much like other modern things – is a cult. Democracy is perfect, and cannot be damaged by evidence. When society does well, it must be a result of democracy; but…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
The Democracy Disease
“Bad is the dominion of the multitude” Homer, Illiad 2.204. Robert Bisset (1759-1805) was a Scottish writer who abhorred democracy and earned his conservative chops as the first biographer of Edmun…
orthosphere.wordpress.com
Immigration – How Democracy Leads to Demographic Replacement
Democracy is evil for many reasons, but important one is that it promotes a form of genocide known as population replacement. The Left claims that it supports mass immigration for various reasons. …
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Leftist Political Dominance as a Consequence of an Infantile Society
“A boy of fifteen who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at twenty.” Problem is, even people of sixty are good for nothing today. Thanks to the…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Importance of Subsidiarity
Introduction Subsidiarity is the principle which holds that issues should be solved at the most local or immediate level that is consistent with their resolution. Oxford lexicon defines it as ̶…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Basic Tenets of Progressivism Are Wrong
Progressivism is a religion, and its foundation are the Seven Progressive Commandments, or else basic tenets. These were compiled at the Monkey House: Western Liberal Democracy is the only legitima…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Tolkien’s Ideal of Monarchy
JRR Tolkien’s love of monarchy is seen through his work. Last third of the Lord of the Rings has return of the King to Gondor, and restoration of the monarchy – and this is linked inexorably …
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Western Europe Is A Tyrannical Dystopia
Western Europe is not a free society. In fact, it is a tyrannical, multicultural dystopia pretending to be a democracy, and this is obvious on both external and internal plan. European Parliament&#…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
Occupation can have many forms.
If we look at what has happened in Croatia, "democracy and de-oligarchization" as well as the "civil society" etc. are nothing but code words for infiltration of the country by foreign oligarchs.
There is no democracy, no de-oligarchization, merely a replacement of one set of tyrannical oligarchs by another set. And that latter set is far worse because, being a caste of international magnates, they do not have even a passing concern for the country they are robbing and mutilating.
And democracy is a bad thing - modern democracy at least, and for multiple reasons:
Argument for Monarchy, Part 1 – Tyrannical Nature of Democracy
This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary. Tyrannical nature of democracy Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons. Democracy formalizes pol…Argument for Monarchy, Part 2 – Democracy as Failure of Human Nature
Democracy and professional psychopathy What is even more frightening than size of democratic government is the quality of the same. In democracy, politicians are under constant pressure to gain and…Argument for Monarchy, Part 3 – Issue of Centralization
Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 mill…Argument for Monarchy, Part 4 – Cult of Democracy
Cult of democracy Democracy today – much like other modern things – is a cult. Democracy is perfect, and cannot be damaged by evidence. When society does well, it must be a result of democracy; but…The Democracy Disease
“Bad is the dominion of the multitude” Homer, Illiad 2.204. Robert Bisset (1759-1805) was a Scottish writer who abhorred democracy and earned his conservative chops as the first biographer of Edmun…Immigration – How Democracy Leads to Demographic Replacement
Democracy is evil for many reasons, but important one is that it promotes a form of genocide known as population replacement. The Left claims that it supports mass immigration for various reasons. …Leftist Political Dominance as a Consequence of an Infantile Society
“A boy of fifteen who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at twenty.” Problem is, even people of sixty are good for nothing today. Thanks to the…Importance of Subsidiarity
Introduction Subsidiarity is the principle which holds that issues should be solved at the most local or immediate level that is consistent with their resolution. Oxford lexicon defines it as ̶…Basic Tenets of Progressivism Are Wrong
Progressivism is a religion, and its foundation are the Seven Progressive Commandments, or else basic tenets. These were compiled at the Monkey House: Western Liberal Democracy is the only legitima…Tolkien’s Ideal of Monarchy
JRR Tolkien’s love of monarchy is seen through his work. Last third of the Lord of the Rings has return of the King to Gondor, and restoration of the monarchy – and this is linked inexorably …Western Europe Is A Tyrannical Dystopia
Western Europe is not a free society. In fact, it is a tyrannical, multicultural dystopia pretending to be a democracy, and this is obvious on both external and internal plan. European Parliament&#…
Occupation can have many forms.
