A thread for the Civilized Discussion and Debate on Monarchy

[TheRejectionist]

Is this supposed to be meme in support of Monarchy, or an ironic post showing why monarchies have been consistently being replaced by Republics for the last few hundred years?

More on how decrepit the world has become without traditsiya.

 

[Aldarion]

Is this supposed to be meme in support of Monarchy, or an ironic post showing why monarchies have been consistently being replaced by Republics for the last few hundred years?

Both, but also more than that - it shows how the world has been regressing, and how modern democracy is a consequence of this regression.

 

[Aaron Fox]

More on how decrepit the world has become without traditsiya.

No, tradition has always been used as a smokescreen for some horrific shit. Things like slavery and half the fucked up colonial shit (at least). In addition, tradition tends to be tied to specific technological contexts that vanished as technological progress continued onward and forward.

Finding traditions that don't rely on specific technological contexts is hard, so it will eventually fall on the wayside. It's like death and taxes in the inevitability.

 

[LordsFire]

Relevant:

Source:

I particularly love how they connect the protestant reformation to the French Revolution.

I'm not sure this could more blatantly be a piece of myopic propaganda if whoever was making it tried.

 

[VictortheMonarch]

Sargon was talking about this recently on someone else's channel. That conservatism does not exist in the US because both sides are the product of revolutionary ideologies, and that ideology is the inverse of tradition. Because ideology wants to change the world for reasons that follow a particular rationale while tradition wants to keep things in a way that works for reasons that more profound than can be rationally analyzed.

I mean, you can always have both, I personally align with the Right/Republicans, yet I am a rather staunch Monarchist.

 

[Simonbob]

In addition, tradition tends to be tied to specific technological contexts that vanished as technological progress continued onward and forward.

Finding traditions that don't rely on specific technological contexts is hard, so it will eventually fall on the wayside. It's like death and taxes in the inevitability.

I think, in many ways, our current social issues are at least partly because we can't predict so much. Tech is changing so much, we just don't know what'll be next.

This also means that basic assumptions about what is avalable when you're growing up are different to what the next generation has access to.

My mom was born in the 1940's, and about 10 years ago, she said something that really stuck with me. "We're living in Science Fiction. What will they think of next?"



It can be hard to hold onto older rules, when the basis of our world seems to shift every few years.


This is a problem, because our biology hasn't changed much at all.

 

[LordsFire]

I think, in many ways, our current social issues are at least partly because we can't predict so much. Tech is changing so much, we just don't know what'll be next.

This also means that basic assumptions about what is avalable when you're growing up are different to what the next generation has access to.

My mom was born in the 1940's, and about 10 years ago, she said something that really stuck with me. "We're living in Science Fiction. What will they think of next?"

It can be hard to hold onto older rules, when the basis of our world seems to shift every few years.

This is a problem, because our biology hasn't changed much at all.

Speaking as a writer of science fiction, some things change, other things don't.

Technology can emphasize or minimize certain aspects of how we interact with the world, but they cannot add or remove them altogether.

As an example, almost all people who grew up in the West have never truly known what it's like to be hungry. Most haven't even known what it's like to not be able to get the foods they generally prefer. This leads to a decreased perception in the importance of farming, ranching, hunting, etc, compared to prior eras where these things were more keenly felt.

However, this does not change the fact that people still need to eat, nor the kind of reactions you'll get if we have something like a supply chain collapse that leads to a genuine food shortage.


As another example, in past centuries, you had to be in the top couple percent of the population in order to be wealthy enough to live the lifestyle of leisure people associate with the 'idle rich.' Now, you only need to have something or another a bureaucrat will accept as a reason for you to get a government check for the forseeable future, and you can lounge around at home, consumed by your entertainments.

The availability of such things has changed because of the sheer prosperity we enjoy due to technology, but the human inclination towards such has not.

 

[Aaron Fox]

I think, in many ways, our current social issues are at least partly because we can't predict so much. Tech is changing so much, we just don't know what'll be next.

This also means that basic assumptions about what is avalable when you're growing up are different to what the next generation has access to.

My mom was born in the 1940's, and about 10 years ago, she said something that really stuck with me. "We're living in Science Fiction. What will they think of next?"



