Why were France and Germany so ruinous for Europe?

I've got three words for you: "Universal Human Rights"
There is no such thing.Only Laws of God.When people abadonn God,they treat others like cattle.
Nothing has changed, because nothing ever changes.
Really? in Ancient times slaves were talking tools,chrystianity gave them the same dignity like their owners.
Womans were breeding mares.chrystianity gave them rights as children of God.
There's no practical difference between the rationales of a modern communist, a premodern revolutionary, and a medieval crusader.
Then why Crusaders never made even one tiny gulag?
Don't waste your time trying to figure out "when it went wrong".
When people started to thing,that they,not God,could create Laws.
And for God's sake, present some proofs and references if you want to throw out so many accusations.
He did it many times.

That's because two years previously the Austrian authorities had unleashed local serfs - whose treatment by the freedom loving szlachta was out of Uncle Tom's Cabin or worse - and had them burn down a few manors and lynch a few dozen landowners. The landowners had been plotting an uprising to bring freedom to Poland and Europe, of course ...
Not plotting,they started uprising.Austrians decided that it is cheaper to use serfs instead of army to crush it.
And serfs murdered 2.000-3.000 people,nit few, and each get some vodka for his hard work.Soetimes even small moneys !

By the way,that is proof that we were not antisemites during WW2.If we were,germans would not need to built camps,only gave us some vodka for killing all jews....

So let's see...
  • French Revolution - began in France
  • Revolutions of 1848 - began in France
  • Communism - began in France (the Paris Commune)
  • Marxism - began in Germany (Karl Marx)
  • Soviet Union - created in Germany
  • Nazism - started in Germany
  • World War 2 in Europe - started by Germany and USSR
  • European Union - France and Germany
So why did all the progressive genocidal BS originate in France and Germany? What was / is so special about these two countries?
So called Enlingtened period.But - you forget source of it all,first european revolution - Luder reformation.
He gave power over our faith to state - and it was beginning of end for our civilization.
 
But it certainly was! Here, too, we see the centralist "state-power over all" legacy at work. We can also point to the way that local languages and dialect were literally beaten out of schoolchildren, because to be a good Frenchman, one must speak Parisian French and obey the Parisian government without question or hesitation.

Never forget that the French anthem -- a product of the revolutionary era -- starts with an injunction to drench the soil with the "blood of the impure".
What I'm pointing out is the hindsight bias. If France had lost WW1 and gone on to establish a fascist regime, historians would no doubt be looking for the starting point of French fascism in the Third Republic, Napoleon, the French Revolution even, talking about how the modern French state was fundamentally a centralized autocracy and how it had always oppressed minorities etc. ...

The German Empire was a lot less centralist than France, being essentially a federal structure where even the regular armies of the individual states weren't united except in wartime - imagine if there was no US Army, but the National Guards of all the States simply fell under a joint command if war was declared.
 
Last edited:
imagine if there was no US Army, but the National Guards of all the States simply fell under a joint command if war was declared.
This is IMO a very poor analogy for the IInd Reich's army. Strill distant, but closer, would be A-H or the Indian Army and its Princely States' Forces.
 
Prosperity breeds free time.

Free time breeds intellectuals.

Intellectuals have done nothing, but believe they know everything.

This intellectualized inexperience breeds really dumb decisions.

Dumb decisions lead to what we've gotten.

A prosperous society has to be willing to smother the intellectuals' stupid ideas in order to stay prosperous.

Then you guys should be anti nobility. Aristocracy for the past few hundred years have been basically parasites that had nothing but free time. This led to degeneracy and them becoming intellectuals. The nobility of that time were not like nobles of the medieval period who were actually doing things as warriors, but the time period you are talking about the gentry lived lives of ease and did not perform services or produce anything.

French revolutions were much like all other revolutions: good intentions that led to disastrous consequences.

Yes, the French monarchy of the time was indeed shit. But the Republican government was even worse. Napoleon was basically savior of France... pity other monarchs didn't want to work with him.
Napoleon could only have risen by destroying the old corrupt incompetent order. So no the French Revolution did not have disastrous consequences it had great consequences. The bad parts could have been removed, but even with the bad parts the good parts of Napoleon made it worth it.

Napoleon was not unambigious good nor were the absolute monarchs unambigious evil. Napoleon was a self-centered egomaniac with a lot of decent ideas and some terrible ones. Most of the absolute monarchs of the time were simply flawed people trying to do their best... but here is the thing: centralization is evil, and absolute monarchy was the beginning of the modernist centralized states.
They were trying to do their best to maintain their power, and the power of their noble friends. They were not for the nation or the people as a whole.

Also no centralization is not evil, and if it is then don't bring it up here cause it's not relavent. Because guess what the absolute monarchs you are trying to defend were the ones who made things centralized. Guess what the Ancien Regime was centralized. The French Kings ammassed power and authority under their throne they ruled from Paris or Versailles. But France was a central state for generations before Napeoleon.

