Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
You mean like Americans have no place in debates about European politics?
Fact is, Left is targeting everybody not Left, everywhere.
Describe the American Right and how it got to where it currently is as well as its current course.
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
You mean like Americans have no place in debates about European politics?
Fact is, Left is targeting everybody not Left, everywhere.
No, because quite bluntly most European politics is not 'monarchists vs non-monarchists'; it's the same 'democratic' Left vs Right politics of the US.
Monarchists like you are not even on the modern political spectrum, and are mostly irrelevant to modern politics.
It's just that monarchists are particularly irrelevant in the US, because we were founded as a nation revolting against a monarchy, and specifically chose not to have a monarchy of our own.
So monarchists really should just sit out modern politics all together.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Except one of main issues of modern politics is precisely that democratic focus on equality, which gives the Left all the ammunition it needs. Modern politics are very much evil against evil.
Democracy is one of major reasons why the Left is winning.
And monarchy offers nothing that most of the modern world desires.
You hate 'equality' because of the way Marxists have co-op'd the term, and I can understand that.
It does not however mean that equality as it was originally envisioned in the US, as in 'equality under the law', not the 'equality of outcomes' Marxists push, is a bad thing or worth throwing away in pursuit of a 'trad' monarchy.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
At any rate, I think we’re all on the same page in agreeing that the current system is unsustainable. Between lots of debt spending, rising populism, and an increasingly fearful and desperate elite prepared to pull every underhanded trick in the book to cling onto power for just a bit longer, it’s only a matter of time before something has to give and another crisis period is at hand.
Even if we survive and rebuild from it, we should expect whatever comes next to strongly repudiate what it replaced. Now personally, I have little hope that the European Right of yesteryear will return to prominence in any meaningful way, and any neo-reactionaries who’ve hedged their bets on resurrecting monarchies and Papal supremacy have a lot of money to lose. But the American Right, with its rugged individualism, liberty-mindedness, and ideological foundation in the (early) Enlightenment? Well, given the US’s place in the world and semi-hegemony over the West, as is, I’d say the George Washingtons of the future have a way better shot at establishing the paradigm to come than the Louis XVIs and King George IIIs do.
Even if we survive and rebuild from it, we should expect whatever comes next to strongly repudiate what it replaced. Now personally, I have little hope that the European Right of yesteryear will return to prominence in any meaningful way, and any neo-reactionaries who’ve hedged their bets on resurrecting monarchies and Papal supremacy have a lot of money to lose. But the American Right, with its rugged individualism, liberty-mindedness, and ideological foundation in the (early) Enlightenment? Well, given the US’s place in the world and semi-hegemony over the West, as is, I’d say the George Washingtons of the future have a way better shot at establishing the paradigm to come than the Louis XVIs and King George IIIs do.
Last edited:
basically the same way that rome displaced Greece.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
In my personal experience, Europe takes a lot more shots in America than the other way around and when Americans do take a shot it's generally in reaction or response to said shot, heck the only reason why America is as invested (Quiet wrongly IMO) in European politics as it is, is because America's money and manpower (mostly manpower) is what's keeping most of the EU and other global organizations intact. I still hold that America should have stayed out of WWI and let the two sides just stalemate each other into oblivion.
Yeah I'm very pro-isolationist. Probably more than I should be. Global trade, sharing and communication is one thing but when countries start demanding to each other what to do then we have a problem.
Last edited:
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Somewhat, though considering the havoc modern weapons can wreck, we’ll have to survive and rebuild from the Crisis of the 21st Century first in order for the comparison to matter. (And that, courtesy of WMDs, is very much in question, I think.)
Nevertheless, I suspect an “Ascendant America” would dictate the rules of engagement when it comes to replacing “Modernity”, so any Medieval Europeans watching the next Washington proclaim a restoration of the Old Republic and roll out a new, improved, “totally foolproof” version of the Constitution will have their criticisms and complaints fall on deaf ears. So... less permanently winding the clock back to 1300, and more a lasting consensus that “America got the Enlightenment right”, whereas everyone else (looking at you, France) got it horribly wrong.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
One word: Hollywood.
Media are political, you cannot get around that. Hollywood, McDonalds, NATO etc. - the reason why Europeans debate American politics much more than the other way around is because America has much more influence in Europe than the reverse. What happens in America matters in Europe, there is no way around that.
America coughts, Europe gets the flu.
My point was that democracy, and especially implications of the term, inherently promote focus on equality. And I do mean "equality" in the Leftist view, as opposed to equality under the law.
If you really want democracy, and sustainable democracy at that, something like Heinlein's Federation from Starship Troopers would, I think, be the only solution.
