History Even 109 years ago, feminists were insane

[Captain X]

It is the fact.

No, that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Hardly an outside force. Marxism originated in Germany, and it has thoroughly infiltrated the entire West. Marxists have not come from the Soviet Union, they existed in the West since 19th century.

And? It's an outside force to the US.

Equality under the law is a good idea, I can agree with that. But fact is, West was the only historical civilization which attempted to implement the equality under the law, and it is the civilization which gave birth to idea of "equality, period". I can hardly agree that the two are somehow unrelated.

It's plainly obvious that the commies don't believe in equality either given their constant efforts to undermine it.

And if you look at premodern monarchies or even just Austria-Hungary, it is obvious that lack of belief into equality does not "automatically lead to oppression".

It most certainly does. This country fought a war of independence over it.

First, ideologies which promote equality are generally the most oppressive, especially once they start sliding down the slippery slope.

Even just democracy itself is tyrannical, precisely because ideal of equality means that political units of the state are individuals as opposed to e.g. cities and provinces.

Which is why republics are better.

Which leads to centralization and, thus, tyranny.

And yet you advocate for monarchy, which is a centralized government, and by your own admission, tyranny. Yet you protested me calling it that.

I rather prefer the notion of Pater Patriae - historically, it has produced much better results as far as individual and political freedom goes.

This is pure fantasy based entirely on the notion of a benevolent dictator (whom you refer to as a monarch).

Second, equality has never been achieved in practice. Rulers are always exempt from rules, that is as true today as it has been thousand years ago - if anything, it is far more true today. So the whole idea of equality before the law never achieved its goal, nor can said goal ever be achieved. The only thing it achieved was to open the doors to other, destructive, ideas of equality.

You sound like some gun control moron who's entire argument consists of "you'd never beat a tyrannical government anyway." So, what, you want to make sure? Your "solution" is to let yourself be ruled by an absolute dictator, and mine is to continue pushing for equality and meritocracy with consequences and accountability for those who go against it.

 

[Aldarion]

No, that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Nope. Look at what is going on in the West. Under the ideal of "equality", you have oppression, culturocide, genocide...

And? It's an outside force to the US.

US are not the world. And US themselves are part of the Western cultural circle, same as Germany. You are not Martians, no matter how much you might pretend to be.

It's plainly obvious that the commies don't believe in equality either given their constant efforts to undermine it.

Communism is based on the idea of equality, and justified by it. But equality never leads to equality, hence why I say it is dangerous to pretend it does.

It most certainly does. This country fought a war of independence over it.

First, United States are not the world. Second, colonies were hardly oppressed by historical measure of oppression. Colonies first started complaining after Britain introduced taxes to them - taxes that would have been normal in Europe, and were in fact intended to recuperate the costs that the Crown had incurred in helping defend the colonies from the French. Boston Massacre was initiated by the colonists - British troops were defending themselves. Third, those same "equality believing" colonists went on to oppress, enslave and exterminate the natives. And fourth, it never was about equality. It was about freedom - freedom from taxes, from oppressive acts and so on. If american colonies had been part of the Holy Roman Empire instead of the British Empire, and governed accordingly, American Revolution would never have happened.

Communism, Progressivism, US Democrats... do I need go on?

Which is why republics are better.

Definitely. But a federal (or feudal) monarchy is even better than republics.

And yet you advocate for monarchy, which is a centralized government, and by your own admission, tyranny. Yet you protested me calling it that.

You know, you could not be more wrong if you tried.

Every form of government can be centralized, and thus tyrannical - monarchy, republic, democracy, name it. In fact, democracy cannot be anything but tyrannical if it is implemented on anything but the most local level. Historically, monarchy had shown the greatest ability to accomodate high degree of localization and local self-governance, because personal loyalty to the crown helped hold the country together and thus minimized the need for governmental interference.

This is pure fantasy based entirely on the notion of a benevolent dictator (whom you refer to as a monarch).

That fantasy was, for a long time, a fact of life. Yes, many monarchs failed to live up to that standard - but many also succeeded. Meanwhile, modern politicians don't have a standard to live up to to begin with, beyond maybe "thieving liar".

You sound like some gun control moron who's entire argument consists of "you'd never beat a tyrannical government anyway." So, what, you want to make sure? Your "solution" is to let yourself be ruled by an absolute dictator, and mine is to continue pushing for equality and meritocracy with consequences and accountability for those who go against it.