No, they were not. You clearly do not understand shit about the revolutions of 1848 if you think they were some kind of pure nationalism. Nor do I see nationalism as a prerequisite of survival of an ethnic corpus. But let's tackle these one by one...

1) There is a reason why basically everybody sided with Austrian throne against Hungarians... except, ironically, Austrians themselves. Marx and Engels would proceed to whine about it, and even say that Croats deserve to be genocided for our role in crushing the Hungarian revolution, but matter of the fact is that Hungarians wanted to replace Austrian Empire with their own Hungarian Empire. And unlike Austrians, who did allow a degree of self-governance and respect for local culture and customs, Hungarians of the time were only interested in turning everybody else into Hungarians. Hence this.

2) Austrian Empire was indeed multi-national, but it was far from being a mess. Austria-Hungary was far worse of a mess than the Austrian Empire ever was, and its formation was a direct consequence of revolutions of 1848. And nobody was happy with the outcome. Not the Austrians, who had lost half the Empire; not the Hungarians, who had less freedoms than before; and definitely not smaller ethnic groups, whose freedoms were even more curtailed than before.

3) While Austrian-Empire was a multi-national empire like the European Union, unlike the European Union, it was not busy promoting the genocide of literally every single ethnic group within its borders. Will it have started to do so had it survived until today? Possibly so, but modern-day ideologies of multiculturalism, globalism, cosmopolitanism and other such genocidal bullshit only appeared as a consequence of the Second World War... which will not have happened had Austria-Hungary survived.
So are you a cuck or something? You want to be controlled by some other guy but only if he wears a fancy hat?
1. And guess what yes people disliked the Hungarians they were rebelling against the Austrians and nobility and they had rightful grievances, unless you think people should be given unearned legal bennefits over others simply because of birth. Tell me should you pay taxes while I don't have too? Cause nobility did have freedom from taxes that commoners were required to pay. However other minorities in Hungary did fight against the Hungarians because the Hungarians would have oppressed them. But those same minorities in their homeland DID rise up in 1848. Czechs, Poles, Croats, Ukrainians, Romanians, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbs and Italians, all of whom attempted in the course of the revolution to achieve either autonomy, independence, or even hegemony over other nationalities.
2. Yes it was a mess, the Austro Hungarian Empire was a bigger mess because the Huns were bigger assholes than the Germans. But the Austrians weren't great, and people in the Austrian Empire were not happy because the revolutions failed. But later on when they did gain what they wanted they were happy.
3. This shows a lack of understanding of history. No the Austrian Empire would be perfectly ok with genociding it's people if it was beneficial for it's nobles. In the modern day they would be happy to replace you with a brown serf, one servant is as good as another. Also lol no ww2 would have still happened even if Austria Hungary was allowed to remain united and keep it's occupied territory.

EDIT:
4) Revolutions in Italy also led to Italy wanting to take Croatian coast, which led to Fascism and the Ustashi regime.

5) Galicia had no revolution, and their demands were in fact perfectly reasonable.
4. Italy wanting land is fascist? I guess Ancient Rome was fascist. Italy unifying and gaining land will happen in any place where the Italians are able to unite due to nationalism and where conquest of other lands is seen as justified.
5. Galicia literally massacred the nobles. I'd say thats a revolution.
It means everything, because his ideas were formed during his life in Germany:
Yes but if Germany had it's way he would have been arrested or killed.
But yes, British Empire certainly played a part in allowing him to develop and spread his ideas.
Agreed
That is a myth, I'd say. What France and UK did (dissolution of German Empire, putting blame on Germany, reparations) certainly did help, but I don't think they were the key. Reparations were in fact comparatively lenient, compared to reparations France was forced to pay in 1878. 1 2 And most of said reparations ended up being paid... by the United States.

Main reason why Hitler rose to power was... the threat of Communism created by USSR and its continual support for Communist revolutions abroad.

World War 2 was caused by USSR and Communism, both of which had originated in Germany.
It's not the monetary debt that was cruel. It was the restrictions on German industry/military, and the forced war guilt clause that caused resentment.
You know the EU was formed by France and Germany?
You do know that what the founders of the EU in the late 40's and 50's 60's intended was for it to be an economic union, or at most like the HRE where it would be heavily decentralized where the EU would have almost no influence on the internal working of a nation besides maybe trade and economy, and at most it would just be a way to unite against outside European powers. Since the European powers could no longer be 1st class. The only way they could be in the same weight class as the US and Soviets was by uniting their economies. But they still did not want to have everything ruled in Brussels by the EU. You do get that right?
 
What I'm pointing out is the hindsight bias. If France had lost WW1 and gone on to establish a fascist regime, historians would no doubt be looking for the starting point of French fascism in the Third Republic, Napoleon, the French Revolution even, talking about how the French state was fundamentally a centralized autocracy and how it had always oppressed minorities etc. ...