It can be hard to hold onto older rules, when the basis of our world seems to shift every few years.


This is a problem, because our biology hasn't changed much at all.

It should also be noted that it's not so much we can't predict so much (humanity's ability to see patterns -even if they're not really there- is just insane) but more of the focus on short-term over long-term, and long term is practically impossible because of our primitive lizard brains.

Speaking as a writer of science fiction, some things change, other things don't.

Technology can emphasize or minimize certain aspects of how we interact with the world, but they cannot add or remove them altogether.

As an example, almost all people who grew up in the West have never truly known what it's like to be hungry. Most haven't even known what it's like to not be able to get the foods they generally prefer. This leads to a decreased perception in the importance of farming, ranching, hunting, etc, compared to prior eras where these things were more keenly felt.

However, this does not change the fact that people still need to eat, nor the kind of reactions you'll get if we have something like a supply chain collapse that leads to a genuine food shortage.

That's... not entirely correct. We do have people that go hungry, they're called the poor. Where living literally paycheck to paycheck is a thing, where one missed hour means deciding if you are paying for your car and going hungry, paying your house bill and going hungry, heating and electricity and going hungry, or one of these things doesn't get paid and you have a full stomach (and guess what usually happens in this situation, and I'll give you a clue, its repeatedly said in this sentence).

 

[Simonbob]

That's... not entirely correct. We do have people that go hungry, they're called the poor. Where living literally paycheck to paycheck is a thing, where one missed hour means deciding if you are paying for your car and going hungry, paying your house bill and going hungry, heating and electricity and going hungry, or one of these things doesn't get paid and you have a full stomach (and guess what usually happens in this situation, and I'll give you a clue, its repeatedly said in this sentence).

Welfare means there's very few who really need to worry about food, these days. You might not have much, but there'll be some.


Food production has gotten so cheap that, if you're willing to skimp, you can get a meal for $2, or less. It won't be the best, but still. And there are charities out there as well.


No, these days, those who starve are mostly nuts. It's more a crazy thing, and some illigals, who can't get free stuff so easily.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Welfare means there's very few who really need to worry about food, these days. You might not have much, but there'll be some.


Food production has gotten so cheap that, if you're willing to skimp, you can get a meal for $2, or less. It won't be the best, but still. And there are charities out there as well.


No, these days, those who starve are mostly nuts. It's more a crazy thing, and some illigals, who can't get free stuff so easily.

That isn't the case. The cost of food has only gone up, not down... and I've worked with people at Walmart that were screwed so hard that even with the couple working at Walmart and on welfare, they couldn't make ends meet.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Well, it's certainly a circular argument to claim that monarchy is morally superior because you arbitrarily define it as inherently godly and virtuous, never mind that the vast majority of monarchies in history didn't even follow your God and religion. If you were actually following the principles supposedly espoused, that would make most monarchies fundamentally evil.

 

[ATP]

I particularly love how they connect the protestant reformation to the French Revolution.

I'm not sure this could more blatantly be a piece of myopic propaganda if whoever was making it tried.

Luder revolution removed church and replaced it with state - kings decided what Jesus said in his faith.1789 removed Jesus and replaced with some distant god,1917 replaced God,but society remained.1968 destroyed that,and family,and now last lgbt revolution is destroing persons.

Plinio Correa de Oliveira wrote about it in his "revolution and counter-revolution"

 

[LordsFire]

That's... not entirely correct. We do have people that go hungry, they're called the poor. Where living literally paycheck to paycheck is a thing, where one missed hour means deciding if you are paying for your car and going hungry, paying your house bill and going hungry, heating and electricity and going hungry, or one of these things doesn't get paid and you have a full stomach (and guess what usually happens in this situation, and I'll give you a clue, its repeatedly said in this sentence).

As a member of 'the poor,' let me say hello.

I have never earned more than 20k in a year in my life. I think my best was about 16.5k, and last year I did significantly less than that.

I've been homeless 4 times. I've had to look into and work seriously tightly on a budget many other times. The amount of resources available to the poor to make things less bad either through government, or separately through private charity, is enormous.