Problem is that the very terminology and nature of democracy promotes the idea that all humans are inherently equal, and not just equal, but same. So if you have democracy - unless it is called something else, and also restricted (again, Federation) - sooner or later you will get Communism.
It is the problem of psychology, fundamentally. Once you accept the idea that all humans are equal, next come the human rights, then sexual rights, and eventually you get Communism.
Modern world is just inherently mentally ill.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
The american right is essentially intended to act as a deradicalisation scheme for american white people, christians (all all colours) and men (of all colours). It gets nothing done, because its designed to get nothing done. As long as you follow and support the institutional right, you will lose lose lose because you are meant to lose, but lose gracefully.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Well hopefully in the next 50 years you won't have to worry about Hollywood
I mean fine it could be argued all roads lead to Hell but what alternative would you prefer? to be slaughtered like cattle when the Dictator/king/whatever decides you're not worse the investment and serve him better as political meat? You're never going to be a knight. You're certainly not going to be a lord, (even if you do have a claim to a piece of land most likely the reactionary revolutionist movement will not acknowledge your claim. Call me Crazy but I like the idea that a King or a nobleman can face a short drop and a sudden stop if he decides to just abuse his subjects like pawns, Heck if that level of accountability and punishment for corruption existed now, we might have been able to avoid some of the problems we have now. The ruling class needs to be made to feel as mortal and disposable as everyone else.
The problem I've run into with a lot of Monarchs personally is that they seem to act like they will be one of the playable characters in a Crusader Kings game when the reality is that they'd be a random courier at best or more than likely just a number on the screen.
for me, Considering the fact that on top of all that I'm a spastic diplegic who in a Medievalist world would have no job prospects, no real ability to start or support a family, and who's the best prospect would be a pet that the Papal and/or Nobel powers can bring up to occasionally virtue signal with (like some are trying to do now.) Yeah, I think I'd rather take my chances with modernity. As slim as it may be, I at least have a chance.
Last edited:
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Ironically it's the opposite for me, I think I'd wind up a peasant and I'd like the Medieval lifestyle over most other options in history because Peasants and Serfs had far more protections than they do today and worked less than half the year.
However, the technological state for reproducing those conditions wouldn't come back even if Neo-Feudalism succeeds (and given who's pushing it I'm deeply worried about neo-feudalism at this point) and the extremely mild workload and abundant free time wouldn't compensate for losing modern medicine and conveniences.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
The problem I've run into with a lot of Monarchs personally is that they seem to act like they will be one of the playable characters in a Crusader Kings game when the reality is that they'd be a random courier at best or more than likely just a number on the screen.
[/QUOTE]Ironically it's the opposite for me, and I'd like the Medieval lifestyle because Peasants and Serfs had far more protections than they do today and worked less than half the year.
However, the technological state for reproducing those conditions wouldn't come back even if Neo-Feudalism succeeds (and given who's pushing it I'm deeply worried about neo-feudalism at this point) and the extremely mild workload and abundant free time wouldn't compensate for losing modern medicine and conveniences.
[/QUOTE]
Might want to fix your quote there, friend.
Edit
Actually, I see you beat me to it, so never mind.
[/QUOTE]Ironically it's the opposite for me, and I'd like the Medieval lifestyle because Peasants and Serfs had far more protections than they do today and worked less than half the year.
However, the technological state for reproducing those conditions wouldn't come back even if Neo-Feudalism succeeds (and given who's pushing it I'm deeply worried about neo-feudalism at this point) and the extremely mild workload and abundant free time wouldn't compensate for losing modern medicine and conveniences.
[/QUOTE]
Might want to fix your quote there, friend.
Edit
Actually, I see you beat me to it, so never mind.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Yeah, I've been having a problem with posts spontaneously going up on their own before I actually finish editing them and causing double posts. As nobody else seems to have that issue I suspect it's my keyboard or something.Might want to fix your quote there, friend.
Edit
Actually, I see you beat me to it, so never mind.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
This. Frankly, I'm not willing to sacrifice my chance at life just so other people can live out their LARPing fantasies. Am I being selfish? Yep, I'll admit as much, but I still won't go down without a fight.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Believe me, Kilroy, you are not alone there. Still, much as I'm also unwilling to part with modern conveniences, it'd great if we devised a system where we had both those and what @Bear Ribs mentioned (but without the drawbacks of either).
Or, y'know, whichever higher power you prefer, for all you non-Adepts of faith here.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Quite the opposite, actually.
Generally, monarchs showed a lot of concern for their subjects - far more than modern-day political and plutocratic elites do. Sure, monarchies did go to a war a lot during the Middle Ages - but so did democracies and republics. Roman Republic was far more expansionist and aggressive than either the Roman Kingdom or the Roman Empire. Athens in its democratic phase was a murderous imperial power, and Sparta - another murderous imperial power - was an oligarchy, not a democracy.