The German Empire was a lot less centralist than France, being essentially a federal structure where even the regular armies of the individual states weren't united except in wartime - imagine if there was no US Army, but the National Guards of all the States simply fell under a joint command if war was declared.

There are historians who try to cast Prussia as something it wasn't, and who eagerly white-wash France, but that has never been my approach. If anything, my essential thesis here is that in terms of Modernity's failings, Germany was initially more or less a victim of France-- not the other way around.

I think a hurdle in clear communication may arise from the fact that you compare the centralisation of the Kaiserreich to that of France, whereas I compare it to that of the Holy Roman Empire. That is: I compare pre-Enlightenment Germany to post-Enlightenment Germany, and I conclude that -- politically, in large part due to French actions & influence -- "modern" Germany became far more centralised and nationalist and militarist and "statist" (if you will) than "historical" Germany had ever been.




Put another way, approaching it as a "what if" of my own:

I conclude that if the ideas of the Continental Enlightenment had never existed, all the problems that Aldarion outlined in the opening post would have been averted completely. France would still be a monarchy, although no doubt a reformed one more akin to the British example. (The Netherlands, conversely, would still be a confederal republic, as it had long been.) The nationalist revolutions would have been averted. Culture within larger states would be less homogenised. Regional cultures would have persisted and would have consolidated, with education and administration being carried out in the local languages. Europe would consist, essentially, of collections of smaller statelets (e.g. "Thuringia"), amalgated into multiple larger dynastic unions that more-or-less correspond to broader cultural-linguistic groupings (e.g. "Germany"). There would be no, or very few and very small, standing armies. Governments would not have become much involved in education and many other matters. The role of the state would still chiefly entail foreign affairs, the military, infrastructural works, the police, and the administration of justice. The church, because of this, would have retained a far larger social responsibility, and thus society would have remained much more actively religious. Totalitarian ideologies as we know them (e.g. communism, fascism...) would not exist at all.
 
Then you guys should be anti nobility. Aristocracy for the past few hundred years have been basically parasites that had nothing but free time. This led to degeneracy and them becoming intellectuals. The nobility of that time were not like nobles of the medieval period who were actually doing things as warriors, but the time period you are talking about the gentry lived lives of ease and did not perform services or produce anything.
That is a consequence of modernity and absolutism. But even then, you are completely wrong here. Nobility were in fact the carriers of the Croatian National Revival, and from 1102 until 1918 were at the forefront of defense of Croatian national sovereignty and state rights within the Austrian Empire and later the Austria-Hungary.
Napoleon could only have risen by destroying the old corrupt incompetent order. So no the French Revolution did not have disastrous consequences it had great consequences. The bad parts could have been removed, but even with the bad parts the good parts of Napoleon made it worth it.
Ah yes, so the spread of liberalism, creation of the Paris Commune and later the Communism were absolutely not disasters...
They were trying to do their best to maintain their power, and the power of their noble friends. They were not for the nation or the people as a whole.

Also no centralization is not evil, and if it is then don't bring it up here cause it's not relavent. Because guess what the absolute monarchs you are trying to defend were the ones who made things centralized. Guess what the Ancien Regime was centralized. The French Kings ammassed power and authority under their throne they ruled from Paris or Versailles. But France was a central state for generations before Napeoleon.
First off, I never defended ABSOLUTE monarchy. In fact, I was always quite clear that the absolute monarchy is bad and is the terminal stage of DECLINE of monarchy and of society as a whole. It is still far better than the so-called "democracy", let alone various "popular dictatorships" (Communism, Nazism etc) but that is a really, really low bar to clear.

Second, yes, centralization is evil. Centralization of power in the hands of Louis XIV created literally everything that eventually went wrong with the French monarchy and caused the French revolution. Centralization of power led to genocides under Communism and Nazism.

But of course, you don't give a shit about reading what I am writing, or reading history, or reading in general... if you really want to continue debating strawmen, you can do that on your own.
So are you a cuck or something? You want to be controlled by some other guy but only if he wears a fancy hat?
Monarchs were less controlling than the so-called "elected representatives" you so adore, but sure, if you feel nice bending over and getting raped by your government simply because you enjoy the illusion you have part in its power, go ahead. I prefer honesty whenever possible.
1. And guess what yes people disliked the Hungarians they were rebelling against the Austrians and nobility and they had rightful grievances, unless you think people should be given unearned legal bennefits over others simply because of birth. Tell me should you pay taxes while I don't have too? Cause nobility did have freedom from taxes that commoners were required to pay. However other minorities in Hungary did fight against the Hungarians because the Hungarians would have oppressed them. But those same minorities in their homeland DID rise up in 1848. Czechs, Poles, Croats, Ukrainians, Romanians, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbs and Italians, all of whom attempted in the course of the revolution to achieve either autonomy, independence, or even hegemony over other nationalities.
And why not? Do you really think nobody today has "unearned legal benefits"? Why would a bunch of psychopaths that got elected into office because they were better liars than the other bunch of psychopaths over there be a better choice for ruling than somebody who had been raised and educated to rule literally since birth?