If you know people who can't make ends meet in spite of working two full time jobs, either they have an expensive and rare medical condition, which it is fair to say makes life very rough in general, but it not what we structure society around, or they're making poor fiscal decisions, which is their own responsibility.

I've worked and lived among other low-income people, and I've seen the sorts of spending habits and decisions about jobs and the like they tend to make day by day. Yes, there are exceptions, but overwhelmingly, if someone is at a point where they have to seriously worry about where their next meal is coming from in the USA, it's because of their own poor decisions.

No, even the poor, even the homeless in the US, have extremely ready access to food the vast majority of time, and if they don't, moving to a place with better services and charities for the destitute would make such available to them. I am speaking from personal experience, a broad range of research, and first-hand accounts from others.

Note that I said 'almost all,' because again, there are a miniscule number of exceptions to this, but 99.99%+ of people who grow up in the West have never gone more than one day without eating, unless it was for medical reasons or a religious fast.

 

[Marduk]

Both, but also more than that - it shows how the world has been regressing, and how modern democracy is a consequence of this regression.

Is it? What i see in that image is that the western world waxes and wanes, and that monarchy isn't that great at all. After all, looking objectively at the power, prosperity, and times of greatest achievement of civilization, we can safely say that the 2 golden ages of the western civilization were the early time of Tradition, in which Rome ruled at least what was considered "known world" uncontested, and created most of the social, political, technological and artistic achievements it is currently valued for, and the time of Liberalism (the original kind, not current skinsuit worn by America's socialdemocrats), in which the few empires of Europe, especially the more liberal ones, dominated the whole world (scratch the "known" part this time because they have explored the whole planet while at it) so much that no polities could contest them except for each other, and created the industrial revolution with everything related to it.

If we want to take lessons from the greatest successes when it comes to political systems, what works best seems to be either a republic, or highly limited constitutional monarchy/republic hybrid system.
It is quite surprising how close to that mark the founders of USA have struck.

 

[Aldarion]

Is it? What i see in that image is that the western world waxes and wanes, and that monarchy isn't that great at all. After all, looking objectively at the power, prosperity, and times of greatest achievement of civilization, we can safely say that the 2 golden ages of the western civilization were the early time of Tradition, in which Rome ruled at least what was considered "known world" uncontested, and created most of the social, political, technological and artistic achievements it is currently valued for, and the time of Liberalism (the original kind, not current skinsuit worn by America's socialdemocrats), in which the few empires of Europe, especially the more liberal ones, dominated the whole world (scratch the "known" part this time because they have explored the whole planet while at it) so much that no polities could contest them except for each other, and created the industrial revolution with everything related to it.

If we want to take lessons from the greatest successes when it comes to political systems, what works best seems to be either a republic, or highly limited constitutional monarchy/republic hybrid system.
It is quite surprising how close to that mark the founders of USA have struck.

Modern democracy is something that has not existed in the antiquity. You had very few democracies then, and all of them were exclusively of the local nature. Closest thing to a republic was Roman Republic, but that one was extremely decentralized, and frankly it wouldn't have mattered whether they had a Senate or a King as a head - much as was the case with the Holy Roman Empire.

And the time of Liberalism might have been the time when Europe ruled the known world, but it also laid down the foundations for Europe's current era of hedonistic self-destruction. So I cannot consider it a great achievement. Time when Europe has actually achieved the most was the time of limited unconstitutional monarchy as well as very early absolutism. And United States have played a very large part in that self-destruction, in part by serving as an inspiration for the French Revolution.

EDIT:

I particularly love how they connect the protestant reformation to the French Revolution.

I'm not sure this could more blatantly be a piece of myopic propaganda if whoever was making it tried.

It is not causal connection, but rather temporal one. Protestant reformation did not cause the French Revolution. But it did happen before the French Revolution, and both are a symptom of social degradation.

Try to understand something before you dismiss it.

 

[Marduk]

Modern democracy is something that has not existed in the antiquity. You had very few democracies then, and all of them were exclusively of the local nature. Closest thing to a republic was Roman Republic, but that one was extremely decentralized, and frankly it wouldn't have mattered whether they had a Senate or a King as a head - much as was the case with the Holy Roman Empire.

