Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Aldarion]

Democracy is tyranny, it's a truly shitty system.

B/C they aren't a Democracy or a Republic.
Not the response you were looking for Aldarion, but I felt the need to answer.

I don't think democracy / republic is a possibility to begin with.

Moneyed interests brought down monarchy and old aristocracy because they were the only ones who could stand up to the big finance head-on. Republic is a good idea in theory, but in reality it just gets kidnapped by the plutocracy.

 

[Abhorsen]

I don't think democracy / republic is a possibility to begin with.

Moneyed interests brought down monarchy and old aristocracy because they were the only ones who could stand up to the big finance head-on. Republic is a good idea in theory, but in reality it just gets kidnapped by the plutocracy.

All governments come with inevitable fail states. Democracy/republic/feudal systems seek to diversify who is in power, as opposed to absolute monarchial/dictatorial regimes, which centralize it. Ultimately, people will collapse any system set up eventually. I'd say that democracies/republics at least can have consistent heights of freedoms the others can't approach, because monarchies support of freedom, if existent, is extremely fragile.

The best system? Anarchy (not chaos, just a lack of significant government) in an isolated place with a high trust society and consistent culture. It's existed occasionally (Iceland had something similar), but it's rare, and not a viable solution in most places.

 

[LordsFire]

I don't think democracy / republic is a possibility to begin with.

Moneyed interests brought down monarchy and old aristocracy because they were the only ones who could stand up to the big finance head-on. Republic is a good idea in theory, but in reality it just gets kidnapped by the plutocracy.

What destroys all elective governments, is when the voting body decides to start voting themselves a cut of other people's money.

Then whoever promises to that for them the most will end up in power, and that's an inherently corrupting position to hold.

Aggressively fighting that as much as possible is the only way to preserve something resembling health in a republic.

 

[Marduk]

I don't think democracy / republic is a possibility to begin with.

Moneyed interests brought down monarchy and old aristocracy because they were the only ones who could stand up to the big finance head-on. Republic is a good idea in theory, but in reality it just gets kidnapped by the plutocracy.

If monarchy is so great why is it failing so reliably across time and places?
Monarchies start out in quite meritocratic manner, as some sort of successful warlord bringing stability to a chaotic environment.
But then in turn hereditary nature of monarchy and aristocracy means that the descendants may not necessarily carry over some, and in long term even any of his talents and abilities. This in turn in few generations gets you mostly useless fops who take ruling the place for granted, and then surprise surprise, at some point they screw up too much, or some outside enemy knocks at the gates, and they either lose to those, or have to make dirty compromises with bankers or other powerful institutions or groups for aid, depending which may also lead to plutocracy, or democracy, or something else.

Republics at least encourage some level of ongoing internal regulated competition for power between two or several powerful factions as an integral part of the system (a lot of the problems we have now with them is not enough of that competition), while in classic monarchy that sort of thing is implying high treason and civil war by default.

 

[Agent23]

I want to invade ones that do as well.
Canada is top of the list!

Put Turdeau on trial Saddam style, too!

 

[Aldarion]

All governments come with inevitable fail states. Democracy/republic/feudal systems seek to diversify who is in power, as opposed to absolute monarchial/dictatorial regimes, which centralize it. Ultimately, people will collapse any system set up eventually. I'd say that democracies/republics at least can have consistent heights of freedoms the others can't approach, because monarchies support of freedom, if existent, is extremely fragile.

The best system? Anarchy (not chaos, just a lack of significant government) in an isolated place with a high trust society and consistent culture. It's existed occasionally (Iceland had something similar), but it's rare, and not a viable solution in most places.

True to an extent. But thing about democracy (and republic to an extent) is that it largely centralizes the power while at the same time seeking to diversify it. It is an inherent contradiction that cannot really be resolved... in the end, the government becomes your judge, jury and the executioner, because everybody sees the government as a way to fulfill their goals and nobody sees it as what it really is - a threat.

And monarchy is in fact the closest you can really get to a functional anarchy.

If monarchy is so great why is it failing so reliably across time and places?

Things always change... usually for the worse.

But consider that monarchies lasted for hundreds or thousands of years. Democracies all across the West are failing after merely decades, assuming they were ever even successful to begin with.