I never supported monarchy because I thought I would be a knight. But life as a peasant in Middle Ages was 1) not as bad as generally portrayed, and 2) not worse under a monarchy than it was under any other political system. And regarding medieval monarchy specifically, unlike what is commonly believed, a monarch or a feudal lord could not just murder a peasant, or take his possessions, or disown him (even a serf)... the only exception to his rule was a feudal Russia, and even then only during the late stages of feudalism. The entire "serf with no rights" thing is a misconception (I have had people seriously argue that a serf is no better off than a slave... a load of crap). In reality, serfs could call onto their rights, and bring their lord out into the court (assuming they had the money to do it - but that is really no different from the current system - rich are always at an advantage). And the medieval judicial system was not that dissimilar to modern one. Hell, even in Roman Empire, a citizen could call onto the Emperor to pass the judgement.
Medieval monarchy, or hell, even a modern monarchy, is not a dictatorship. Dictatorship is fundamentally a failure of democracy, something that happens when people loose faith in the democratic political order and thus try and find quick and easy solutions. And sure, many monarchies may have started as dictatorships, but a traditional monarchy is a very old and very complex system, with numerous checks and balances and all kinds of restrictions. It is nowhere close to how people imagine a dictatorship - even an absolute monarch could not do things that dictators could and did.
And yes, being able to call political leaders onto account is a good idea... but one that never does work in reality. How often do you see democratic leaders actually answer for their crimes? Never, unless it is of a political benefit to the opposition. If it isn't, they can abuse their people (including the erstwhile voters) with little to no repercussions. Level of accountability you are asking for here does not exist, never has existed, almost certainly never will exist, and most likely cannot exist. Meanwhile, fact is that you have a people who are a) getting elected and b) getting elected on a regular basis. And both of these things are bad. Fact that politicians are being elected means that you are assured that they will be psychopaths, because that is the kind of people that get elected - people who can lie, trick and bamboozle their way into power.
These are the voters in a democracy after literally every single election:
Meanwhile, the fact that politicians are being elected on a regular basis ensures that they have no long-term considerations. No politician looks beyond the next elections, which is how you get destructive policies such as mass immigration and socialism: it is all about how to win the election, and if the country falls apart into the civil war immediately after the said politician's term, who the hell cares? It will be somebody else's problem by that time.
Neither of these is true in a monarchy. Yes, monarch may be a psychopath - but that is not a certainty the way it is with elected officials. And because monarch expects to rule for life - and usually expects to pass the kingdom to his children - means that he will consider the long term. Sure, not all monarchs were successful at that - many were abject failures - but when that happened, it was a failure of the individual rather than a failure of the system.
Read this if you want some more insight into what exactly made me a monarchist:
Austria-Hungary Was the Last Good Time for Croatia
Communists and other Leftists like to attack Austria-Hungary, and this is true in Croatia as well. Here, the myth of the Austria-Hungary as a “prison of the nations” still survives. But…
politicalreactionary.wordpress.com
And keep in mind, Monarchist Yugoslavia was probably not as bad as I had presented it there.
Also, this:
Will never work. This is the ruling class we are talking about - and frankly, partly due to nature of the elections, ruling class in a democracy is not actually the politicians. The actual ruling class? They feel quite immortal and indisposable, and are correct in that because they have an ablative shield of "elected" pawns. In fact, I suspect the First World War was started to get rid of the monarchies
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Quite the opposite, actually.
Generally, monarchs showed a lot of concern for their subjects - far more than modern-day political and plutocratic elites do. Sure, monarchies did go to a war a lot during the Middle Ages - but so did democracies and republics. Roman Republic was far more expansionist and aggressive than either the Roman Kingdom or the Roman Empire. Athens in its democratic phase was a murderous imperial power, and Sparta - another murderous imperial power - was an oligarchy, not a democracy.
I never supported monarchy because I thought I would be a knight. But life as a peasant in Middle Ages was 1) not as bad as generally portrayed, and 2) not worse under a monarchy than it was under any other political system. And regarding medieval monarchy specifically, unlike what is commonly believed, a monarch or a feudal lord could not just murder a peasant, or take his possessions, or disown him (even a serf)... the only exception to his rule was a feudal Russia, and even then only during the late stages of feudalism. The entire "serf with no rights" thing is a misconception (I have had people seriously argue that a serf is no better off than a slave... a load of crap). In reality, serfs could call onto their rights, and bring their lord out into the court (assuming they had the money to do it - but that is really no different from the current system - rich are always at an advantage). And the medieval judicial system was not that dissimilar to modern one. Hell, even in Roman Empire, a citizen could call onto the Emperor to pass the judgement.
