History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[TheRomanSlayer]

...What I objected to most particularly was the incredibly wrong-headed suggestion that Savonarola would be the man who could have reformed the Church, when in reality, he was one of the most destructive figures of the age. And conversely, that Pope Alexander VI (who got rid of Savonarola) is pained as having been the bad guy, when in reality, he actually was a committed reformer!

Of course, the bizarre notion that the Church supposedly monopolised wealth is also deeply flawed. Yes, there was corruption and enrichment-- but that was almost entirely about allocation of funds. The Church didn't have a monopoly on wealth and power, and was in fact a pretty important check on state power. One of the most detrimental nlong-term effects of Protestantism is that it broke this check, and thereby dramatically unbalanced internal power within the political system of the West. Put very briefly: Protestantism is why political absolutism became a thing, among both Catholics and Protestants. It's because the checks and balances of the system had been destroyed. We're still living in the extended aftermath of that disaster.

Coming back to macro-history, this assessment is confirmed by the observation that civilisations which enact reform at this pertinent "hinge moment" are better off than civilisations which fall to division instead. The latter category is inevitably faced with a protracted series of system-spanning wars, which the former category mostly manages to avoid. Thus, my view that Protestantism has generally been a Bad Thing™, and that the alternative course of action for solving the (very real!) problems of the Catholic Church -- namely thorough reform -- would have been infinitely preferable.

Didn't they also have a thing with indulgences?

I would be resentful of the Church getting involved in State affairs if I was a European king, tbh.

Even if that was the case within the Catholic Church, you'd still have reactionaries within the Papal clergy that would have opposed such reforms. And if those reactionaries had their way, then what?

 

[Simonbob]

because the Catholic powers that colonized them only taught them how to work, and never taught them how to accumulate wealth.

...... You have an insanely low opinion of, well, most of humanity, I see.

You really don't think they could learn something so obvious? That some of them didn't already know it? That there weren't books and experts avalable? If your leaders wanted it, it was everywhere.

No, they may have bent for the colonial powers, but in general? The kind of leaders they had mostly just kept on keeping as much power as they could.

There's a number of places where the colonial powers made a real difference. You can tell them by how good it is to live there.




Look at Singapore, and until the communists started fucking it, Hong Kong.

 

[Skallagrim]

Even if that was the case within the Catholic Church, you'd still have reactionaries within the Papal clergy that would have opposed such reforms. And if those reactionaries had their way, then what?

My argument: "Reform would have been better than schism (for the reasons which I detailed)."

Your response: "But what if reform didn't happen, huh?"

That's a complete non sequitur, which doesn't interact with my argument at all. Your question has obviously been answered, because it's what actually happened. And my whole point is that what actually happened was the "bad outcome", as it were. My argument isn't something as biased or stupid as "Protestants are bad people", nor even "the intial Protestants weren't justified in their dissatisfaction". I think they were justified. I do disagree with their solutions, whivh I find largely misguided and deeply inadequate. But more relevantly, I express profound dissatisfaction with the long-term outcome of the whole affair. Because the study of history shows me that this outcome -- violent schism and a massive escalation of unusually brutal wars -- was not the only possible outcome. Therefore, I say again: it would have been infinitely preferable to have a real Reformation of the Church, instead of a violent schism that merely calls itself a "Reformation".

Unlike many altogether too biased observers, I'm not very interested in laying blame. I think there's plenty of blame to go around, both in the deep errors and corruptions of the Church, and in the deep errors and corruptions of those effecting a schism. My goal isn't to blame men for being flawed, but to lament that in this case, it led to a particularly regrettable (and by no means pre-ordained) outcome.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

...... You have an insanely low opinion of, well, most of humanity, I see.

You really don't think they could learn something so obvious? That some of them didn't already know it? That there weren't books and experts avalable? If your leaders wanted it, it was everywhere.

No, they may have bent for the colonial powers, but in general? The kind of leaders they had mostly just kept on keeping as much power as they could.

There's a number of places where the colonial powers made a real difference. You can tell them by how good it is to live there.




Look at Singapore, and until the communists started fucking it, Hong Kong.

The kind of learning regarding commerce and finance would have been done in the early stages of the colonial period. The colonial powers would have at least taught the natives the basics of finance and commerce instead of repeating songs from prayer books, and their situation would at least improve by a bit.