And if you truly believe that nobility do not exist any more, I have a bridge to Mars to sell you. You think this guy cannot qualify as a nobility? Or him?

You are trying to dismiss a very real historical political system by comparing it to a fairy tale that has never existed, never will exist and never can exist.

Closest thing you can get to rule of the people is people electing / putting a dictator / tyrant into power. Somebody like say Caesar (or in modern day, various "strongmen" such as Franjo Tuđman, Viktor Orban, Donald Trump...). Otherwise, the only possibility for a democracy is electing officials from the entire population by a lottery, but that probably wouldn't work on anything but the most local of levels even today.
2. Yes it was a mess, the Austro Hungarian Empire was a bigger mess because the Huns were bigger assholes than the Germans. But the Austrians weren't great, and people in the Austrian Empire were not happy because the revolutions failed. But later on when they did gain what they wanted they were happy.
And when exactly was that?
3. This shows a lack of understanding of history. No the Austrian Empire would be perfectly ok with genociding it's people if it was beneficial for it's nobles. In the modern day they would be happy to replace you with a brown serf, one servant is as good as another. Also lol no ww2 would have still happened even if Austria Hungary was allowed to remain united and keep it's occupied territory.
Perhaps. But it wasn't doing so historically.
4. Italy wanting land is fascist? I guess Ancient Rome was fascist. Italy unifying and gaining land will happen in any place where the Italians are able to unite due to nationalism and where conquest of other lands is seen as justified.
You may want to read. I didn't say that Italy wanting land is inherently fascist (it was just retarded), I said that Italy wanting land was what helped create the Fascist regime.

Just as Communists aren't Nazis but are in good part responsible for Nazi rise to power.

Capisci?
Yes but if Germany had it's way he would have been arrested or killed.
True.
You do know that what the founders of the EU in the late 40's and 50's 60's intended was for it to be an economic union, or at most like the HRE where it would be heavily decentralized where the EU would have almost no influence on the internal working of a nation besides maybe trade and economy, and at most it would just be a way to unite against outside European powers. Since the European powers could no longer be 1st class. The only way they could be in the same weight class as the US and Soviets was by uniting their economies. But they still did not want to have everything ruled in Brussels by the EU. You do get that right?
I am aware. But it were and are still Germany and France that were the main pushers behind the EU's centralization.
 
I think Skallagrim nailed it with “the Enlightenment drove France and Germany insane.” Given a few centuries, the Enlightenment went on to drive the rest of the Western World insane and sits at the festering heart of all that has gone wrong in the later 20th and early 21st centuries.

The Enlightenment did great things for the sciences and such, but in terms of philosophy it was one of the greatest catastrophes that ever befell the human race.
 
This is central to your ideological conflict with most of the rest of the board, and is one of the most blatantly anti-American Conservative tenets you hold to.

I don't think I've ever seen you justify why you think centralization is better than decentralization though.
I never said that centralization is better ALL the time. I think it generally is because it allows you to more quickly implement policies. I see it as a tool, it can be dangerous but it's also useful. The "American conservatives" act more like liberals who whine about "Muh evul gunz!" and how it's an evil tool always.

If you are a real Christian instead of just a "American conservative" you'd agree with centralization. Because guess what "state's rights" can allow LOT'S of evil to go unchallenged. Would you be ok with it if California abolished the age of consent, or legalized abortion in all cases on demand or even allowed infanticide? Guess what, while it's unlikely to happen. IF it did then you'd need central aka Federal power to be able to say no. If you are ok with the government banning certain actions and making them crimes when they are traditionally the domain of the states like criminalization of murder or rape then you are against state's rights.

That is a consequence of modernity and absolutism. But even then, you are completely wrong here. Nobility were in fact the carriers of the Croatian National Revival, and from 1102 until 1918 were at the forefront of defense of Croatian national sovereignty and state rights within the Austrian Empire and later the Austria-Hungary.
I don't know much about Croatia's specefic circumstances. Also you are taking a ridiculously stupid large period of time 1102 until 1918. Nobility in the modern era has not done much they were enjoying leisure, living in palaces, eating good food, and going to balls. Now sure some actually did intellectual work. But this is very different from the nobles of the medieval period who were the ones who defended the nation they were warriors. In the modern day nobles aren't that.

Ah yes, so the spread of liberalism, creation of the Paris Commune and later the Communism were absolutely not disasters...
Again you are bringing up unrelated things. It'd be like if some pagan was yelling at you saying Christianity was evil because after it invaded and killed native European in wars and crusades it brought us mass migration.

First off, I never defended ABSOLUTE monarchy. In fact, I was always quite clear that the absolute monarchy is bad and is the terminal stage of DECLINE of monarchy and of society as a whole. It is still far better than the so-called "democracy", let alone various "popular dictatorships" (Communism, Nazism etc) but that is a really, really low bar to clear.

