General political philosophy discussion

[Aldarion]

We all know that Maidan merely got western support, the sentiment behind it was brewing up since years and we can point out earlier events that contributed.
It is a ridiculous presumption that any revolution against a genuinely shitty government is inherently "western puppet coup" just because the west opportunistically supported that change, for obvious reasons.

Maybe. But I am rather skeptical of any claims of "natural revolution", simply because I know how the West operates. They first demand open society and democracy, and follow it up by supporting any home-grown democratic movements - or creating such movements if there aren't any. Then they use this "democratic openness" to infiltrate their media and NGO's, and establish support structures within the society, with the aim of fostering either a revolution or an evolution that is favorable to them. In the process, they will either take over or neutralize the very same pro-democracy movements that they had used to remove competition. And no matter whether the pro-democracy movements were natural or artificial, the end result is a state with so-called "democratic institutions", but in reality ruled by supranational organizations and Western plutocrats.

They did that during Tuđman's rule in Croatia (but he outplayed them initially, and so is now considered a tyrant by many in the West), they did it in Poland (Solidarity), they did it in Russia before Putin screwed up their plans, so I have hard time believing that they somehow missed the opportunity in Ukraine. So while Maidan might have been a home-grown movement, that still doesn't mean it wasn't taken over and/or exploited for the Western purposes.

Because Ukraine doesn't want to be "left alone" and for a damn good reason. Being "left alone" means staying poor while Russia waits for a good opportunity to bring it back into the fold by hook or by crook. It is an untenable position, why would Ukraine want to be in it.

Being aligned with West and their society-destroying values is hardly any better, even if it might be lot more comfortable. But it is true that Russia is a much more obvious threat and thus Ukraine is more likely to align with the West naturally - but by no means guaranteed.

Because Ukraine wants to join the West?

Not because of that, but because I know how the West (or rather, Western Deep State / Cathedral) operates. See above.

 

[Agent23]

Maybe. But I am rather skeptical of any claims of "natural revolution", simply because I know how the West operates. They first demand open society and democracy, and follow it up by supporting any home-grown democratic movements - or creating such movements if there aren't any. Then they use this "democratic openness" to infiltrate their media and NGO's, and establish support structures within the society, with the aim of fostering either a revolution or an evolution that is favorable to them. In the process, they will either take over or neutralize the very same pro-democracy movements that they had used to remove competition. And no matter whether the pro-democracy movements were natural or artificial, the end result is a state with so-called "democratic institutions", but in reality ruled by supranational organizations and Western plutocrats.

They did that during Tuđman's rule in Croatia (but he outplayed them initially, and so is now considered a tyrant by many in the West), they did it in Poland (Solidarity), they did it in Russia before Putin screwed up their plans, so I have hard time believing that they somehow missed the opportunity in Ukraine. So while Maidan might have been a home-grown movement, that still doesn't mean it wasn't taken over and/or exploited for the Western purposes.



Being aligned with West and their society-destroying values is hardly any better, even if it might be lot more comfortable. But it is true that Russia is a much more obvious threat and thus Ukraine is more likely to align with the West naturally - but by no means guaranteed.



Not because of that, but because I know how the West (or rather, Western Deep State / Cathedral) operates. See above.

Ukraine wanted to join the west because their bureaucrats and oligarchs want to suck at the Euro and dollar subsidies teat and because they managed to convince a big chunk of their population that the EU will make them all rich, conveniently forgetting to mention stuff like the loss of sovereignity, more "privatization" in the forms of Oligarchs and western banks taking over parts of the economy at a huge discount after the EU forces austerity on them during the bust portion of the cycle, with the boom being fueled by cheap western money, the 20% minimum VAT they'd have to impose, inflation, and a variety of block-level trade restrictions that would limit Ukrainian options for external investments and growth.

The Brussels eurocracy meanwhile wants to expand its protected markets and get more cheap workers to prop up ailing, slow growth western economies, as well as find more people to use its currency and keep the subsidies grift going.
And of course we have the useful idiots that believe in flying EUrnicorns shitting rainbows that want the block to expand further because they are high on their own farts.

 

[Marduk]

Maybe. But I am rather skeptical of any claims of "natural revolution", simply because I know how the West operates. They first demand open society and democracy, and follow it up by supporting any home-grown democratic movements - or creating such movements if there aren't any. Then they use this "democratic openness" to infiltrate their media and NGO's, and establish support structures within the society, with the aim of fostering either a revolution or an evolution that is favorable to them. In the process, they will either take over or neutralize the very same pro-democracy movements that they had used to remove competition. And no matter whether the pro-democracy movements were natural or artificial, the end result is a state with so-called "democratic institutions", but in reality ruled by supranational organizations and Western plutocrats.