To be honest, Singapore and Hong Kong only became successful because they were not colonized by Catholics. While I would say Macau was colonized by Catholics, they were not as wealthy as Hong Kong and Singapore, and the other two places you've mentioned were colonized by Protestant powers. Powers that only cared much for profit, because colonies in actuality are like state owned businesses, but with native corvee labor involved. Colonies are not a charity case after all, and the Iberian powers in that regard were far too humane to realize that their own empire fell apart because of that humanity.

And given the fact that I came from a Catholic, Third World shithole on steroids that was fucked over by two Western powers and one Eastern power, plus the poverty that my own family endured that led us to migrating to wealthier nations, you can definitely see where my anger for such a thing comes from.

My argument: "Reform would have been better than schism (for the reasons which I detailed)."

Your response: "But what if reform didn't happen, huh?"

That's a complete non sequitur, which doesn't interact with my argument at all. Your question has obviously been answered, because it's what actually happened. And my whole point is that what actually happened was the "bad outcome", as it were. My argument isn't something as biased or stupid as "Protestants are bad people", nor even "the intial Protestants weren't justified in their dissatisfaction". I think they were justified. I do disagree with their solutions, whivh I find largely misguided and deeply inadequate. But more relevantly, I express profound dissatisfaction with the long-term outcome of the whole affair. Because the study of history shows me that this outcome -- violent schism and a massive escalation of unusually brutal wars -- was not the only possible outcome. Therefore, I say again: it would have been infinitely preferable to have a real Reformation of the Church, instead of a violent schism that merely calls itself a "Reformation".

Unlike many altogether too biased observers, I'm not very interested in laying blame. I think there's plenty of blame to go around, both in the deep errors and corruptions of the Church, and in the deep errors and corruptions of those effecting a schism. My goal isn't to blame men for being flawed, but to lament that in this case, it led to a particularly regrettable (and by no means pre-ordained) outcome.

While I could concede this argument in this case, with Reform being better, I still have to point out the whole 'reactionary faction opposed to reforms' kind of thing that would make it harder for it to become a reality.

And even if that reform became a reality, you'd still have the same reactionaries with sticks up their collective asses complaining about said reforms too. When the opposition becomes far too great to the kind of reforms that are being planned and implemented, it inevitably leads to bloodshed.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

My view is that history has no "good guys". Not really. There are often clear cases of "worse guys", who we're glad to see gone, but that rarely renders their opponents into saints. And there are surely individuals who demonstrate clear heroism. But when we look at the big picture, at the overall "sides" and factions that struggle against one another... there are bad guys everywhere.

Men are flawed beings.

Oh Men are certainly flawed beings and I do not now or previously expect men to be saints. The issue, the reason why I view the Universal Church as the "worse guys" in this hypothetical, isn't so much the killing itself or even human nature tendency towards abuse of power. No, my core objection rests upon that this line of thought rejects the rights of the individual in favor of the collective pretty heavily. That the "crime" isn't based upon public actions but private belief. That tips things from a justifiable killing to murder.

Personaly, I look at the practical reality of life on the ground, and conclude that there is little difference of tangible effect. Of course, from my own background (Catholic), it may be easier to wave a hand at such things.

I don't think the issue is primarily a religious one. I'm Catholic. In and of itself, I like and feel drawn towards the a singular, encompassing Church. There is a conformity, a sense of belonging and on a purely aesthetic level the Church, its splendor in art and architect appeals to me greatly.

Rather I suspect the difference lies more in our nationalities. I'm American which means I've assimilated many, for lack of a better term, Protestant assumptions in regards to government and religion's place in the public sphere at least as it pertains to the American context.

As for "reality on the ground", under one a Church can say no or go counter to the other. There's a freedom of choice. The other lacks such a distinction.

In the Principate, all politics become court politics. The Emperor may have courtiers and magnates executed or exiled; he may have wealthy plutocrats divested of their riches when they step out of line... but if you live a few hundred miles away, you can bet he never visits.

That I rather strongly disagree with. Not only is a "few hundred miles" well within a day's travel by car but with modern technology the Emperor doesn't need to physically travel there to have real time knowledge of what is transpiring. He can have facetime with the local village leader at a moment's notice. He can, should he desire it, have everything from the serfs under his domain's health records to their incarceration at a snap of his finger to determine if said leader is being a good steward.

