Why the French Revolution was the ultimate cause of our problems

[Navarro]

And in real medieval states, peasants had real chance to become gentry.Not good, but real - thanks to that, those who otherwise would become heads of peasant rebellion,try/and usually made it/ become gentry.
In Poland for example, such way practically stopped working after 1655.

ITNOL thinks that any kind of social mobility (which also ensures the elite doesn't become ossified) is a bad thing. So in essence it's like he sees the caricature left-wing historiography makes of the past and wants to restore that.

 

[Deleted member]

ITNOL thinks that any kind of social mobility (which also ensures the elite doesn't become ossified) is a bad thing. So in essence it's like he sees the caricature left-wing historiography makes of the past and wants to restore that.

We're talking about LI here.

 

[Navarro]

We're talking about LI here.

He has said that he views social mobility as a bad thing IIRC.

EDIT:

Found it:

I'm not sure we'll be able to come to an agreement on the issue of social mobility. Social mobility, from what I've seen in modern society, is one of the things that's causing alienation and cultural disintegration and is a direct result of individualism's leveling effect. The old feudal orders had peasant revolts caused by famines, but the society didn't fall apart until the kings started centralizing all the power to create absolutist, proto-individualist states. You claim that social mobility is able to appease people's envy, but I don't believe envy can be satisfied by anything.

So yet again, ITNOL shows he knows nothing about how medieval societies actually worked.

And in real medieval states, peasants had real chance to become gentry.Not good, but real - thanks to that, those who otherwise would become heads of peasant rebellion,try/and usually made it/ become gentry.
In Poland for example, such way practically stopped working after 1655.

It did vary according to time and place - in England the rule was that any knight could make a knight, but they would also have to pay a stipend to the dubbee to handle their income.

EDIT 2: Man, I misread you as saying "we're not talking about LI here".

 

[Deleted member 88]

The problem with social mobility is that it creates social disorder and breeds an environment of cynical, “what’s in it for me and mine” grasping little parvenus and climbers.

Obviously everyone wants to improve their station in life, the smallest serf would kill to be king.

The point of these frozen social orders with all their unfairness is stability.

People grasping to get ahead of each other means someone ends up stepped over.

The fundamental problem with a hierarchical tiered system comes from this eternal fact. Human beings are not content where they are, peasants want to be kings, kings want to be emperors, emperors want to be gods.

No one is happy because there is always a ladder rung higher than where you are(unless you are God).*

Genetic engineering is an attempt to circumvent this problem. By creating subspecies of Man that fit their station. Love their station, are happy and joyful in it.

It’s dystopian. But its a stable dystopia.

Without revolution, strife, or anarchy.

*Or coincidentally Angels who don’t have human ambition or discontent. 2/3rds of them anyway.

 

[Navarro]

The problem with social mobility is that it creates social disorder and breeds an environment of cynical, “what’s in it for me and mine”

Obviously everyone wants to improve their station in life, the smallest serf would kill to be king.

The point of these frozen social orders with all their unfairness is stability.

Tell me again how well a society built from the ground up for stability worked out for Imperial China?

Genetic engineering is an attempt to circumvent this problem. By creating subspecies of Man that fit their station. Love their station, are happy and joyful in it.

You want to genetically engineer away mankind's tendency to evil?

It’s dystopian. But its a stable dystopia.

Without revolution, strife, or anarchy.

*Or coincidentally Angels who don’t have human ambition or discontent. 2/3rds of them anyway.

Until some people who aren't part of it walk over it.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Tell me again how well a society built from the ground up for stability worked out for Imperial China?

It was imposed from the top down? Confucian values were imbibed and internalized. And they remained in effect for thousands of years.

You want to genetically engineer away mankind's tendency to evil?

If it were possible, the idea would be worth investigating. Obviously I’m big on Free Will. The consequences of Free Will are with us right now. Look outside the window or at the news.

Until some people who aren't part of it walk over it.

Depends, ideally such a society would be worldwide.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So, what, fundamentally is the problem? I personally would peg it as the great crisis that was the World Wars severely damaging cultural self-confidence and religiosity, not an "ideal of equalism mutating into one of communism". The Second World War really set back the recovery from the first, both in that it was an even more appalling bloodbath of atrocity, and that it allowed the Communists to associate cultural self-confidence with the toxic racial ideology which motivated the genocidal slaughters that took place during it (a racial ideology which actually came from them ultimately, too). This has generally had bad effects on all of society, not specifically the elite classes.

the 30 year Great War (Let's be frank WWI led directly to WWII) was the war in which the Physical gods bled and died, it was the war that proved that no one was invicable and once somthing like that can be proven, there is no going back short of a giant reset like a Great Flood or a nuclear holocaust.