Medieval monarchy, or hell, even a modern monarchy, is not a dictatorship. Dictatorship is fundamentally a failure of democracy, something that happens when people loose faith in the democratic political order and thus try and find quick and easy solutions. And sure, many monarchies may have started as dictatorships, but a traditional monarchy is a very old and very complex system, with numerous checks and balances and all kinds of restrictions. It is nowhere close to how people imagine a dictatorship - even an absolute monarch could not do things that dictators could and did.
And yes, being able to call political leaders onto account is a good idea... but one that never does work in reality. How often do you see democratic leaders actually answer for their crimes? Never, unless it is of a political benefit to the opposition. If it isn't, they can abuse their people (including the erstwhile voters) with little to no repercussions. Level of accountability you are asking for here does not exist, never has existed, almost certainly never will exist, and most likely cannot exist. Meanwhile, fact is that you have a people who are a) getting elected and b) getting elected on a regular basis. And both of these things are bad. Fact that politicians are being elected means that you are assured that they will be psychopaths, because that is the kind of people that get elected - people who can lie, trick and bamboozle their way into power.
These are the voters in a democracy after literally every single election:
Meanwhile, the fact that politicians are being elected on a regular basis ensures that they have no long-term considerations. No politician looks beyond the next elections, which is how you get destructive policies such as mass immigration and socialism: it is all about how to win the election, and if the country falls apart into the civil war immediately after the said politician's term, who the hell cares? It will be somebody else's problem by that time.
Neither of these is true in a monarchy. Yes, monarch may be a psychopath - but that is not a certainty the way it is with elected officials. And because monarch expects to rule for life - and usually expects to pass the kingdom to his children - means that he will consider the long term. Sure, not all monarchs were successful at that - many were abject failures - but when that happened, it was a failure of the individual rather than a failure of the system.
Read this if you want some more insight into what exactly made me a monarchist:
Austria-Hungary Was the Last Good Time for Croatia
Communists and other Leftists like to attack Austria-Hungary, and this is true in Croatia as well. Here, the myth of the Austria-Hungary as a “prison of the nations” still survives. But…
And keep in mind, Monarchist Yugoslavia was probably not as bad as I had presented it there.
Also, this:
Will never work. This is the ruling class we are talking about - and frankly, partly due to nature of the elections, ruling class in a democracy is not actually the politicians. The actual ruling class? They feel quite immortal and indisposable, and are correct in that because they have an ablative shield of "elected" pawns. In fact, I suspect the First World War was started to get rid of the monarchies
There is nothing you I can argue that you won't dismiss so I'll cut my losses and concede this debate but let me make one thing clear. I have as much faith in your monarchist dream as you do in my libertarian dream which is to say none. Do what you will but when push comes to shove, I won't go just go quietly into the night and accept it (willingly at least). I will never accept a king or queen. I just hope for your sake your dream doesn't backfire on you.
Last edited:
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
I will just note here that monarchism is not necessarily opposed to libertarianism, although I frankly see some of libertarean ideas as a mistake. In fact, libertarianism may be easier to achieve under a monarchy than a republic.
As for backfire...? No matter what we do, it will eventually backfire. All political systems - including having no political system - always end up screwed up, because human nature is screwed up. Humans may not be fundamentally evil, but they are fundamentally stupid and short-sighted. And this is actually part of why I support the monarchy: it is my opinion that the best way to ensure that future is at least somewhat taken into account is to have a government which a) has investment in the long-term future and b) considers the state a personal property.
Frankly, I see democracy as a form of socialism. You may not agree with me, and I don't expect you to, but I do want you to understand why rather than just saying "I will never accept a king or queen". BTW, while I do understand that American opposition to monarchy is based heavily on the American Revolution, do keep in mind that US would have never gained independence if it weren't for the Kingdom of France, which basically went bankrupt and collapsed into the French Revolution in part due to strain of fighting against Britain during the Seven Years War and the American Revolution (and it wasn't the only way France helped). And considering how the French Revolution was ultimately the source of everything evil in the modern Western world, Europe especially, one could say that the cost of American independence was the ultimate collapse of the Western civilization. Just something to chew on.
TheRomanSlayer
Unipolarists are the New Subhumans
I wonder if the Dutch system of the Stadtholder would have been a good compromise for a society that is torn between those who favor the monarchy and those who favor a republican system, though in reality it would be an oligarchy. Not sure how that worked out for the Dutch Republic, despite being ruled by a Royal dynasty in the house of Orange.