Short of regressing to early 20th if not 19th century, the State will have the power to always be omnipresent. Being a few hundred miles away is the same as living in the capitol city.

First, the preceding age (our age, c. 1800 - c. 2100) is a period of upheavals, social experimentation, and unprecedented governmental growth and excess. This culminates in brutal "global civil wars" that are effectively the conclusion of a triptych. The age of "modernity" began with the French Revolution and its excesses, followed by Napoleon and the warfare state (e.g. levée en masse). In the middle, we have the World Wars and the extremes of totalitarian ideologies that produce gulags and gas chambers. And at the close, we have the wars of "Caesarism" against the established elites of "modernity". In the wake of those extremes, "modernity" as a whole will be viewed with hate and disgust. Men will seek to leave it far behind. There will be deep distrust of abusive state power, which will linger in the culture for some time.

Personally this view feels a bit schizophrenic. On one hand you are arguing people will have developed a distrust of "abusive" state power, that they'll fall back on tradition to "limited government" but at the same time you and others, notably @Cherico , argue the Principate will arise out of chaos and violent destruction to " promises unity and certainty. It gives safety and stability" and because the preceding turmoil of the "wars of "Caesarism"" men will have " seen enough trouble for several lifetimes, and they'll want no more of it" meaning they'll get in line.

Security and Liberty frequently are on opposing poles since freedom necessitates disorder. Men who favor the former are unlikely to be overly concerned or even view the problem as being State Power as opposed to it merely being directed against them. Resulting in a government which rewards them spoils rather than curbing the power of the Government.

Second, in the wake of civilisational war, order can only be restored though legitimacy. Since all ideologies have debased themselves in the preceding carnage, and the core tenets of the "modern" age itself are completely discredited by then, the only source of meaninful legitimacy is the oldest and truest source: tradition. Because of this, the civil wars only end when a sufficiently capable and sufficiently traditionalist person seizes power. that person is the "Augustus". (This is why the person filling that rule is always a reactionary.) In the West, limited government is the traditional -- and therefore the most intrinsically legitimate -- mode of operation.

But as you point out, the "Augustus" isn't really concerned with tradition merely leeching off of its legitimacy to serve his own ends. And what isn't useful will be airbrushed away or made to fit.

Third, democracy gets discredited as a part of "modernity". The Principate, therefore, will almost certainly introduce a decidedly non-democratic (and indeed effectively anti-democratic) system of societal and governmental organisation. And as you may be aware, there is literally nothing in human history that so powerfully speeds up the growth of government as the introduction of democracy. This was addressed in this thread by @Lord Sovereign, just yesterday. Therefore, the elimination of democracy will prevent government from "growing back" as rapidly as it could and certainly would do under a democratic regime.

I wouldn't agree "democracy" is the primary source of our problems whether we're talking about Greek mass democracy or more limited, Republican representation. Within a representative system its the easiest vector by which to expand the scope of government of course, since its very easy to convince people to vote for getting free lollipops, but no one in the US voted to dissolve the Southern border or for the nameless bureaucrats who make up the EPA or a thousand other government agencies. Rather the key problem of our age is a managerial class who believes they know better which will remain a problem whether government czars are appointed by elected politicians or by a monarch.

Further there are two interrelated but distinct poles when it comes to government power, authority and reach. Obviously in days past while a government's authority may have been approaching absolute its reach was limited. No matter how much a King might want to micromanage it simply wasn't feasible. Hence the, relatively, small but not limited government.

My fear is that now government reach is effectively limitless and combined with a head of state who's authority is, essentially, absolute means the only restraint is the Emperor's preference. If he wants he can listen in on every phone call, every e-mail and text with a room full of agents reviewing what dumb AI's have flagged as potentially heretical.

 

[Cherico]

Oh Men are certainly flawed beings and I do not now or previously expect men to be saints. The issue, the reason why I view the Universal Church as the "worse guys" in this hypothetical, isn't so much the killing itself or even human nature tendency towards abuse of power. No, my core objection rests upon that this line of thought rejects the rights of the individual in favor of the collective pretty heavily. That the "crime" isn't based upon public actions but private belief. That tips things from a justifiable killing to murder.