Of course this process is as applicable to random countries as to countries who already belong to western organizations like EU or NATO since many decades, hence in conclusion the question of belonging to these organizations has little bearing on whether the country is ruled by western plutocrats.

They did that during Tuđman's rule in Croatia (but he outplayed them initially, and so is now considered a tyrant by many in the West), they did it in Poland (Solidarity), they did it in Russia before Putin screwed up their plans, so I have hard time believing that they somehow missed the opportunity in Ukraine. So while Maidan might have been a home-grown movement, that still doesn't mean it wasn't taken over and/or exploited for the Western purposes.

Even in that pessimistic vision, Ukraine would conclude that looking at their neighborhood, being exploited by the west still beats being a serf under new wannabe incarnation of Russian Empire.

Being aligned with West and their society-destroying values is hardly any better, even if it might be lot more comfortable. But it is true that Russia is a much more obvious threat and thus Ukraine is more likely to align with the West naturally - but by no means guaranteed.

This argument is an absolute red herring. Not only Russian social values are no better (see: abortion, drug use, crime, migration, fertility ratios etc in Russia), but the progressive cancer is more limited by cultural and language barriers than the borders of western economic and military organizations. For example places like New Zealand and Australia aren't in NATO or EU but are hit by progressivism hard due to being anglophone, culturally English countries.
On the other hand Turkey is aligned with the west, is in NATO and has an association agreement with the EU, but the cultural border is rock solid when it comes to progressivism. To a lesser degree the same goes for the Slavic countries aligned with the west.

 

[Aldarion]

Of course this process is as applicable to random countries as to countries who already belong to western organizations like EU or NATO since many decades, hence in conclusion the question of belonging to these organizations has little bearing on whether the country is ruled by western plutocrats.

True, but wanting to join supranational organizations (especially EU; I kinda can understand wanting to join NATO) is usually, and perhaps even exclusively, the result of being ruled by Western plutocrats.

Even in that pessimistic vision, Ukraine would conclude that looking at their neighborhood, being exploited by the west still beats being a serf under new wannabe incarnation of Russian Empire.

True, although I personally think that would be a mistake, in the long run at least.

This argument is an absolute red herring. Not only Russian social values are no better (see: abortion, drug use, crime, migration, fertility ratios etc in Russia), but the progressive cancer is more limited by cultural and language barriers than the borders of western economic and military organizations. For example places like New Zealand and Australia aren't in NATO or EU but are hit by progressivism hard due to being anglophone, culturally English countries.
On the other hand Turkey is aligned with the west, is in NATO and has an association agreement with the EU, but the cultural border is rock solid when it comes to progressivism. To a lesser degree the same goes for the Slavic countries aligned with the west.

That is true to an extent. However, it is also true that EU especially demands progressive indoctrination as a part of the application process. I had been following Croatian politics since 1999., international politics since 2003., and I also studied Croatian politics from 700s onwards, but especially from 1990. onwards (Croatian Soldier magazine, being a governmental publication, is a good case study in this). And I can reliably tell you that destruction of Croatian culture and society, while it had been ongoing since 1945. at the latest, had only really shifted to a high gear in 2000., when globalists took over Croatia in so-called "democratic elections" and set the EU as the ultimate goal.

As much as I hate Communism, being stuck behind the Iron Curtain might have been better than what is happening now.

Ukraine wanted to join the west because their bureaucrats and oligarchs want to suck at the Euro and dollar subsidies teat and because they managed to convince a big chunk of their population that the EU will make them all rich, conveniently forgetting to mention stuff like the loss of sovereignity, more "privatization" in the forms of Oligarchs and western banks taking over parts of the economy at a huge discount after the EU forces austerity on them during the bust portion of the cycle, with the boom being fueled by cheap western money, the 20% minimum VAT they'd have to impose, inflation, and a variety of block-level trade restrictions that would limit Ukrainian options for external investments and growth.

The Brussels eurocracy meanwhile wants to expand its protected markets and get more cheap workers to prop up ailing, slow growth western economies, as well as find more people to use its currency and keep the subsidies grift going.
And of course we have the useful idiots that believe in flying EUrnicorns shitting rainbows that want the block to expand further because they are high on their own farts.

Yeah, same case as Croatia.

 

[Marduk]

True, but wanting to join supranational organizations (especially EU; I kinda can understand wanting to join NATO) is usually, and perhaps even exclusively, the result of being ruled by Western plutocrats.