First, I have never advocated for absolute monarchy, so stop with that "absolute dictator" crap. West already is ruled by what is essentially an absolute dictatorship, you don't need a monarchy for that, nor is monarchy automatically an absolute dictatorship.

Second, equality, meritocracy and accountability is not something you can really achieve beyond the local level. And if you think you have that - in the United States or anywhere else - you are delusional.

 

[ParadiseLost]

If the USSR never existed,

Communism in America predates the USSR.

 

[Morphic Tide]

US are not the world. And US themselves are part of the Western cultural circle, same as Germany.

Actually there was a very major division in "the Western cultural circle" at the time of America's founding. Most of Europe was extremely powerful if not absolute monarchies, and the exceptions were primarily hardcore feudal. And the United States was founded by heavy outliers for the already heavy outlier of 1700s Great Britain, which rendered a rather extreme degree of religious freedom a both bureaucratic and social necessity to be able to hold together.

Then the French Revolution happened, and did fuck-all to US politics and philosophy for like a century. And the Common vs. Civil Law division remains to this day. And the US is the one major republic that actually functions as such, however poorly, given we're the only ones with literally any working mechanisms to force considering the entire breadth of the country. Something substantiated by the individual states beginning to tell the feds to fuck off.

The entire reason that "Anglosphere" exists as a term is because the UK and its former colonies actually are significantly different from the rest of the "Western" cultural tradition, for all these differences are dwindling today from globalist shenanigans. The US has many, many, basic structures of its government function literally unable to allow some of the stuff going on in Germany today. And the UK got Brexit.

It's a simple fact is that the US cannot actually support a truly monolithic political class because of the way the Senate works, as being electable in the flyover states is a quite alien game from being electable in the costal metropoli. You don't see that sort of forced distinction actually prevent urban dominance in European countries like it still is, however falteringly, in the United States.

Hate Speech still gets BTFO in the courts, gay marriage had to get in on awkward logical extensions of decades-old nondiscrimination law, and of course Trump happened. This corruption isn't inevitable, you can look to Eastern Europe for more examples of Democracies telling the intersectional scourge to fuck off.

Communism in America predates the USSR.

But Communism being mainstream in academia doesn't. It had rather little institutional weight before the USSR started backing it, and quite possibly would never have otherwise with how many notions of the philosophizing are actually viciously contradictory to the American traditions making it a spectacular uphill battle.

 

[Aldarion]

Hate Speech still gets BTFO in the courts, gay marriage had to get in on awkward logical extensions of decades-old nondiscrimination law, and of course Trump happened. This corruption isn't inevitable, you can look to Eastern Europe for more examples of Democracies telling the intersectional scourge to fuck off.

For how long? Fact is that basically everything you have listed is irrelevant - political institutions and laws and customs simply do not matter in the long run if your children and grandchildren will be Marxists because the educational system and the media are spoonfeeding them bullshit. Laws change, institutions change, political system changes. What matters is the culture. Homeschooling and the "anarchic" media (e.g. Internet) are the only way to resist Marxism in the long run - and that is why Leftists are attacking both of these.

 

[ShieldWife]

Yes, I have often said that homeschooling is one of the best ways, perhaps even a necessary way, to defeat the left. If people let the left raise their children, then there is no hope for Western civilization. And to have homeschooling, we need traditional families, meaning men who work and women who stay home to take care of the children and eventually educate them as well.

Significant numbers of women in the workforce, as mainstream as it may be, is mutually exclusive with Western civilization’s continued survival, as is the tolerance of children born out of wedlock and divorce.

 

[BlackDragon98]

The rights of a man, the privileges of a woman, and the accountability of an infant.

Feminism in a nutshell.

Black Dragon out.

 

[Captain X]

Nope. Look at what is going on in the West. Under the ideal of "equality", you have oppression, culturocide, genocide...

And you know damn well this is due to a force which is undermining the principal of equality by people who very much through their actions have shown they do not actually believe in equality. You need to stop legitimizing the propaganda they are putting out in order to push the oppressive government you apparently prefer.

US are not the world. And US themselves are part of the Western cultural circle, same as Germany. You are not Martians, no matter how much you might pretend to be.

And?

Communism is based on the idea of equality, and justified by it. But equality never leads to equality, hence why I say it is dangerous to pretend it does.