I don't think the issue is primarily a religious one. I'm Catholic. In and of itself, I like and feel drawn towards the a singular, encompassing Church. There is a conformity, a sense of belonging and on a purely aesthetic level the Church, its splendor in art and architect appeals to me greatly.

Rather I suspect the difference lies more in our nationalities. I'm American which means I've assimilated many, for lack of a better term, Protestant assumptions in regards to government and religion's place in the public sphere at least as it pertains to the American context.

As for "reality on the ground", under one a Church can say no or go counter to the other. There's a freedom of choice. The other lacks such a distinction.



That I rather strongly disagree with. Not only is a "few hundred miles" well within a day's travel by car but with modern technology the Emperor doesn't need to physically travel there to have real time knowledge of what is transpiring. He can have facetime with the local village leader at a moment's notice. He can, should he desire it, have everything from the serfs under his domain's health records to their incarceration at a snap of his finger to determine if said leader is being a good steward.

Short of regressing to early 20th if not 19th century, the State will have the power to always be omnipresent. Being a few hundred miles away is the same as living in the capitol city.


Personally this view feels a bit schizophrenic. On one hand you are arguing people will have developed a distrust of "abusive" state power, that they'll fall back on tradition to "limited government" but at the same time you and others, notably @Cherico , argue the Principate will arise out of chaos and violent destruction to " promises unity and certainty. It gives safety and stability" and because the preceding turmoil of the "wars of "Caesarism"" men will have " seen enough trouble for several lifetimes, and they'll want no more of it" meaning they'll get in line.

Security and Liberty frequently are on opposing poles since freedom necessitates disorder. Men who favor the former are unlikely to be overly concerned or even view the problem as being State Power as opposed to it merely being directed against them. Resulting in a government which rewards them spoils rather than curbing the power of the Government.


But as you point out, the "Augustus" isn't really concerned with tradition merely leeching off of its legitimacy to serve his own ends. And what isn't useful will be airbrushed away or made to fit.


I wouldn't agree "democracy" is the primary source of our problems whether we're talking about Greek mass democracy or more limited, Republican representation. Within a representative system its the easiest vector by which to expand the scope of government of course, since its very easy to convince people to vote for getting free lollipops, but no one in the US voted to dissolve the Southern border or for the nameless bureaucrats who make up the EPA or a thousand other government agencies. Rather the key problem of our age is a managerial class who believes they know better which will remain a problem whether government czars are appointed by elected politicians or by a monarch.

Further there are two interrelated but distinct poles when it comes to government power, authority and reach. Obviously in days past while a government's authority may have been approaching absolute its reach was limited. No matter how much a King might want to micromanage it simply wasn't feasible. Hence the, relatively, small but not limited government.

My fear is that now government reach is effectively limitless and combined with a head of state who's authority is, essentially, absolute means the only restraint is the Emperor's preference. If he wants he can listen in on every phone call, every e-mail and text with a room full of agents reviewing what dumb AI's have flagged as potentially heretical.

The best way to explain it is this.


Much fewer rules but the ones that remain are ruthlessly enforced.

 

[Blasterbot]

Your response: "But what if reform didn't happen, huh?"

there is an argument here. it would need more support. it would need to break down the why though. it would need to go into the reasons that historically it was deemed easier to found your own church than it was to work to reform Catholicism's corruption.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

there is an argument here. it would need more support. it would need to break down the why though. it would need to go into the reasons that historically it was deemed easier to found your own church than it was to work to reform Catholicism's corruption.

There's also the question of why is there an opposition to such reforms, and why is there a support for reforms as well. Basically, when you think of the Protestant Reformation, we could compare it to a start up company that's in its infancy and needed time and purpose to develop into a functioning company. Protestantism is like that start-up company that eventually grew, and branched into 22,000 factions. Not bad for the Protestants, right? Despite not being a Protestant myself, I could see the logic behind the need to start one's own Church. The same logic was used by Henry VIII to create the Church of England, because he saw the idea of a state-controlled church as a way of getting what he wanted, and before anyone says something about his six wives and whatnot, let's remember that he had no surviving legitimate sons prior to the birth of Edward VI that was raised as a Catholic (Henry FitzRoy of course, doesn't count, as he's an illegitimate bastard born from Henry VIII's affair with Elizabeth Blount), and that the Church did not give him permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon because of her inability to sire a healthy son that could succeed him.