This is patently untrue. There are clear military and economic benefits to be had there, especially for a country like Ukraine.

True, although I personally think that would be a mistake, in the long run at least.

In the long run these organizations can fall apart and be formed again differently ten times over.

That is true to an extent. However, it is also true that EU especially demands progressive indoctrination as a part of the application process.

There is enough political pressure around Ukraine's application that they would have to be looking for retirement to make that a roadblock.

I had been following Croatian politics since 1999., international politics since 2003., and I also studied Croatian politics from 700s onwards, but especially from 1990. onwards (Croatian Soldier magazine, being a governmental publication, is a good case study in this). And I can reliably tell you that destruction of Croatian culture and society, while it had been ongoing since 1945. at the latest, had only really shifted to a high gear in 2000., when globalists took over Croatia in so-called "democratic elections" and set the EU as the ultimate goal.

As i said, who gets elected locally has far more effect than membership in EU. In Poland there absolutely are political parties who would love to do all the progressive crap too, and the only thing stopping them is that they don't win elections. The EU can't make them win elections, and likewise, the lack of EU doesn't stop leftist parties from being elected either.
Also it looks to me that the EU overall also naturally has a lot more success pressuring smaller countries with such stuff, as opposed to those with populations in double digit millions.

As much as I hate Communism, being stuck behind the Iron Curtain might have been better than what is happening now.

Better how? In terms of not socio-cultural mess, Russia is hardly a good example, the only difference is that the iron fisted imperialist thieves ruling there may be harder to overthrow if they want to fix that, as opposed to the thieving clowns ruling in the west.

 

[Agent23]

True, but wanting to join supranational organizations (especially EU; I kinda can understand wanting to join NATO) is usually, and perhaps even exclusively, the result of being ruled by Western plutocrats.



True, although I personally think that would be a mistake, in the long run at least.



That is true to an extent. However, it is also true that EU especially demands progressive indoctrination as a part of the application process. I had been following Croatian politics since 1999., international politics since 2003., and I also studied Croatian politics from 700s onwards, but especially from 1990. onwards (Croatian Soldier magazine, being a governmental publication, is a good case study in this). And I can reliably tell you that destruction of Croatian culture and society, while it had been ongoing since 1945. at the latest, had only really shifted to a high gear in 2000., when globalists took over Croatia in so-called "democratic elections" and set the EU as the ultimate goal.

As much as I hate Communism, being stuck behind the Iron Curtain might have been better than what is happening now.



Yeah, same case as Croatia.

Dude, he hates Russia more than he cares for his own country, he'd probably organize a mass forced abortion sacrifice if the Dark Gods would help him reach his goal.
Trying to converse with him on the subject is utterly pointless, that is why I soft-blocked him.

 

[Megadeath]

Dude, he hates Russia more than he cares for his own country, he'd probably organize a mass forced abortion sacrifice if the Dark Gods would help him reach his goal.
Trying to converse with him on the subject is utterly pointless, that is why I soft-blocked him.

Nope, you just block everyone who disagrees with you because you don't have the brains or the support of facts needed to debate, and you're a sad little snowflake who can't deal with a world where you're not right all the time and everyone recognises and appreciates that.

 

[Zachowon]

Dude, he hates Russia more than he cares for his own country, he'd probably organize a mass forced abortion sacrifice if the Dark Gods would help him reach his goal.
Trying to converse with him on the subject is utterly pointless, that is why I soft-blocked him.

Wow.
AFAIK Marduk os like the majority of Polish and is catholic though o could be wrong.
Don't say shit like that unless you can prove it.

 

[Aldarion]

This is patently untrue. There are clear military and economic benefits to be had there, especially for a country like Ukraine.

Such as? NATO already provides military benefits. As for the EU, Bruxelles bureaucracy is actively destroying European economies through overregulation, common currency, austerity, migration, bureocracy... the only benefit I see of the EU is the possibility to maybe regulate the Big Tech, and even that is a big if.

In the long run these organizations can fall apart and be formed again differently ten times over.

Not likely, unless we end up having World War 3.

As i said, who gets elected locally has far more effect than membership in EU. In Poland there absolutely are political parties who would love to do all the progressive crap too, and the only thing stopping them is that they don't win elections. The EU can't make them win elections, and likewise, the lack of EU doesn't stop leftist parties from being elected either.
Also it looks to me that the EU overall also naturally has a lot more success pressuring smaller countries with such stuff, as opposed to those with populations in double digit millions.