 

[Navarro]

It was imposed from the top down? Confucian values were imbibed and internalized. And they remained in effect for thousands of years.

It ended with China getting carved up like a birthday cake between the European powers?

If it were possible, the idea would be worth investigating. Obviously I’m big on Free Will. The consequences of Free Will are with us right now. Look outside the window or at the news.

You're sounding like a supervillain right now.

Depends, ideally such a society would be worldwide.

It most likely wouldn't.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

it's almost as if the world isin't made of unicorns gumdrops and 40 archer farms as far as the eye can see. It's as if in order to make it in life you have to fight tooth and nail, it's almost as if when you want somthing in life you have to ask yourself how far are your willing to get it.

Path of least resistance, Ethics & morals, influance & Ambition -> you Pick 2 but you can't have all three

 

[Navarro]

As to the whole question of equality, democracy, etc., I would personally tend to agree with C. S. Lewis:

Present Concerns -- Two Essays by C.S. Lewis -- Equality and Democratic Education

I am a democrat (1) because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. Whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they're not true without looking further than myself. I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumors. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

This introduces a view of equality rather different from that in which we have been trained. I do not think that equality is one of those things (like wisdom or happiness) which are good simply in themselves and for their own sakes. I think it is in the same class as medicine, which is good because we are ill, or clothes which are good because we are no longer innocent. I don't think the old authority in kings, priests, husbands, or fathers, and the old obedience in subjects, laymen, wives, and sons, was in itself a degrading or evil thing at all. I think it was intrinsically as good and beautiful as the nakedness of Adam and Eve. It was rightly taken away because men became bad and abused it. To attempt to restore it now would be the same error as that of the Nudists. Legal and economic equality are absolutely necessary remedies for the Fall, and protection against cruelty.

But medicine is not good. There is no spiritual sustenance in flat equality. It is a dim recognition of this fact which makes much of our political propaganda sound so thin. We are trying to be enraptured by something which is merely the negative condition of the good life. That is why the imagination of people is so easily captured by appeals to the craving for inequality, whether in a romantic form of films about loyal courtiers or in the brutal form of Nazi ideology. The tempter always works on some real weakness in our own system of values -- offers food to some need which we have starved.

When equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget, but as an ideal, we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracy, as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of privileged societies. It will kill us all if it grows unchecked. The man who cannot conceive a joyful and loyal obedience on the one hand, nor an unembarrassed and noble acceptance of that obedience on the other - the man who has never even wanted to kneel or to bow - is a prosaic barbarian. But it would be wicked folly to restore these old inequalities on the legal or external plane. Their proper place is elsewhere.

We must wear clothes since the Fall. Yes, but inside, under what Milton called "these troublesome disguises". We want the naked body, that is, the real body, to be alive. We want it, on proper occasions, to appear -- in the marriage-chamber, in the public privacy of a men's bathing-place, and (of course) when any medical or other emergency demands. In the same way, under the necessary outer covering of legal equality, the whole hierarchical dance and harmony of our deep and joyously accepted spiritual inequalities should be alive. It is there, of course, in our life as Christians -- there, as laymen, we can obey – all the more because the priest has no authority over us on the political level. It is there in our relation to parents and teachers – all the more because it is now a willed and wholly spiritual reverence. It should be there also in marriage.

This last point needs a little plain speaking. Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal. But Mrs. Naomi Mitchison has laid her finger on the real point. Have as much equality as you please – the more the better – in our marriage laws, but at some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity. Mrs. Mitchison speaks of women so fostered on a defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. Marriages are thus shipwrecked. This is the tragi-comedy of the modem woman -- taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success. Merely for the sake of her own erotic pleasure, to go no further, some degree of obedience and humility seems to be (normally) necessary on the woman's part.

The error here has been to assimilate all forms of affection to that special form we call friendship. It indeed does imply equality. But it is quite different from the various loves within the same household. Friends are not primarily absorbed in each other. It is when we are doing things together that friendship springs up – painting, sailing ships, praying, philosophizing, fighting shoulder to shoulder. Friends look in the same direction. Lovers look at each other -- that is, in opposite directions. To transfer bodily all that belongs to one relationship into the other is blundering.