 

[King Arts]

There's also the question of why is there an opposition to such reforms, and why is there a support for reforms as well. Basically, when you think of the Protestant Reformation, we could compare it to a start up company that's in its infancy and needed time and purpose to develop into a functioning company. Protestantism is like that start-up company that eventually grew, and branched into 22,000 factions. Not bad for the Protestants, right? Despite not being a Protestant myself, I could see the logic behind the need to start one's own Church. The same logic was used by Henry VIII to create the Church of England, because he saw the idea of a state-controlled church as a way of getting what he wanted, and before anyone says something about his six wives and whatnot, let's remember that he had no surviving legitimate sons prior to the birth of Edward VI that was raised as a Catholic (Henry FitzRoy of course, doesn't count, as he's an illegitimate bastard born from Henry VIII's affair with Elizabeth Blount), and that the Church did not give him permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon because of her inability to sire a healthy son that could succeed him.

So what if they aren't legitimate. Just legitimize the bastard. If there are no legitimate male heirs the succession should not be THAT much of an issue. It's happened elsewhere.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

monarchs indeed payed for Chrystianitas betreyal - they are now puppets of pagan oligarchs

Most of them are gone, and the rest are glorified pets that are only kept around for show.

 

[ATP]

And the current Catholic system is any better? And yet, that didn't translate into the creation of merchants and wealthy nobles, so yeah.

Church was already grabbing money from the faithful through tithes and taxes. What's your point?

And I will always reiterate this once again: there are no Catholic countries OUTSIDE Europe that has the same level of wealth and power as the Anglophone countries, or even East Asia for that matter, because the Catholic powers that colonized them only taught them how to work, and never taught them how to accumulate wealth. And why should the Church have all the wealth and the regular people not be allowed to be as rich as the Church? The USA is only able to fuck over Latin America because the latter is a motley collection of Catholic shitholes that were badly managed. The natives in Latin America were never taught the basics of finance and commerce, and my own ancestors in the Philippines were never taught those same subjects as well. What was worse for my own racial ancestors is that we had to rely on Chinese merchants as middle men for finance and commerce, instead of learning about them ourselves.

Savonarola's execution eventually led to Martin Luther and the other Protestants looting Church property to knock them down a peg or two. And so what if he was neo-Gnostic? His opponent was the infamous Pope Alexander VI, one of the most corrupt popes in all of European history.

In all honesty, the official slogan of the Catholic Church should be "we'll save your souls in exchange for destroying your racial and ethnic pride".

Blame Spain on it.Or,to precise,their absolute Kings.
Becouse spanish church created Salamanca school which was almost the same like austrian school of economy made later,but - Kings refused to implement that.

Even in modern Mexico Christeros who fought masons supported by USA were mostly free- market.But they lost - thanks to masons and USA.And Mexico is shithole thanks to them,not Church.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Blame Spain on it.Or,to precise,their absolute Kings.
Becouse spanish church created Salamanca school which was almost the same like austrian school of economy made later,but - Kings refused to implement that.

Even in modern Mexico Christeros who fought masons supported by USA were mostly free- market.But they lost - thanks to masons and USA.And Mexico is shithole thanks to them,not Church.

And the US has a vested interest in not wanting to border a theocratic shithole, so what?

Like I said, if Spain spent less time forcing the natives of the New World and my own country to recite hymns from prayer books and spent more time making their colonies profitable in the long run, albeit with less humane methods (because colonialism in its very essence is inhumane and racially humiliating for the people being colonized), they would have survived as an entity.

Anyways, with the whole comparison in the West to a whole new Caesar, it would also be interesting to see the geopolitical ramifications of a new American Caesar arising be. Of course, the East needs a new Genghis Khan to balance it, and I for one, hope that all of Asia would have the same racial harmony as Europe did with its own peoples.

 

[Cherico]

And the US has a vested interest in not wanting to border a theocratic shithole, so what?

Like I said, if Spain spent less time forcing the natives of the New World and my own country to recite hymns from prayer books and spent more time making their colonies profitable in the long run, albeit with less humane methods (because colonialism in its very essence is inhumane and racially humiliating for the people being colonized), they would have survived as an entity.