Communists talk a great deal about equality, but you and I both know that this is just a hook they use to make themselves seem palatable to useful idiots. Stop conflating their moronic lie of "equality of outcome" with the idea of being treated equally under the law. It's extremely intellectually dishonest.

First, United States are not the world. Second, colonies were hardly oppressed by historical measure of oppression. Colonies first started complaining after Britain introduced taxes to them - taxes that would have been normal in Europe, and were in fact intended to recuperate the costs that the Crown had incurred in helping defend the colonies from the French. Boston Massacre was initiated by the colonists - British troops were defending themselves. Third, those same "equality believing" colonists went on to oppress, enslave and exterminate the natives. And fourth, it never was about equality. It was about freedom - freedom from taxes, from oppressive acts and so on. If american colonies had been part of the Holy Roman Empire instead of the British Empire, and governed accordingly, American Revolution would never have happened.

They felt strongly enough about it to fight a war over it. Do I really need to start quoting what the founding fathers of my country had to say about the matter? The issue was not specifically about unfair taxes, this was simply part of it, and was a great example of how they had no say in how they were governed. Also that people should not be placed in positions of power over others simply by accident of birth. You will never win an argument with me over this - straight up. Further, your argument about the US not being the world is completely irrelevant to me. You are making an argument against the principals the US was founded on, and I am slapping that argument right the fuck down into the dirt where it belongs. Even Rome, which was hardly a bastion of freedom and equality, did best when it was ruled by emperors who were chosen by merit rather than by birth. They got around any such idea of leadership by birthright by adopting men they felt had what it took to lead the Empire well.

Communism, Progressivism, US Democrats... do I need go on?

None of these are an argument against a nation treating people equally under the law, because all of them are against that idea themselves. The only reason these assholes are a problem is because no one has stood up to them in any meaningful way, and the people who could have actually done something just buried their heads in the sand and let them go about undermining our institutions from the inside.

Definitely. But a federal (or feudal) monarchy is even better than republics.

No, rule by consent (as in Republics) is better than rule by accident of birth. All that will give you is tyrants.

You know, you could not be more wrong if you tried.

Every form of government can be centralized, and thus tyrannical - monarchy, republic, democracy, name it. In fact, democracy cannot be anything but tyrannical if it is implemented on anything but the most local level. Historically, monarchy had shown the greatest ability to accomodate high degree of localization and local self-governance, because personal loyalty to the crown helped hold the country together and thus minimized the need for governmental interference.

Monarchy is all about power being centralized in the form of the monarch. It matters not if there are other small fries who have some autonomy - it all represents centralized power in the hands of a few tyrants.

That fantasy was, for a long time, a fact of life. Yes, many monarchs failed to live up to that standard - but many also succeeded. Meanwhile, modern politicians don't have a standard to live up to to begin with, beyond maybe "thieving liar".

I notice you haven't actually made an argument against the idea of these being little more than dictators under a different name.

First, I have never advocated for absolute monarchy, so stop with that "absolute dictator" crap.

No. That is what monarchy represents - full stop. It matters little if the power is spread out among a few others who rule by accident of birth, this still represents a form of dictatorship, as it is rule according to the whims of these leaders by birthright.

West already is ruled by what is essentially an absolute dictatorship, you don't need a monarchy for that, nor is monarchy automatically an absolute dictatorship.

Yeah, and notice the part where we're fighting against that? That's kind of the whole point.

Second, equality, meritocracy and accountability is not something you can really achieve beyond the local level. And if you think you have that - in the United States or anywhere else - you are delusional.

Says the guy wishing the Middle Ages had never ended.

 

[Aldarion]

And you know damn well this is due to a force which is undermining the principal of equality by people who very much through their actions have shown they do not actually believe in equality. You need to stop legitimizing the propaganda they are putting out in order to push the oppressive government you apparently prefer.

And that is half of my point. Equality is impossible to achieve, because humans are not equal by nature. Therefore, the ideal itself is fundamentally self-defeating.

And I do not prefer oppressive government, you just have no clue.

And?

Marxism has originated in the West*, and has thoroughly infiltrated the same. It is not an outside, or a foreign, force.

* Specifically Germany, though France also played a big part in the ideals of Communism.

Communists talk a great deal about equality, but you and I both know that this is just a hook they use to make themselves seem palatable to useful idiots. Stop conflating their moronic lie of "equality of outcome" with the idea of being treated equally under the law. It's extremely intellectually dishonest.

