So, you admit to having no feasible plan and are just blustering ideology the same as every other alternative on the right does?SNIP
So, you admit to having no feasible plan and are just blustering ideology the same as every other alternative on the right does?SNIP
None of those existed in the 18th century.I lost you here - surely the twain do not hand in hand go?
As to warm water ports - with the warm stage of the current interglacial, Vladivostok no longer freezes over. Sankt Peterburg - to much lesser degree. Two months max.
And in both cases icebreakers help in keeping them running throughout - or most of - the winter.
Murmansk is ice free but Russia never bothered to develop it commercially.
Archangielsk - which does freeze, is more important commercially (being connected to Volga by canal might have something to do with it) than Maurmansk. However, the exit of the Belomor Kanal - which also is connected to the Volga - was never developed to handle trade.
I know that the analogy is not perfect - but even though The Sund was as important to Russian trade as The Straits (if not more), Russia never developed a Copenhangen obession ...
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.So, you admit to having no feasible plan and are just blustering ideology the same as every other alternative on the right does?
So, you admit to having no feasible plan and are just blustering ideology the same as every other alternative on the right does?
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.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
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.
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.
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.
How are these gains permanent?Yet only the Left is making permanent gains, from what I can see.
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?If we actually look at historical patterns, it is not that democracies secure high living standard, but rather that high living standard leads to democracy.
Government expansion is almost always permanent, he has a point here.How are these gains permanent?
yeah, and the "temporary" measures and agencies just become more bloated and more powerful.Government expansion is almost always permanent, he has a point here.
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).yeah, and the "temporary" measures and agencies just become more bloated and more powerful.
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.
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.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.
1) Compare how powerful government was in 1900 and how powerful it was in 2000. Even US conservatives are Big Government tyrants by
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.And none of
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
Post communist countries didn't have a strong middle class.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.
OTOH those are not aligned with the west, and have far worse problems than a minority of light progressives.
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.
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.
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.