Monarchies start out in quite meritocratic manner, as some sort of successful warlord bringing stability to a chaotic environment.
But then in turn hereditary nature of monarchy and aristocracy means that the descendants may not necessarily carry over some, and in long term even any of his talents and abilities. This in turn in few generations gets you mostly useless fops who take ruling the place for granted, and then surprise surprise, at some point they screw up too much, or some outside enemy knocks at the gates, and they either lose to those, or have to make dirty compromises with bankers or other powerful institutions or groups for aid, depending which may also lead to plutocracy, or democracy, or something else.

Even assuming that what you wrote is true, the hereditary nature of monarchies also mean that their rulers treat the state as a family, long-term investment. A monarch may screw over the country through incompetence... but it is nearly impossible to find one that had screwed it over by intent. By contrast, elected officials are fully willing and capable of screwing over their country's and people's entire future just for the sake of winning a single election - after all, that is exactly what the Left are doing with mass immigration.

Sure, you may get useless fops who screw over in a monarchy... but in a democracy, especially elective one, that is all but guaranteed. Qualities one needs to get elected - sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, deceitfulness - are the exact opposite of the qualities that leaders of the state should have. So while elected officials may not be useless fops, they will typically be far worse than that.

 

[Marduk]

Things always change... usually for the worse.

But consider that monarchies lasted for hundreds or thousands of years. Democracies all across the West are failing after merely decades, assuming they were ever even successful to begin with.

Well things generally happened slower in preindustrial age. Wars that lasted decades were a norm, now a war that lasts few years some consider long.
It's not like monarchies no longer exist, some do, it's just that they aren't a great example to point at either.

Even assuming that what you wrote is true, the hereditary nature of monarchies also mean that their rulers treat the state as a family, long-term investment.

If you look at rich families, including those worth more than a small country, and the drama they sometimes have, you can realize it can be a good thing, or a very bad thing.
It makes the interpersonal drama of rich and famous into a matter of national security and prosperity.

A monarch may screw over the country through incompetence... but it is nearly impossible to find one that had screwed it over by intent. By contrast, elected officials are fully willing and capable of screwing over their country's and people's entire future just for the sake of winning a single election - after all, that is exactly what the Left are doing with mass immigration.

Then why is North Korea even more fucked up than their Chinese patrons? Even they are a bit annoyed with their local hereditary rule being such a drag, but the fact is that hereditary rulers may be unwilling to take risks in improving the country if only to keep their hold on their position solid too.
And back in the age of monarchies, many rulers didn't even consider it a particularly big deal what language their subjects speak and what customs they practice, so importing settler immigrants was something they considered themselves perfectly right to do.

If the figurehead monarchs of places like Spain, UK, Norway and so on were sadly ignored fountains of great wisdom and leadership advice, you may have had a point, but from my observation they aren't all that different in political views from the norm of generic top socialites of the same region regardless of their backstory.

Sure, you may get useless fops who screw over in a monarchy... but in a democracy, especially elective one, that is all but guaranteed. Qualities one needs to get elected - sociopathy, psychopathy, narcissism, deceitfulness - are the exact opposite of the qualities that leaders of the state should have. So while elected officials may not be useless fops, they will typically be far worse than that.

A successful ruler in a competitive environment, monarch or not, will probably have those traits either way, if not, he will find it hard to be successful despite those lacks. Doesn't that describe people like Machiavelli, Ragnar Lodbrok or Sun Tzu pretty closely?
As the saying goes, it's not a question whether the guy on top will be a bastard, it's whether he will be *our* bastard. The key is to get the ruler(s) to direct such dangerous talents at overt and covert aggression externally, rather than internally.
A toothless dog won't bite you for sure, but it won't make a worthwhile guard dog either.

 

[mrttao]

Nah, I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here. People aren't addicted to fentanyl, and they aren't getting addicted to it during the very short term use that goes on in hospitals, and the supply isn't coming from hospitals. Banning it from hospital use will solve NOTHING.

you completely misread my post on many levels.

1. I didn't say people get addicted from an anesthiologist injecting them with fentanyl during surgery once.

2. I did say that it is EXTREMELY rare for a surgery to require and use fentanyl injections in hospitals. And even if such a rare case occurs, it really wasn't the right drug for the job anyways.

3. I did say the major problem with medicinal use is not the hospitals but that doctors over perscribing such medications to people to take at home. Which then gets those people addicted, and then when the perscription is over they go buy that same drug on the street.