Anyways, with the whole comparison in the West to a whole new Caesar, it would also be interesting to see the geopolitical ramifications of a new American Caesar arising be. Of course, the East needs a new Genghis Khan to balance it, and I for one, hope that all of Asia would have the same racial harmony as Europe did with its own peoples.

The Cristero's were in my opinion were the better party when it comes to the mexican revolution. They had a better value system were less intrusive and would have been a lot better for mexico and the world then what we got.

 

[ATP]

And the US has a vested interest in not wanting to border a theocratic shithole, so what?

Like I said, if Spain spent less time forcing the natives of the New World and my own country to recite hymns from prayer books and spent more time making their colonies profitable in the long run, albeit with less humane methods (because colonialism in its very essence is inhumane and racially humiliating for the people being colonized), they would have survived as an entity.

Anyways, with the whole comparison in the West to a whole new Caesar, it would also be interesting to see the geopolitical ramifications of a new American Caesar arising be. Of course, the East needs a new Genghis Khan to balance it, and I for one, hope that all of Asia would have the same racial harmony as Europe did with its own peoples.

poor victim of state schools.
Cristeros do not wanted theocratic state,but one with free market.And monks teached indians how to work using european technology.Including art.
First churches were built by spaniards,but arleady in 17th century everybody,except architect/they were from Italy,not Spain/ who made anything inside was either metise or indian.

How many indians in USA made paintings? exactly.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

The Cristero's were in my opinion were the better party when it comes to the mexican revolution. They had a better value system were less intrusive and would have been a lot better for mexico and the world then what we got.

And which faction in the US backed the government forces? None other than the KKK.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

poor victim of state schools.
Cristeros do not wanted theocratic state,but one with free market.And monks teached indians how to work using european technology.Including art.
First churches were built by spaniards,but arleady in 17th century everybody,except architect/they were from Italy,not Spain/ who made anything inside was either metise or indian.

How many indians in USA made paintings? exactly.

How many trade depots do the monks own and control? How many banks do the monks own? How many monks are employed as bankers, industrialists, entrepreneurs, and traders? And most important, how many factories do the monks own? NONE whatsoever. As I said, the monks taught the natives how to work, but never taught them the necessity of wealth accumulation. That alone should tell you something, and the natives of the New World are condemned to become the source of cheap labor for American firms in the modern day period.

The Anglophone countries are only successful because they had a glut of people that they can use as settlers, as opposed to the Iberians who had to screw with local women there.

I'm proud of being educated in secular run schools than church run schools, as the former is quite cheap. You on the other hand, are an example of why Catholics as a whole do not deserve any kind of respect, let alone human decency.

 

[Skallagrim]

Catholics as a whole do not deserve any kind of respect, let alone human decency.

Well. There you unmask yourself. And what you show ain't pretty. You accuse others of being on the side of the KKK, but your own statements could come straight from one of their virulently anti-Catholic pamphlets. Not a good look.


Anyway, I ask that you both take this off-topic hate-fest somewhere else. "Catholic supremacist versus anti-Catholic bigot" is surely fun... so long as sane people don't have to watch otherwise normal threads getting derailed by this swill. Please. Carry on the shit-fight elsewhere.



----------------------------

Security and Liberty frequently are on opposing poles since freedom necessitates disorder.

I think this is the source of our differing view. I could argue the other points, but that would either be a re-hashing of what's been said already, or a case of me saying "I actually agree with your moral opinion, but I think that what I'm outlining is the best that will be attainable, and we may count ourselves lucky that it will be attained".

But here's the crux, for me: freedom relies on order. It is chaos that presages authoritarian force. After an age of chaos, which is brutally managed (in the face of all pre-existing authority's effective collapse) through charismatic populism and naked force of arms... the answer to both chaos and tyranny is the blessed liberty that can only exist in a well-ordered world.

This is not the perfect and complete liberty that an idealist would most ardently desire -- and at heart I am such an idealist -- but it is the closest sustainable (large-scale) approximation of it. The perfect being the enemy of the good, I'm willing to be satisfied with something less than perfect, if it drags the world out of hell.