Many of them actually believe it. Doesn't change the fact that every time people tried to achieve equality, they ended up with tyranny.

And being treated equally under the law is as impossible as other forms of equality. Lawmakers will always give themselves special privileges, no matter the political system.

They felt strongly enough about it to fight a war over it. Do I really need to start quoting what the founding fathers of my country had to say about the matter? The issue was not specifically about unfair taxes, this was simply part of it, and was a great example of how they had no say in how they were governed. Also that people should not be placed in positions of power over others simply by accident of birth. You will never win an argument with me over this - straight up. Further, your argument about the US not being the world is completely irrelevant to me. You are making an argument against the principals the US was founded on, and I am slapping that argument right the fuck down into the dirt where it belongs.

And again, if the US had been part of, say, Holy Roman Empire, they would never have rebelled. Problem was centralization and governmental tyranny, not monarchy or equality - in fact, the monarch showed far more understanding of the problems than the government did. Which is a recurring theme throughout history. For example, if it were only up to monarchs, World War I. would never have happened - it was their governments and the public opinion that started the general European war. Franz Joseph was reluctant to invade Serbia, but the government and the public outrage pushed him into giving a go-ahead - and the exact same situation happened in literally every country.

Even Rome, which was hardly a bastion of freedom and equality, did best when it was ruled by emperors who were chosen by merit rather than by birth. They got around any such idea of leadership by birthright by adopting men they felt had what it took to lead the Empire well.

Meritocracy is by nature the exact opposite of equality... and further, whenever meritocracy was tried, it always developed into aristocracy and/or monarchy.

None of these are an argument against a nation treating people equally under the law, because all of them are against that idea themselves. The only reason these assholes are a problem is because no one has stood up to them in any meaningful way, and the people who could have actually done something just buried their heads in the sand and let them go about undermining our institutions from the inside.

Stop the strawmans. I have already stated that I do believe equality under the law is a good idea. It is just one that can never be achieved. Especially if you have a government that has no fundamental opposition.

Essentially, if the central government is as powerful as it needs to be, it does not matter what the form it takes, and monarchy is preferable simply due to expenses and simplicity. If you feel that you have to have people directly or indirectly control the central government, then it means the government is too strong. And that is not to start with the actual flaws of democracy, and representative democracy specifically. Which are actually a big part of why nobody has stood up to Communist infiltration: the media and the educational system essentially control the nation (especially if you believe that democracy truly works), so Communists have infiltrated them first. And now you have younger generations which believe that equality in all possible shapes is the most fundamental value, to the point that they want to enforce outright sameness.

No, rule by consent (as in Republics) is better than rule by accident of birth. All that will give you is tyrants.

First, monarchy is not necessarily rule by accident of birth. Again, your lack of knowledge about anything related to monarchy is rather impressive. That, or you are strawmaning. Elective monarchy is a thing, and was for thousands of years. And at any rate, hereditary principle is not necessarily bad. Unlike democracy where elections essentially ensure that psychopaths will gain the power, in a hereditary monarchy you have sorta roll of the dice - except the monarch will be trained to rule. And since state is essentially a personal property of the monarch, to be passed onto the children, the monarch has a major personal stake into how well it does. Elected politicians meanwhile only care about being reelected, and do not care whether their policies will destroy the country in the long run.

Second, monarchy does not give tyrants as a matter of course. Absolute monarchy can produce tyrants, but even that is not exactly usual. Monarchy in general? Just no. Croatia has, during 1150 years spent under the monarchy, had weird or incompetent kings. But out of 77 kings in total, you could maybe find one or two to be described tyrants.

Even disregarding the previous Communist rule, we've had worse tyranny in 30 years since independence than ever under an actually significent (i.e. not a complete figurehead) monarch.

Monarchy is all about power being centralized in the form of the monarch. It matters not if there are other small fries who have some autonomy - it all represents centralized power in the hands of a few tyrants.

No it isn't. Learn a bit about the monarchy and how it actually functioned throughout history. Monarchies were personal property of the monarch, which essentially meant that individual constituent parts could generally govern themselves as they liked so long as they swore the oath, sang the hymn, and supported the monarch in times of trouble (e.g. war). Even after the centralization in 17th century, governmental interference remained limited.

In fact, the fact that the monarch is head of the government and has such a significant influence on the decision-making is a major limiter in how much centralization is actually possible - modern democratic government is, due to its size, far more able to micromanage the shit out of everything.