We Britons should rejoice that we have contrived to reach much legal democracy (we still need more of the economic) without losing our ceremonial Monarchy. For there, right in the midst of our lives, is that which satisfies the craving for inequality, and acts as a permanent reminder that medicine is not food. Hence a man's reaction to Monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be "debunked", but watch the faces, mark well the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut -- whom no rumor of the polyphony, the dance, can reach – men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honor a king they honor millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead -- even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served -- deny it food and it will gobble poison.

That is why this whole question is of practical importance. Every intrusion of the spirit that says, "I'm as good as you" into our personal and spiritual life is to be resisted just as jealously as every intrusion of bureaucracy or privilege into our politics. Hierarchy within can alone preserve egalitarianism without. Romantic attacks on democracy will come again. We shall never be safe unless we already understand in our hearts all that the anti-democrats can say, and have provided for it better than they. Human nature will not permanently endure flat equality if it is extended from its proper political field into the more real, more concrete fields within. Let us wear equality; but let us undress every night.

 

[Deleted member 88]

It ended with China getting carved up like a birthday cake between the European powers?

The country didn’t modernize in time? Due to a variety of complex factors. A stubborn empress, a shameless bureaucracy, a divided and weak army, and many many other factors. China did have a self strengthening movement and proponents of modernization. There was also the fact that it not being the center of the world was hard for its leadership to wrap their Middle Kingdom infused heads around.

You're sounding like a supervillain right now.

Free Will is extremely precious. It’s also the reason why girls decide to make Only Fans accounts, people commit the most heinous crimes, and the reason why narcissism culture exists. Free will unregulated, leads to every man choosing what devil he’ll dance with for the night.

It ended with China getting carved up like a birthday cake between the European powers?






It most likely wouldn't.

We‘re talking about thought experiments. Not the practical on the ground situation

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Free Will is extremely precious. It’s also the reason why girls decide to make Only Fans accounts, people commit the most heinous crimes, and the reason why narcissism culture exists. Free will unregulated, leads to every man choosing what devil he’ll dance with for the night.

so which one do you dance with? Mines nihilism.

 

[ATP]

To be precise,there never was such thing like "China" - only series of China states under dynasties,and between that we had warring states.
So we could not even say,that their system gave them stability,becouse each dynasty do not last longer then average european state.

 

[Xilizhra]

The problem with social mobility is that it creates social disorder and breeds an environment of cynical, “what’s in it for me and mine” grasping little parvenus and climbers.

Obviously everyone wants to improve their station in life, the smallest serf would kill to be king.

The point of these frozen social orders with all their unfairness is stability.

People grasping to get ahead of each other means someone ends up stepped over.

The fundamental problem with a hierarchical tiered system comes from this eternal fact. Human beings are not content where they are, peasants want to be kings, kings want to be emperors, emperors want to be gods.

No one is happy because there is always a ladder rung higher than where you are(unless you are God).*

Genetic engineering is an attempt to circumvent this problem. By creating subspecies of Man that fit their station. Love their station, are happy and joyful in it.

It’s dystopian. But its a stable dystopia.

Without revolution, strife, or anarchy.

*Or coincidentally Angels who don’t have human ambition or discontent. 2/3rds of them anyway.

That's actually not true. Most people in most cases would not, in fact, want to actually take on the responsibilities of leadership, at least not on a scale that wide, and certainly wouldn't want to put in all of the work required to actually do it. The reason stratified social systems like this wound up failing is that they proved unsustainable for one reason or another, generally incompetence of and/or loss of faith in those who held those positions before, and the belief that something had to be done to change the system as a whole instead of just trying to act within it. Revolution is hard, fundamentally, and needs a lot of incentive.

 

[Deleted member 88]

That's actually not true. Most people in most cases would not, in fact, want to actually take on the responsibilities of leadership, at least not on a scale that wide, and certainly wouldn't want to put in all of the work required to actually do it. The reason stratified social systems like this wound up failing is that they proved unsustainable for one reason or another, generally incompetence of and/or loss of faith in those who held those positions before, and the belief that something had to be done to change the system as a whole instead of just trying to act within it. Revolution is hard, fundamentally, and needs a lot of incentive.

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding here? The fact people usually have neither the resources, luck or wherewithal to rise above their social stations doesn't mean they don't dream of doing so. Poor people buy lottery tickets, despite even if they hit the jackpot, wealth brings a lot of new problems and responsibilities. They may or may not be aware of that, but they want to not be poor.

Human beings are lazy and take the path of least resistance, and they want to step over the people above them if they could. (Or would gladly do so if it was just handed to them).

The two notions are not in contradiction.