And part of the reason for that is that Poland has already experienced Communism with its true face, which has, to a degree, provided inoculation against Western pretend-humanist version of Communism. Largely because of this, situation in the Eastern Europe is far better than it is in the West.

And yeah, bolded part is true: I have experienced that first hand.

Better how? In terms of not socio-cultural mess, Russia is hardly a good example, the only difference is that the iron fisted imperialist thieves ruling there may be harder to overthrow if they want to fix that, as opposed to the thieving clowns ruling in the west.

Better in that Soviet Union, after the disastrous experiments of 1920s., was in fact more socially conservative than modern-day Western countries. Better in that Communists, while evil, were more obviously evil than Western democrats and progressives, who are far more insidious and less obvious while being no less evil than the Communists. Better in that Communists at least cared not to completely destroy their societies (they would have nothing to rule), while progressives have that destruction as a primary goal.

Communism made a token effort to cloak its evil in humanist rhetoric, but it was nowhere as successful as modern-day progressivism or Western liberalism. And no, Russian imperialists will be far easier to overthrow than the Western ruling class, which hides behind non-governmental organizations, lobbyists and far-left parties participating in elections, such as DNC and GOP in the US.

Russia has been acting defensively against a US/NATO that has been encroaching on it since the collapse of the USSR. Meddling in Ukraine is to give it a buffer zone wherein no potential foe is able to set up to invade them. Not respecting Russian history of it having to face repeated destructive invasions from the west is going to result serious conflict. Same as the US would react to say China couping the government in Mexico and starting to build up their military with Chinese advisors and intelligence personnel.

Eh, no. Russia has been an imperial power since the time of the Tsars, and that type of behavior had continued more-or-less unimpeded through USSR and modern-day Russia. Same as how the US have been an imperialist, expansionist power since their very establishment.

East European countries had been joining NATO in response to Russian behavior. In other words, very nature of Russia has to change for it to be viewed favorably.

 

[Marduk]

Such as? NATO already provides military benefits. As for the EU, Bruxelles bureaucracy is actively destroying European economies through overregulation, common currency, austerity, migration, bureocracy... the only benefit I see of the EU is the possibility to maybe regulate the Big Tech, and even that is a big if.

Ukraine would get a shitload of money from EU's welfare schemes, many EU countries dodge the common currency and migration with success, bureaucracy many countries grow beyond EU minimum anyway, and austerity, well, don't bankrupt yourself like PIGS and you won't have it.

And part of the reason for that is that Poland has already experienced Communism with its true face, which has, to a degree, provided inoculation against Western pretend-humanist version of Communism. Largely because of this, situation in the Eastern Europe is far better than it is in the West.

But the same is true for Baltics and the smaller post-communist countries south of Poland, but EU pushes that stuff on them more successfully.
It is also the case for Ukraine, but with the real problem it has and its size it will be more like Poland i think.

Better in that Soviet Union, after the disastrous experiments of 1920s., was in fact more socially conservative than modern-day Western countries. Better in that Communists, while evil, were more obviously evil than Western democrats and progressives, who are far more insidious and less obvious while being no less evil than the Communists. Better in that Communists at least cared not to completely destroy their societies (they would have nothing to rule), while progressives have that destruction as a primary goal.

Communism made a token effort to cloak its evil in humanist rhetoric, but it was nowhere as successful as modern-day progressivism or Western liberalism. And no, Russian imperialists will be far easier to overthrow than the Western ruling class, which hides behind non-governmental organizations, lobbyists and far-left parties participating in elections, such as DNC and GOP in the US.

And that's the difference, their reign is based completely on soft power, everything they do is limited by PR, at least token respect for laws and maintaining public support.
Meanwhile in Russia, they are free to just shut down all opposition media and disappear away protesters, because why the hell not.
The hardline progressives are seething that they can't do stuff like that.

 

[Aldarion]

Ukraine would get a shitload of money from EU's welfare schemes, many EU countries dodge the common currency and migration with success, bureaucracy many countries grow beyond EU minimum anyway, and austerity, well, don't bankrupt yourself like PIGS and you won't have it.

Fact is that EU is pushing for federalization, which is a rather uncomfortable situation. In fact, EU law is already superior to national law, and EU is now aiming to use welfare schemes as an incentive for Marxization of countries. If that is how it is going to be, I'd rather have no welfare at all.

But the same is true for Baltics and the smaller post-communist countries south of Poland, but EU pushes that stuff on them more successfully.
It is also the case for Ukraine, but with the real problem it has and its size it will be more like Poland i think.