I notice you haven't actually made an argument against the idea of these being little more than dictators under a different name.

Except for the paragraph just before it...

No. That is what monarchy represents - full stop. It matters little if the power is spread out among a few others who rule by accident of birth, this still represents a form of dictatorship, as it is rule according to the whims of these leaders by birthright.

Look, would you please stop arguing about things you are clearly clueless about? Historically, absolute monarchy was 1) an aberration and 2) never truly "absolute" to begin with. Monarchs were not absolute dictators, full stop.

Yeah, and notice the part where we're fighting against that? That's kind of the whole point.

Fighting and losing. All I know is that Croatia was in far better shape under Habsburg rule than at any point after 1945.

Says the guy wishing the Middle Ages had never ended.

Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cherico]

Feminism/ egalitarianism is an experiement one being tried world wide.

If our systems collapse it will get all of the blame and women will not be allowed to vote hold office or have any political power for centuries. So it behoves feminists to stop tearing down the societies that have given them this much power because the society that will be born out of its ashes will be fair less kind, fair less tolerant and far less permissive.

 

[Simonbob]

Feminism/ egalitarianism is an experiement one being tried world wide.

If our systems collapse it will get all of the blame and women will not be allowed to vote hold office or have any political power for centuries. So it behoves feminists to stop tearing down the societies that have given them this much power because the society that will be born out of its ashes will be fair less kind, fair less tolerant and far less permissive.

True.

And, generally speaking, the women will be much happier.

 

[Abhishekm]

Let's compromise. No Rights for anybody! 👹

 

[Navarro]

Actually there was a very major division in "the Western cultural circle" at the time of America's founding. Most of Europe was extremely powerful if not absolute monarchies, and the exceptions were primarily hardcore feudal. And the United States was founded by heavy outliers for the already heavy outlier of 1700s Great Britain, which rendered a rather extreme degree of religious freedom a both bureaucratic and social necessity to be able to hold together.

If you look at history you can see how this happened. During the High Middle Ages the nobility and burghers pretty much joined forces to create structures of representative government in the various kingdoms to ensure the monarchs couldn't rule in an arbitrary way (this was largely a formalisation of pre-existing structures). Then in the 16th-17th centuries you have a pushback as monarchs try to regain and expand their power, with a lot of conflicts between the parliaments and the kings. England was pretty much the only country whose parliament won that power struggle.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

True.

And, generally speaking, the women will be much happier.

eh what's more likely is the comeback of the caste system. Contrary to popular belief, most people won't tolerate those they view as being far beneath them. people want to be challenged. Maybe some even most women will be content being house servants, but it won't be long before their man dumps them and looks for someone who is more there equal. there is a reason the tomboy meme is a thing.

that's the thing about feminist. Despite claiming to be "strong independent women" most can't take a scuffle and would be the first to cry foul when things don't go there way. Heck if it wasin't for the educational system, feminism would have died out by now.

 

[Spartan303]

Look at the West... also, French Revolution started with the idea of equality under the law, and ended up with a bloodbath. Communism started out with the idea of equality (though equality in general), and ended up with a bloodbath. And even so, equality under the law has not been achieved. Nor has any other type of equality, nor it ever will be.

Except for one major flaw in your logic. They do not want equality under the law. They want equity. They're not exactly the same thing.

 

[Laskar]

Except for one major flaw in your logic. They do not want equality under the law. They want equity. They're not exactly the same thing.

And thank God for that word. That one single word that sums up what the Left is after. Sure, we've had "Equality of outcome" for decades, but that's too long to use in casual conversation. If you're trying to explain politics to someone and you say "The Left wants to force equality of outcome", the other guy's eyes glaze over.

Now we have it down to a single word that doesn't involve equality. The Left is after equity, not equality, and the two concepts have nothing in common.

eh what's more likely is the comeback of the caste system. Contrary to popular belief, most people won't tolerate those they view as being far beneath them. people want to be challenged. Maybe some even most women will be content being house servants, but it won't be long before their man dumps them and looks for someone who is more there equal. there is a reason the tomboy meme is a thing.

that's the thing about feminist. Despite claiming to be "strong independent women" most can't take a scuffle and would be the first to cry foul when things don't go there way. Heck if it wasin't for the educational system, feminism would have died out by now.

Shout out to that one guy in the Hardhat Riot who shouted "Equal rights means you get equal lefts!" before punching a hippy's lights out.