But as you point out, the "Augustus" isn't really concerned with tradition merely leeching off of its legitimacy to serve his own ends. And what isn't useful will be airbrushed away or made to fit.

Indeed. And no illusions there! This is perhaps the greatest hypocrite in his culture's history, of whom we speak. But that's between him and the Almighty, and thus to be judged by a higher authority than mine. Here on Earth, we care about results. If someone's so good at making the world believe a traditionalist narrative that it actually results in a triumph of traditionalism... then that's all to the good.

Besides, even though he's a hypocrite, this Augustus figure actually is a genuine reactionary. That's not some total sham. It's just that he's also -- perhaps more than anything else -- an ice cold pragmatist.

Which actually feeds into his ability to avoid the pitfalls of solving every problem with force (which is what you effectively paint in your preview of a 'panopticon world'). That kind of approach is not only unattractive to a traditionalist, it's also needlessly dangerous. Doing so wouldn't make the world "more like he wants it to be". In fact, it would repeat the errors of "Caesarism". (See particularly the example of Qin Shi Huangdi, who attempted exactly the kind of approach you outline.) This would result in an endless succession of assassination plots, conspiracies, and uprisings. Each of which would require ever more draconian repression to quell.

The genuine pragmatist will see the obvious outcome of that cycle, and seek to avoid it. The only way to do that is to not embark down that route. As such, you get a far more (actual, non-stereotyped) Machiavellian approach. Yes, if you must choose, be feared. But if possible, be loved and feared. The authority that cannot be loved will be hated, and that will make it brittle.

Hence, we arrive at the thing I have outlined, which is the thing that the Principate has always turned out to be, which is also what @Cherico succinctly described:

Much fewer rules but the ones that remain are ruthlessly enforced.

That's about the gist of it. Use power, even despotic power, where it is needed. But use it as a dagger, not as a hammer. No more is needed. No more is wanted. (And as I said: in time, those in charge will lose sight of that wisdom. The blanket use of repressive methods you envision will come into play after all, during the Dominate.)

 

[ATP]

How many trade depots do the monks own and control? How many banks do the monks own? How many monks are employed as bankers, industrialists, entrepreneurs, and traders? And most important, how many factories do the monks own? NONE whatsoever. As I said, the monks taught the natives how to work, but never taught them the necessity of wealth accumulation. That alone should tell you something, and the natives of the New World are condemned to become the source of cheap labor for American firms in the modern day period.

The Anglophone countries are only successful because they had a glut of people that they can use as settlers, as opposed to the Iberians who had to screw with local women there.

I'm proud of being educated in secular run schools than church run schools, as the former is quite cheap. You on the other hand, are an example of why Catholics as a whole do not deserve any kind of respect, let alone human decency.

Suuuuure.We bad evul catholics are so bad !
Answer you deserved.

 

[Simonbob]

How many trade depots do the monks own and control? How many banks do the monks own? How many monks are employed as bankers, industrialists, entrepreneurs, and traders? And most important, how many factories do the monks own? NONE whatsoever. As I said, the monks taught the natives how to work, but never taught them the necessity of wealth accumulation.

Depending on the locale? Some certainly are. Mead and some wines are made in some euro monestaries.

Bankers? None. Traders? Few, if any. Industrialists? Effectively none, but there's some evidence of master craftsmen in a number of places.


All of this is meaningless, however. Are you really saying that your people are too stupid to realise that owning a factory or farm is valuable is something you needed outsiders to teach you? That saving up to own your own property is something you couldn't understand without outsiders?


Stop blaming others for your peoples crap.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Depending on the locale? Some certainly are. Mead and some wines are made in some euro monestaries.

Bankers? None. Traders? Few, if any. Industrialists? Effectively none, but there's some evidence of master craftsmen in a number of places.


All of this is meaningless, however. Are you really saying that your people are too stupid to realise that owning a factory or farm is valuable is something you needed outsiders to teach you? That saving up to own your own property is something you couldn't understand without outsiders?


Stop blaming others for your peoples crap.

Yeah, because in your right, white minds, we colored people are just a bunch of uneducated, dumb savages that can only be used for menial labour.

I do agree however, that this is indeed getting out of control.

What I am actually accusing ATP and possibly the Catholic majority here, is of being a Catholic supremacist.