4. He said that if we ban pharmacies handing out fentanyl to peopleto use at home, it will also mean there is no more fentanyl for anesthiologists who might want to use it in the hospital for open heart surgery.
which i then counter argued against on various points.

5. there was also some discussion about the supply chain. Specifically, on whether or not the USA should proactively take down parts of the supply chain in mexico. And whether or not it is necessary for hospital supplies.

 

[Scottty]

5. there was also some discussion about the supply chain. Specifically, on whether or not the USA should proactively take down parts of the supply chain in mexico. And whether or not it is necessary for hospital supplies.

IMHO, if the problem is high drug use levels in the USA, a serious approach to solving the problem would be one that addressed the causes - why are so many people getting addicted to painkillers?

Bombing poppy fields in far-off lands does not fix the real problem. It just reduces the supply without reducing the demand. Which means the price goes up, which makes that business more profitable, which means more players enter the market - especially players that your government does not really want to take direct action against.

And so you end up with Communist China becoming your nation's drug-pusher, and all the Democrat politicians that China has in its pocket being a 5th column to prevent any policy that would reduce the amount of drug-addiction.

Meanwhile, the more expensive the smuggled drugs, the higher a proportion of their income the addicted people are paying, which leads to more economic hardship for them and everyone else. Money that could be circulating for good things, instead going to the drug-dealers.

 

[DarthOne]

IMHO, if the problem is high drug use levels in the USA, a serious approach to solving the problem would be one that addressed the causes - why are so many people getting addicted to painkillers?

Bombing poppy fields in far-off lands does not fix the real problem. It just reduces the supply without reducing the demand. Which means the price goes up, which makes that business more profitable, which means more players enter the market - especially players that your government does not really want to take direct action against.

And so you end up with Communist China becoming your nation's drug-pusher, and all the Democrat politicians that China has in its pocket being a 5th column to prevent any policy that would reduce the amount of drug-addiction.

Meanwhile, the more expensive the smuggled drugs, the higher a proportion of their income the addicted people are paying, which leads to more economic hardship for them and everyone else. Money that could be circulating for good things, instead going to the drug-dealers.

I say do both- solve the damn problems in the USA (despair related to social and economic collapse) and hit the problems abroad.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Democrat politicians that China has in its pocket

Do you know what the saddest part is? I don't even think they're doing it on purpose. Democrats don't like China any more than Republicans do. But just like how I keep accusing people on this forum for trying to beat leftists with leftism, the Democrats keep trying to beat China by copying their policies.

A far simpler way to win would be to just open US markets and laugh as China screws itself over with central planning and excessive spending. Which is already happening, and has already taken down more than one Communist superpower that military force could not have destroyed.

 

[Aldarion]

Then why is North Korea even more fucked up than their Chinese patrons? Even they are a bit annoyed with their local hereditary rule being such a drag, but the fact is that hereditary rulers may be unwilling to take risks in improving the country if only to keep their hold on their position solid too.

Because, thanks to these same Chinese patrons, they can afford to remain in hardline Communism.

And back in the age of monarchies, many rulers didn't even consider it a particularly big deal what language their subjects speak and what customs they practice, so importing settler immigrants was something they considered themselves perfectly right to do.

If the figurehead monarchs of places like Spain, UK, Norway and so on were sadly ignored fountains of great wisdom and leadership advice, you may have had a point, but from my observation they aren't all that different in political views from the norm of generic top socialites of the same region regardless of their backstory.

True. But premodern monarchies were far more than just monarchs... you might also remember that I actually consider absolute monarchies to have been patently evil idea.

When Bela IV attempted to settle Cumans into Hungary, he got pushback by nobility and cities alike.

A successful ruler in a competitive environment, monarch or not, will probably have those traits either way, if not, he will find it hard to be successful despite those lacks. Doesn't that describe people like Machiavelli, Ragnar Lodbrok or Sun Tzu pretty closely?
As the saying goes, it's not a question whether the guy on top will be a bastard, it's whether he will be *our* bastard. The key is to get the ruler(s) to direct such dangerous talents at overt and covert aggression externally, rather than internally.
A toothless dog won't bite you for sure, but it won't make a worthwhile guard dog either.

But how do you ensure that guy at the top is "your" guy when the enemy has, like, all the money?

 

[Marduk]

Because, thanks to these same Chinese patrons, they can afford to remain in hardline Communism.

So a hereditary ruler will as much as subject the country to foreign dominance and citizenry to near starvation just to make keeping power easier.