Second, yes, centralization is evil. Centralization of power in the hands of Louis XIV created literally everything that eventually went wrong with the French monarchy and caused the French revolution. Centralization of power led to genocides under Communism and Nazism.

But of course, you don't give a shit about reading what I am writing, or reading history, or reading in general... if you really want to continue debating strawmen, you can do that on your own.
You literally said that the absolute monarchs were not bad people but they were trying their best.

Monarchs were less controlling than the so-called "elected representatives" you so adore, but sure, if you feel nice bending over and getting raped by your government simply because you enjoy the illusion you have part in its power, go ahead. I prefer honesty whenever possible.
We can look to nations like Saudi Arabia which is a true monarchy and see how "free" and "less controlling" they are. Not too much of a difference from fascists honestly.

And why not? Do you really think nobody today has "unearned legal benefits"? Why would a bunch of psychopaths that got elected into office because they were better liars than the other bunch of psychopaths over there be a better choice for ruling than somebody who had been raised and educated to rule literally since birth?

And if you truly believe that nobility do not exist any more, I have a bridge to Mars to sell you. You think this guy cannot qualify as a nobility? Or him?

You are trying to dismiss a very real historical political system by comparing it to a fairy tale that has never existed, never will exist and never can exist.
So you are deflecting to the flaws in our current society. I'm not saying current society is good. YOU ARE SAYING NOBILITY AND ARISTOCRACY IS GOOD! So tell me why should you pay money to the government while Baron Soros should not? You said why not? Ok you can pay more and be a peasant and I'll be a lord.

Closest thing you can get to rule of the people is people electing / putting a dictator / tyrant into power. Somebody like say Caesar (or in modern day, various "strongmen" such as Franjo Tuđman, Viktor Orban, Donald Trump...). Otherwise, the only possibility for a democracy is electing officials from the entire population by a lottery, but that probably wouldn't work on anything but the most local of levels even today.
What's wrong with that? I support those, also a lottery might work, we'd be free of oligarchs and the rich dominating everything.

And when exactly was that?
When things like serfdom were abolished?

Perhaps. But it wasn't doing so historically.
You literally said the Austro Hungarian Empire could stop ww2.
You may want to read. I didn't say that Italy wanting land is inherently fascist (it was just retarded), I said that Italy wanting land was what helped create the Fascist regime.

Just as Communists aren't Nazis but are in good part responsible for Nazi rise to power.

Capisci?
Wanting land is not dumb. It is one of the best things a nation can have. That's why nobles had so much wealth the more territory you have the more resources you can have.
I am aware. But it were and are still Germany and France that were the main pushers behind the EU's centralization.
Yes you could say it's a modern attempt at colonialism/empire.
 
I don't know much about Croatia's specefic circumstances. Also you are taking a ridiculously stupid large period of time 1102 until 1918. Nobility in the modern era has not done much they were enjoying leisure, living in palaces, eating good food, and going to balls. Now sure some actually did intellectual work. But this is very different from the nobles of the medieval period who were the ones who defended the nation they were warriors. In the modern day nobles aren't that.
True. But you will have nobility whether you like it or not. Might as well leave them out in the open.
Again you are bringing up unrelated things. It'd be like if some pagan was yelling at you saying Christianity was evil because after it invaded and killed native European in wars and crusades it brought us mass migration.
Good thing that all these things are, in fact, causally related.

In fact, the French Revolution was precisely what got the ball rolling.
You literally said that the absolute monarchs were not bad people but they were trying their best.
I said that MONARCHS were not bad people. Doesn't mean the SYSTEM wasn't bad.

Nicholas II was one of the morally best people ever. But the Russian monarchy was too centralized, and the system forced him to handle things he was simply not capable of handling.

Capisci?
We can look to nations like Saudi Arabia which is a true monarchy and see how "free" and "less controlling" they are. Not too much of a difference from fascists honestly.
And then you have democracies like United Kingdom, France and Germany which are on the same level as Saudi Arabia is.
So you are deflecting to the flaws in our current society. I'm not saying current society is good. YOU ARE SAYING NOBILITY AND ARISTOCRACY IS GOOD! So tell me why should you pay money to the government while Baron Soros should not? You said why not? Ok you can pay more and be a peasant and I'll be a lord.
I never said they are "good". What I am saying is that it is impossible to achieve a perfect system, so we may as well try to make it the least damaging it can be.

Basing politics on childish ideals is hardly a good choice, as we are slowly discovering these days.
What's wrong with that? I support those, also a lottery might work, we'd be free of oligarchs and the rich dominating everything.
Because 1) lottery on a large scale would get subverted by the oligarchs anyway, just as the elections are, and 2) it would be impossible to do anything long-term.
When things like serfdom were abolished?
That happened long before the revolutions of 1848, at least in the Austrian part of the monarchy (1785). In Bosnia however serfdom was de facto abolished only in 1930.
You literally said the Austro Hungarian Empire could stop ww2.
That response was related to the first part of your post.