Take any usual fairytale-peasant farm boy gets the princess and becomes King. There's responsibility, there's work on a scale he is utterly unaccustomed too, and there is a lot of work in getting there. But few(if any) would pass up the chance to not plant crops, but to wear crowns and lead armies-if they are given the chance.

My point is people will always be discontented in a socially stratified system, whether or not they will or can do anything about it.

That is the primary weakness of such a system-because they might go a thousand years in drudging misery, but will rise up when the chance presents itself-when the masses see the dazzling lights of liberation from their mundane lives held before them.

Russia, France, China, heck the Arab World, Europe in 1848, Europe in 1989, all confirm this.

Which is why for a socially stratified system to be truly stable, it must be resilient, and discontent no longer even something the lower classes understand. Hence genetic engineering.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It ended with China getting carved up like a birthday cake between the European powers?

I don't think that had very much to do with their ideological stance, however, and even then, China has outlasted just about every other country in the world.

To be precise,there never was such thing like "China" - only series of China states under dynasties,and between that we had warring states.
So we could not even say,that their system gave them stability,becouse each dynasty do not last longer then average european state.

The Zhou Dynasty lasted almost eight centuries. That alone is far, far longer than any European government has lasted, and multiple of the other dynasties also lasted for multiple centuries. It's a pretty good record.

 

[GoldRanger]

Equality! Fraternity! Solidarity! Liberty!

And now insidiously equity.

These concepts are what the modern world is supposed to believe.

These ideas found their fruition in 1789 with the French Revolution. The overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the first French Republic.

It is my firm contention that this event was disastrous for the west and for mankind as a whole.

Why is this Lord Invictus?

Well glad you asked!

Firstly it was built on a lie.

Fraternity is absolute dogshit. Men are not brothers nor is their unity desirable or wise. Also it’s false in real life. It’s basically kumbaya though the latter makes a better song.

This is related to the modern(more inclusive) concept of solidarity. I have no solidarity with a peasant in Venezuela or a Russian oligarch. Or a homosexual activist from San Francisco. Just indifference and some measure of hate.

Equality. This is the greatest lie in human history. Men are unequal. God and nature made them so. He made the great and the small. The rich and the poor. The righteous and the filthy. It is an insult to my dignity to be considered of equal worth to some deranged drug addict who dropped dead outside a liquor shop. It isn’t nice to say, but I am superior to such creatures. To such under men.

Liberty-the French Revolution was in all regards liberty towards vice. And liberty to throw your life and country down the drain.

From these concepts were broadened to include Inclusivity. For example women’s rights or really any thing that makes something less exclusive. The more inclusive something is-the less of value it is. It is diluted. A party of close friends that is intimate, enjoyable, and memorable becomes cold and forgettable when every class acquaintance is invited on the grounds of being “inclusive”. To be inclusive is to be more and more mediocre.

The French Revolution upset nature. And now it has come full circle with the deification of the weak and the slave. Which is the essence of PC and grievance politics. The righteous and superior must grovel and submit to the inferior. To the unworthy!

There is a direct line from the storming of the Bastille to the Bolshevik Revolution to the BLM riots and “Equity” protocols of today.

They were all inversions of a natural and righteous order.

The inferior rose up and wouldn’t do what they were told. This led to strife and confusion.

Feminism, LGBT rights, and the like all have their origins in the idea of human equality.

This is why as conservatives we must reject the French Revolution on principle. It was a calamity.

And we must pray for and seek to prepare for a return to a healthy and righteous inequality.

In our families, communities and nations.

And we must seek to prevent the wretched masses and the undeserving and envious from ever rising again...through whatever means are required.

If we fail, then the French Revolution will be completed and all beauty, virtue, and glory will become in distinct from ugliness, vice, and shame. Which is the final goal of the left.

You sound angry. Eat a Snickers or something.

 

[Deleted member 88]

You sound angry. Eat a Snickers or something.

Mockery is the truest sign of lack of wisdom.

so which one do you dance with? Mines nihilism.

Depends on the night. Gotta be careful though, never to sign a contract with the lords of the air, even if you dance with them.

 

[ATP]

Mockery is the truest sign of lack of wisdom.


Depends on the night. Gotta be careful though, never to sign a contract with the lords of the air, even if you dance with them.

Luciper is looser,do not dance with him.Choose your guardian angel instead.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Mockery is the truest sign of lack of wisdom.

to be fair, and I mean this not in mockery, you do sound like you are on the edge consonantly. it's worrisome.

Depends on the night. Gotta be careful though, never to sign a contract with the lords of the air, even if you dance with them.

Well you've probably heard the quote about the abyss so I won't repeat it here