Croatia doesn't have population replacement. Nor is Croatia that corrupt:
It's comparable to Italy. So, corruption is definitely there, but it is nevertheless better than in the Balkans and the East Slavic countries.
TBF, we do have political dynasties here. The Bushes, Clintons, Harrisons, Adamses, Udalls, Kennedys, et cetera.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
We do. We are only in the very beginning stages of it.
Literally every country there is corrupt. The only difference is whether corruption is of the legalized type or not.
Yeah, because they were gods and thus automatically correct about everything.
For what it's worth, I think modernity is actually the real problem, not necessarily democracy as such.
Megadeath
Well-known member
Sure. Coz word's can mean whatever you'd like them to.
I thought it was the silly, evil lefty types who were supposed to redefine words to suit themselves?
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Sure. Coz word's can mean whatever you'd like them to.
There is no redefinition. Expansion of definition, maybe, but that is merely because we lack the words to describe some of the more modern stuff that was simply not the thing during the Middle Ages.
But fundamentally, if you negate country's ability to determine its own future, does it really matter whether you do it through military force, or through a combination of media, NGOs and similar? I am not convinced it does.
By the way, occupatio means "a taking possession; business, employment". "Occupation" in the modern-day sense of "military control" only dates from 1940. So I really don't see what is your problem considering the word "occupation" is already an excellent example of "redefining words to suit oneself".
No, but they were certainly correct about monarchs and aristocracy. One should not rule over others based on accident of birth, and I'm really not a fan of protected classes. This is why SJWs earn my ire as well. It's frankly the same attitude of being better than and above others.
Unless you want me to dismissively mock you about wanting to poop in a hole and died of a bacterial infection, you might want to define just what it is you mean by "modernity."
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Question: what is the alternative?
Because frankly, "rule by accident" is the best damn political system we can come up with. It can be an accident of birth, or an accident of lottery, but anything done "by accident" is better than the system where we vote people into power. Because when we have voting, we run into two fundamental problems. First, humans are shit at detecing lies and liars. Second, people who would compete for power in the first place and are good enough at lying to get elected, are literally the last people who should hold power in the first place. So what happens is we have "rule of the people", but this rule is actually a rule of lying psychopaths. Then there is third problem which is not about voting but about limited terms. It lies in the fact that humans are fundamentally selfish. Thus, a politician who gets elected into office will only look at how to get as rich as possible in as short time as possible.
And will happily destroy the country they rule to achieve that lofty goal.
As for the "protected class", we have that one way or another. So that part does not really concern me.
Powerful state, first and foremost. Modern-day ideologies that have begun with the French revolution and then continued further into the rabbit hole - especially various types of socialism. Inescapable mass media, high levels of urbanization, disappearance of the rural peasantry that actually works on land for the living.
Also, my grandparents on maternal side did that whole "poop in a hole" thing - they didn't actually have a toilet, or a bathroom (they did have a shower - which was a massive metallic barrel with a pipe, riveted to the side of the house). They didn't die of bacterial infection - rather, both died of cancer (both were heavy smokers, and grandfather also worked as a painter, so...).
The representative Republican system that they came up with. The problem with our system is that it has become corrupted, not that it is a Republic. Frankly, I see little difference between the unaccountable protected class that has taken root within our system and a system with monarchy.
I can't say that I agree with either your definition (which is not very concise), nor your rose-tinted interpretation of the past.
Way to miss the point. Yeah, my ancestors pooped in holes, too. Doesn't mean I want to.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
That is because you lack the knowledge of monarchy. Or else you think representative system can provide something it actually cannot.
System that the US Founding Fathers came up was good. But it wasn't good because it was a republic. It was good because it was a decentralized system with powerful local and regional governments and limited central government. But such systems have existed before, in republican and monarchical systems alike. And if anything, monarchies show less propensity for centralization than elective systems.
My interpretation of the past is hardly any more rose-tinted than your interpretation of the present. But to each their own, I guess.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Yeah, I did that a long time ago. And the result is what you see.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
If true, then that’s both alarming and appalling in equal measure.