And yes, existence of Austria-Hungary could have prevented the World War 2. First off, there is no way Habsburgs will have allied with a psychopathic little socialist corporal. Without that, and Austria-Hungary intact, there is no Anschluss, nor annexation of Czechoslovakia. Result of this is that even if Hitler does go on to attack Poland (assuming Poland exists in this scenario), he has a much more limited frontline to do it from - allowing the Poles to concentrate their defenses. This means that even with the Soviet attack from the east, Poland may be able to resist for longer, perhaps even long enough for the western Allies to intervene.

Above scenario, I think, is not a risk Hitler may have taken willingly. Of course, Germany being a socialist state with a failing economy may force his hand anyway...
 
Nicholas II was one of the morally best people ever. But the Russian monarchy was too centralized, and the system forced him to handle things he was simply not capable of handling.
Ah, poor Nicki. A decent man, but tragically for him and his country he should never have been Tsar. It takes steel to rule Russia and he had absolutely none of that.
 
What I'm pointing out is the hindsight bias. If France had lost WW1 and gone on to establish a fascist regime, historians would no doubt be looking for the starting point of French fascism in the Third Republic, Napoleon, the French Revolution even, talking about how the French state was fundamentally a centralized autocracy and how it had always oppressed minorities etc. ...

The German Empire was a lot less centralist than France, being essentially a federal structure where even the regular armies of the individual states weren't united except in wartime - imagine if there was no US Army, but the National Guards of all the States simply fell under a joint command if war was declared.
partially true,becouse out of hundrets of german states only 3 still keep their armies except prussia.
 
I never said that centralization is better ALL the time. I think it generally is because it allows you to more quickly implement policies. I see it as a tool, it can be dangerous but it's also useful. The "American conservatives" act more like liberals who whine about "Muh evul gunz!" and how it's an evil tool always.

If you are a real Christian instead of just a "American conservative" you'd agree with centralization. Because guess what "state's rights" can allow LOT'S of evil to go unchallenged. Would you be ok with it if California abolished the age of consent, or legalized abortion in all cases on demand or even allowed infanticide? Guess what, while it's unlikely to happen. IF it did then you'd need central aka Federal power to be able to say no. If you are ok with the government banning certain actions and making them crimes when they are traditionally the domain of the states like criminalization of murder or rape then you are against state's rights.
I figured your argumentation for this would be bad, but I must admit, you exceeded my expectations.

Have you realized that by this logic, the entire world should be ruled by a unitarian government with absolute authority?

Your position is utterly and willfully ignorant of the history of human power structures work. Time and again, we see that the more power you invest in an institution, the more corrupt it will become. This is not merely a tendency, over time, this is an iron-clad law of the nature of human institutions.

The righteousness that God desires is not created by the laws of human nations. It is created by a decision to pursue Christ over worldly things, such as worldly power.

The role of human government is to curb the worst excesses of sinful man, not to make men virtuous. Every time that a government tries to do so, we get disaster, and as some have said, the closest thing to hell on earth we'll likely ever see.


No.


You have a fantasy that somehow you can establish a 'Christian' despotism, and use it for good.

You cannot.

If you establish a despotism, it will fall into the hands of evil, evil men, as such things have all throughout history.

The mandate of Christ is to 'go and make disciples of all the nations,' not to 'go and take control of all the nations.'

If you want to Christianize a nation, you do it one willing convert at a time. There is no other way than hearts changing voluntarily.

It isn't hard to see that your impulse to authoritarianism is born out of an ignorant conception that if you held great power and authority, you could make things better, but it's just a different version of the 'real communism has never been tried' nonsense. The same kind of arrogance as all those college-indoctrinated socialist fools who think that they are virtuous enough, they are clever enough, that they could bring about the revolution.

No, they can't, and no, you can't. I'll give you that what you're trying for would be a lot less destructive than what the socialists are trying for, but in the end, it'd just be a stepping stone to increasing levels of tyranny.

Biblical teachings, especially including the 'red letters' where God is speaking directly, have never endorsed powerful, centralized government, and in fact warned the Israelites of all the grief having a king would bring them, and that was in a nation tiny compared to ours.

God's words to Israel as a nation through the prophets were always about repenting of sins, returning to justice and mercy, not to change their government to something more authoritarian. Always from the bottom up, not the top down.

Similarly, the New Testament does not remotely advocate for use of government as a tool for advancing the gospel.

Your thought that Christianity is somehow in favor of centralization and powerful human governmental authority is nothing but your own fancies.
 
What I'm pointing out is the hindsight bias. If France had lost WW1 and gone on to establish a fascist regime, historians would no doubt be looking for the starting point of French fascism in the Third Republic, Napoleon, the French Revolution even, talking about how the French state was fundamentally a centralized autocracy and how it had always oppressed minorities etc. ...