True. But premodern monarchies were far more than just monarchs... you might also remember that I actually consider absolute monarchies to have been patently evil idea.

When Bela IV attempted to settle Cumans into Hungary, he got pushback by nobility and cities alike.

So it seems that dispersion of power among some factions is key, how is that called and on what principle is secondary. If we had generals willing to play the role of "nobility" that may improve something but the rest of our factions would struggle to accept that.
And the less said about the political preferences of current city leadership in western world the better, they would be screaming the loudest for more migrants.

But how do you ensure that guy at the top is "your" guy when the enemy has, like, all the money?

Divide the enemy and make common cause with at least some that have some of the money, like industrialists or farmers, sometimes they have conflicting interests with the left.

 

[Agent23]

Nah, I think you're misunderstanding what's happening here. People aren't addicted to fentanyl, and they aren't getting addicted to it during the very short term use that goes on in hospitals, and the supply isn't coming from hospitals. Banning it from hospital use will solve NOTHING.

People are getting addicted to prescription pain killers, yes. Usually those that get an RX to take home. Then they turn to street drugs to get their fix when the RX runs out. Those street drugs are often laced with fentanyl, which is what's causing the ODs. People usually aren't out looking for fentanyl. They're trying to get heroin or black market pills and the shit is laced, and they end up overdosing.

Banning it from hospitals isn't going to stop that from happening, because its not coming from hospitals. Its coming from China and Mexico. Using weaker opiods in the hospital isn't going to stop it either, because again, that's not where its coming from. That's not where most addiction is coming from. It's used to alleviate pain, short term, after surgeries. That's just not the kind of opioid use that's causing the addiction epidemic. They can use whatever opioid their doctor thinks best for their situation after major surgeries.

We are talking about a complete ban on it and its various precursors.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

The source of most fentanyl overdoses is due to counterfeit xannax bars that get sold on the street. Counterfeit painkillers made with fentanyl are also a major problem though.

 

[Circle of Willis]

Also, a prophecy from Mad Magazine back in 2006.

 

[Aldarion]

So a hereditary ruler will as much as subject the country to foreign dominance and citizenry to near starvation just to make keeping power easier.

True, but that is true regardless of what kind of political system country has.

Yet from my experience, somewhat authoritarian rulers may be less susceptible to foreign dominance than democratic systems - Tudjman and Susak may have been poisoned and killed by Washington globalists because they were not fit for them, and then consider Orban, Putin or a myriad of Third World dictators that globalists had to assassinate.

So it is not exactly clear-cut advantage to democracy (although Putin I suspect may have been a globalist stooge, but it is more likely he simply overplayed his hand).

So it seems that dispersion of power among some factions is key, how is that called and on what principle is secondary. If we had generals willing to play the role of "nobility" that may improve something but the rest of our factions would struggle to accept that.
And the less said about the political preferences of current city leadership in western world the better, they would be screaming the loudest for more migrants.

Agreed.

Divide the enemy and make common cause with at least some that have some of the money, like industrialists or farmers, sometimes they have conflicting interests with the left.

Problem is that globalists generally have much wider base to draw upon. I know Naomi Klein is a leftist, but her Shock Doctrine is actually a good description of how globalist Left operates...

 

[mrttao]

IMHO, if the problem is high drug use levels in the USA, a serious approach to solving the problem would be one that addressed the causes - why are so many people getting addicted to painkillers?

Bombing poppy fields in far-off lands does not fix the real problem. It just reduces the supply without reducing the demand. Which means the price goes up, which makes that business more profitable, which means more players enter the market - especially players that your government does not really want to take direct action against.

And so you end up with Communist China becoming your nation's drug-pusher, and all the Democrat politicians that China has in its pocket being a 5th column to prevent any policy that would reduce the amount of drug-addiction.

Meanwhile, the more expensive the smuggled drugs, the higher a proportion of their income the addicted people are paying, which leads to more economic hardship for them and everyone else. Money that could be circulating for good things, instead going to the drug-dealers.

I mean... getting illegal drugs pushed from china is still an improvement over them coming from mexico.
As the mexican drug cartels are spilling over into the USA due to the shared border.

But you make some good points about how we should be focusing on the root causes.
stopping the plague of fatherless children, and the destruction of the middle class would do wonders to curb drug abuse.

 

[Cherico]

 

[PsihoKekec]