That said, I don’t suppose you have any sources on Iceland specifically? For obvious reasons, I assume it’s not a story NYT or MSNBC would break — or if they did, odds are they’d waffle and obfuscate when it comes to explaining why Iceland has no Down’s Syndrome. Seriously, that sounds like something Hitler might’ve tried, considering that aborting those with birth defects preemptively isn’t that much of a step up from the Reich’s T4 Program and other eugenicist cruelty of the sort.
Circle of Willis
Well-known member
Funny thing, WaPo of all places allowed a negative piece about this very matter a few years ago. Other ghastly extermination-by-abortion stats mentioned in that article include a 90% rate in the UK and 98% in Denmark.If true, then that’s both alarming and appalling in equal measure.
That said, I don’t suppose you have any sources on Iceland specifically? For obvious reasons, I assume it’s not a story NYT or MSNBC would break — or if they did, odds are they’d waffle and obfuscate when it comes to explaining why Iceland has no Down’s Syndrome. Seriously, that sounds like something Hitler might’ve tried, considering that aborting those with birth defects preemptively isn’t that much of a step up from the Reich’s T4 Program and other eugenicist cruelty of the sort.
The details of Buck v. Bell case are pretty much a fractal of infuriating.
1. The entire reason Carrie Buck was institutionalized was not that she was actually "feeble-minded", but that she had been raped by her foster parents' nephew and they wanted to make sure she was silenced. Note that the only "evidence" offered for her feeble-mindedness was her supposed "promiscuity" and "incorrigibleness", i.e., her being raped.
2. Justice Holmes' infamous comment about "three generations of imbeciles are enough" was based on outright perjury; the prosecution falsely claimed that Buck's mother and daughter were also feeble minded. There is no evidence that her mother was actually unintelligent; she had been institutionalized, true, but this was for alleged "immorality, prostitution, and syphilis". There is positive evidence that her daughter Vivian was in fact of perfectly normal, even above average intelligence; she had even made the honor roll, and only one of her grades was ever below "C" in an era where C was considered a solid pass grade. SCOTUS, however, accepted without evidence the prosecution's allegations because the defense did not contest them.
3. And why didn't the defense contest them? Because the entire lawsuit was literally a staged production by the superintendent of the institution Buck had been placed at, who was militantly pro-eugenics and wanted to concoct a test case that would legally justify it; he arranged for two co-conspirators, both of which were close friends of his and *also* militant eugenicists, to represent the institute as plaintiff and Buck as defense. In other words, her defense was actively conspiring against her in a stage-managed show trial.
4. The final piece of evidence that Carrie Buck was in no way feeble-minded? Well, once the trial was over and she'd been forcibly sterilized, the conspirators had no further use for her and she'd been even more thoroughly discredited than her foster parents and their rapist nephew could ever have imagined. . . so she was released from the institute, and proceeded to demonstrate that she was and always had been perfectly capable of being a completely normal member of society.
5. Unlike other "now widely considered horrible" Supreme Court precedents, Buck v. Bell was never overturned and remains the law of the land to this day. In fact, the only even partially countervailing precedent was a later SCOTUS case where the court ruled that states could not impose involuntary sterilization as a criminal penalty for blue-collar crimes unless they also imposed on comparable white-collar crimes. The shift away from eugenics has been driven entirely by fading popularity, and every state retains full authority and Constitutional approval to re-implement mandatory eugenics programs whenever it wants.
Last edited:
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
All you are doing here, is demonstrating your ignorance.
Yes, the modern pseudo-representative democratic 'norm' in the west has problems. It's an imperfect system from the start, and it has been pretty seriously corrupted as atheists have successfully pushed Christianity further and further out, making for increasingly godless and corrupt organs of state.
That does not change the fact that every other system has serious problems as well, and that pretty much all of them were worse.
My best guess is that you are so absorbed in the very real problems of the present, that you've blinded yourself to the problems of the past.
As a test of this, can you list any upsides to Democratic Republics? I'm not even asking you to explain why you think the downsides outweigh the upsides, I'm asking you if you can list any upsides at all.
Whom are you getting?