Well, yeah, modern "democracies" definitely could use more decentralization and more republican ideals of the ancient kind.
Holy Roman Empire on the other hand is not exactly a tempting example to follow by any measure.

And the time of Liberalism might have been the time when Europe ruled the known world, but it also laid down the foundations for Europe's current era of hedonistic self-destruction. So I cannot consider it a great achievement. Time when Europe has actually achieved the most was the time of limited unconstitutional monarchy as well as very early absolutism. And United States have played a very large part in that self-destruction, in part by serving as an inspiration for the French Revolution.

Meanwhile the industrial revolution happened afterwards, in the very much not absolutist British Empire.

It is not causal connection, but rather temporal one. Protestant reformation did not cause the French Revolution. But it did happen before the French Revolution, and both are a symptom of social degradation.

Try to understand something before you dismiss it.

There is a reason why no one is saying that everyone should be more like the French, past or current.

 

[Aldarion]

Well, yeah, modern "democracies" definitely could use more decentralization and more republican ideals of the ancient kind.
Holy Roman Empire on the other hand is not exactly a tempting example to follow by any measure.

Holy Roman Empire had more local self-governance than any of the modern states, so it is in many measures superior to what we have today.

Meanwhile the industrial revolution happened afterwards, in the very much not absolutist British Empire.

And helped destroy the society. Also, it would be more accurate to say that the industrial revolution and the republican movements in the British Empire were both a consequence of the same factors, rather than the industrial revolution being a consequence of republicanization of the society.

 

[Marduk]

Holy Roman Empire had more local self-governance than any of the modern states, so it is in many measures superior to what we have today.

With the amount of civil wars and other craziness it had going on, its not a good example for how to organize a decentralized state.

And helped destroy the society. Also, it would be more accurate to say that the industrial revolution and the republican movements in the British Empire were both a consequence of the same factors, rather than the industrial revolution being a consequence of republicanization of the society.

Without industrial revolution republicanization of society probably wouldn't stick, much like Rome eventually got under the control of mass land owners over time.
Industrialization has forever changed the traditional dynamics of significance of agriculture and farmland ownership in societies, and in turn conferred such advantages on societies that have it that they can ruin more traditional, agrarian societies even by mere accident, nevermind if they intentionally try.
With that, in hindsight we did learn that stagnation is not a virtue. Better republicanized, industrial world ruled by the West, than stagnant, traditional and stable agrarian society, until 2000, 2200 or 2500 or whenever else the Islamic world or China would have stumbled upon such technologies instead and made the west its conquest.

 

[Aldarion]

With the amount of civil wars and other craziness it had going on, its not a good example for how to organize a decentralized state.

Depends on the period. Problem wasn't so much decentralization as feudalization, I think, though I do not know that much about East Francia to be certain.

Without industrial revolution republicanization of society probably wouldn't stick, much like Rome eventually got under the control of mass land owners over time.
Industrialization has forever changed the traditional dynamics of significance of agriculture and farmland ownership in societies, and in turn conferred such advantages on societies that have it that they can ruin more traditional, agrarian societies even by mere accident, nevermind if they intentionally try.
With that, in hindsight we did learn that stagnation is not a virtue. Better republicanized, industrial world ruled by the West, than stagnant, traditional and stable agrarian society, until 2000, 2200 or 2500 or whenever else the Islamic world or China would have stumbled upon such technologies instead and made the west its conquest.

In other words, there is no choice but to march into the oblivion lest somebody overtakes you...

 

[Marduk]

Depends on the period. Problem wasn't so much decentralization as feudalization, I think, though I do not know that much about East Francia to be certain.

Well that is how their kind of decentralization worked.
Overall, feudalism worked reasonably well for the time and circumstances it was set up for, the aftermath Ancient's version of fall of civilization, the age of warrior kings and barbarians. But once things calmed down, and nobility became more of a self-aggrandizing ossified ruling class than regularly tested, militant "protectors of the land" in small and large scale, all the shortcomings of that system started to come ahead.

In other words, there is no choice but to march into the oblivion lest somebody overtakes you...

More like march into the unknown and forge whatever wonders and horrors you find there into something functional... before someone else does so first and proceeds to use this contraption against you while you don't even have an idea what are you dealing with.