The German Empire was a lot less centralist than France, being essentially a federal structure where even the regular armies of the individual states weren't united except in wartime - imagine if there was no US Army, but the National Guards of all the States simply fell under a joint command if war was declared.


....I don't see a problem with this.
 
Either France or Germany would have either unified or more likely dominated Europe if it wasn't for the meddling of the British. So really most of went wrong can be blamed on those tea sipping limeys
 
True. But you will have nobility whether you like it or not. Might as well leave them out in the open.
But you don't have to simp for them, and talk about how "Just" they are. You don't have to say how good it is they don't have to pay taxes while you do, and that changing this was bad.

Good thing that all these things are, in fact, causally related.

In fact, the French Revolution was precisely what got the ball rolling.
If you are going to act retarded then so will I.
No the thing that got the ball rolling on commies and lgbt was Christianity. It was this faith that did away with old martial values and nobility of the Ancient Pagans, and instead made Europeans forgiving, and meek and accepting of the equal dignity of all. It was proto communism.

I said that MONARCHS were not bad people. Doesn't mean the SYSTEM wasn't bad.

Nicholas II was one of the morally best people ever. But the Russian monarchy was too centralized, and the system forced him to handle things he was simply not capable of handling.

Capisci?
Napoleon was not unambigious good nor were the absolute monarchs unambigious evil. Napoleon was a self-centered egomaniac with a lot of decent ideas and some terrible ones. Most of the absolute monarchs of the time were simply flawed people trying to do their best... but here is the thing: centralization is evil, and absolute monarchy was the beginning of the modernist centralized states.
This is the quote I bolded it.

Also no Nicky II was not morally good. Under real Christianity, and not monarcho cuckoldry the ruler has benefits and the obedience of his people. But that means they have to have a higher standard. Merely not being bad to people personally does not cut it. If you fail as a ruler and cause poverty and famine then you sinned. And God will punish you.


And then you have democracies like United Kingdom, France and Germany which are on the same level as Saudi Arabia is.
You can literally insult the leaders of democracy. The king of Saudi can have people killed on a whim. What you said is mind boggling stupid it makes me think we should deport monarchists to Saudi.

I never said they are "good". What I am saying is that it is impossible to achieve a perfect system, so we may as well try to make it the least damaging it can be.

Basing politics on childish ideals is hardly a good choice, as we are slowly discovering these days.
They were trying their "best" Also if anyone is basing politics on childish ideals it's you who think kingdoms are like Disney princesses. As opposed to stating out as warlords and dictators, then becoming parasitic oligarchs.

Because 1) lottery on a large scale would get subverted by the oligarchs anyway, just as the elections are, and 2) it would be impossible to do anything long-term.
A lottery is much harder to be subverted, as long as multiple different groups check the selection method.

2nd What you said is also applies to regular democracy. The only way to have long term plans and rules if for life time appointments. It's a meaningless criticism.

That happened long before the revolutions of 1848, at least in the Austrian part of the monarchy (1785). In Bosnia however serfdom was de facto abolished only in 1930.
Yes but not all parts, as in Galicia in 1847 they still had serfdom and the peasants were killing the nobles.

That response was related to the first part of your post.

And yes, existence of Austria-Hungary could have prevented the World War 2. First off, there is no way Habsburgs will have allied with a psychopathic little socialist corporal. Without that, and Austria-Hungary intact, there is no Anschluss, nor annexation of Czechoslovakia. Result of this is that even if Hitler does go on to attack Poland (assuming Poland exists in this scenario), he has a much more limited frontline to do it from - allowing the Poles to concentrate their defenses. This means that even with the Soviet attack from the east, Poland may be able to resist for longer, perhaps even long enough for the western Allies to intervene.

Above scenario, I think, is not a risk Hitler may have taken willingly. Of course, Germany being a socialist state with a failing economy may force his hand anyway...
That doesn't stop a European war. Germany could have a big fight with Austria, and others might want that as weaken a future continental power is useful So ww2 is Germany and Austria going at it instead of Germans attacking Poles, and not everyone would jump in to help Austria.
I figured your argumentation for this would be bad, but I must admit, you exceeded my expectations.

Have you realized that by this logic, the entire world should be ruled by a unitarian government with absolute authority?
You do know that God's heavenly Kingdom on Earth after the defeat of the Anti Christ will be a unitarian absolute monarchy right? God isn't going to have checks and balances or separation of powers. You won't have freedom when God wins, evil will be destroyed for good.

We should avoid a one world govt because we can't make perfect like God, and the anti Christ will try it first.
But your arguments are still so dumb here. I guess we should abolish the US because it's too big, in fact the states are too big. Let's get rid of any govt above the city/village level. No army no national/state police. Each city/town does it's own thing. Taking things to your ideals too far is just as dumb.

Your position is utterly and willfully ignorant of the history of human power structures work. Time and again, we see that the more power you invest in an institution, the more corrupt it will become. This is not merely a tendency, over time, this is an iron-clad law of the nature of human institutions.
So you cry because nothing is perfect? Yes the world is fallen and things will be used for evil sometimes. Using your dumb logic we should stop all science, all creation, can't use fire either. People WILL use it for evil. Central governments are more efficient. Yes evil will sometimes take over, but good also does. Anyone who doesen't know this does not know history but only propaganda for their "muh small gubmit!"
The righteousness that God desires is not created by the laws of human nations. It is created by a decision to pursue Christ over worldly things, such as worldly power.

The role of human government is to curb the worst excesses of sinful man, not to make men virtuous. Every time that a government tries to do so, we get disaster, and as some have said, the closest thing to hell on earth we'll likely ever see.


No.


You have a fantasy that somehow you can establish a 'Christian' despotism, and use it for good.

You cannot.

If you establish a despotism, it will fall into the hands of evil, evil men, as such things have all throughout history.
Here all you do is grandstand your non Christian ideas. Enlightenment ideals are a product of only a few hundred years early Christians did not share your political beliefs. Many of the people who made the ideals you like are not Christian and opposed Christianity they were either Deists, or masons who had anti Christ attitudes(whether satanic or not) or were even atheists like Thomas Paine.
The mandate of Christ is to 'go and make disciples of all the nations,' not to 'go and take control of all the nations.'

If you want to Christianize a nation, you do it one willing convert at a time. There is no other way than hearts changing voluntarily.

It isn't hard to see that your impulse to authoritarianism is born out of an ignorant conception that if you held great power and authority, you could make things better, but it's just a different version of the 'real communism has never been tried' nonsense. The same kind of arrogance as all those college-indoctrinated socialist fools who think that they are virtuous enough, they are clever enough, that they could bring about the revolution.

No, they can't, and no, you can't. I'll give you that what you're trying for would be a lot less destructive than what the socialists are trying for, but in the end, it'd just be a stepping stone to increasing levels of tyranny.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about and know nothing of history. Yes Christians went bottom up SOMETIMES! But they also went top down sometimes, they literally converted a King and the King used force to baptize his people. Violating your small government freedom principles and the freedom of religion of his people. Christianity sees it as a tool bottom up, or top down does not matter.

Biblical teachings, especially including the 'red letters' where God is speaking directly, have never endorsed powerful, centralized government, and in fact warned the Israelites of all the grief having a king would bring them, and that was in a nation tiny compared to ours.

God's words to Israel as a nation through the prophets were always about repenting of sins, returning to justice and mercy, not to change their government to something more authoritarian. Always from the bottom up, not the top down.

Similarly, the New Testament does not remotely advocate for use of government as a tool for advancing the gospel.

Your thought that Christianity is somehow in favor of centralization and powerful human governmental authority is nothing but your own fancies.
You need to read your Bible more and enlightenment philosophy and modern conservacuck propaganda less.
First off the Bible frequently glazes kings and says that they have great power, and said that the people should obey them. Note these were eastern kings unlike in the lands of the Greeks kings of the east were tyrants and had MORE power over their subjects. Cyrus for instance is heavily praised. God does not care for small government or big government only for what that government does. Again for eastern kings the provinces and satraps had to obey the king or they would be removed. They could not just go their own way.

As for the warning about kings yes what of it. God warns the Jews what will happen if they have a king the king will take power and wealth from them. Also Israel BEFORE the kings was not this small government paradise you think it was with respect for individual rights. Judges ruled ALL of Israel if a city was sinning or one of the tribes was sinning they would not "accept their rights to practice their religion" no they'd go and force them to stop even killing them if they broke God's law. God's law was given and enforced on all of Israel. The tribes could run themselves yes, but they did not have "rights" to change the law or whatever.

Also you really know nothing about the Bible if you think prophets never told the people to change the government. Frequently the Kings were criticized for their actions NOT JUST PERSONAL EVIL ACTIONS! But their administrative policies. For instance the prophets of God have condemned Kings that were religiously tolerant, that was Solomon's big sin allowing idol worship. Yes God is in favor of using top down authority to remove evil.

So how about you engage with a hypo instead of running away or spouting enlightenment propaganda? You are a King of Israel at this time, and the prophet comes to you and condemns your actions and says God will punish you for your tolerance of evil. You have allowed the people of each of the cities to rule themselves and be free besides a few large rules(I'm guessing libertarian or small c conservative principles aka no harming others so human sacrafice is banned) so some cities have turned to idol worship or worship of Ashera or Ishtar. What do you do when God's prophet tells you the way you rule the land is sinful and you should abolish the worship of the pagans and syncritic types who want to worship God and other gods or engage in temple prostitution or other rites? Remember there is no human sacrafice in this hypo so no easy way for you to get out of it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top