OK, thanks.

And that's the difference, their reign is based completely on soft power, everything they do is limited by PR, at least token respect for laws and maintaining public support.
Meanwhile in Russia, they are free to just shut down all opposition media and disappear away protesters, because why the hell not.
The hardline progressives are seething that they can't do stuff like that.

Agreed, although I am afraid that soft power approach may be more successful in the long run. Sometimes it is better for the evil to be more aggressive and thus more obvious.

 

[Marduk]

Fact is that EU is pushing for federalization, which is a rather uncomfortable situation. In fact, EU law is already superior to national law, and EU is now aiming to use welfare schemes as an incentive for Marxization of countries. If that is how it is going to be, I'd rather have no welfare at all.

They are sure trying, but its hard to tell how well will that work out in the future. The progressives are pushing all sorts of things in all sorts of places since a very long time, but that never necessarily means success.

Agreed, although I am afraid that soft power approach may be more successful in the long run. Sometimes it is better for the evil to be more aggressive and thus more obvious.

It is potentially more successful, but also more unstable and more likely to suddenly crash and burn one moment with no safety net to fall back on.
If it was so much more successful, why aren't more or less ideological non-democratic competing powers around the world choosing this model, and are instead doubling down on hard power based models?

 

[Marduk]

Left has been winning since 1918., and never stopped. Every time something moved on a major issue it was always to the left.

I mean, when the greatest enemy of Communists in 1930s and 1940s was another bunch of leftists... yeah.

They did have a fair bit of humiliations and disasters. The disillusionment with Soviet promises after WW2, setbacks of socialist policy under Thatcher and Reagan, fall of Soviet Union and resulting end of communism in Europe, fall of Arab socialism, compromising away of Swedish model, compromising away of Chinese communism, backlash against pedo advocacy in the 90's, general anti woke backlash among the young who were supposed to be good leftists now, they do have a fair bit of defeats and setbacks.

In order to succeed with soft power model, you need to convince people they want what you want. Easiest way is to make them feel like gods, and the best way to do so is through democracy.

But what better alternative do we have? Churchill's famous saying regarding democracy comes to mind. Don't blame leftism, especially the cultural kind, on democracy, in many cases it was the elites, lawyers, celebrities, politicians, academics etc. relentlessly pushing through the increasingly more radical leftist ideas against a public that was more cautious and would be more interested in keeping status quo, rather than the other way around.

 

[Aldarion]

They did have a fair bit of humiliations and disasters. The disillusionment with Soviet promises after WW2, setbacks of socialist policy under Thatcher and Reagan, fall of Soviet Union and resulting end of communism in Europe, fall of Arab socialism, compromising away of Swedish model, compromising away of Chinese communism, backlash against pedo advocacy in the 90's, general anti woke backlash among the young who were supposed to be good leftists now, they do have a fair bit of defeats and setbacks.

Problem is that all of these were temporary setbacks at best. Average leftist today is to the left of Stalin, average right-winger is only slightly right. Also, all of these "setbacks" were centered mostly or entirely on the political sphere, but never in the areas that actually matter.

Disillusionment with Soviet promises? Today's leftists adore USSR, and are worse leftists than actual Communists.
Setbacks under Thatcher and Reagan? Temporarily, but all that Thatcher and Reagan achieved was a bunch of irrelevant stuff that quickly got rolled back, and also made themselves into scarecrows. If anything, they helped the Left, and I wouldn't even call those two properly right-wing to begin with.
Fall of the Soviet Union and end of Communism in Europe? Doesn't matter, Europe itself has become pseudo-Communist anyway, and some of the worst Communist ideas had been accepted in the West in 1960s and 1970s, two decades before the fall of the USSR.
Arab socialism? Same.
Compromising of the Swedish model? It is still seen as an ideal, and from my limited knowledge about it, it was compromised thanks to globalization, which is one thing even worse than socialism.
Chinese communism? Same.
Backlash against pedo advocacy? A temporary victory at best. They are doing it again, and banning anyone who points it out. And in few decades pedophilia will be perfectly normal.

Anti-woke backlash is the only thing giving me any hope, but then I remember all of the above, and how leftist many younger people are anyway...

But what better alternative do we have? Churchill's famous saying regarding democracy comes to mind. Don't blame leftism, especially the cultural kind, on democracy, in many cases it was the elites, lawyers, celebrities, politicians, academics etc. relentlessly pushing through the increasingly more radical leftist ideas against a public that was more cautious and would be more interested in keeping status quo, rather than the other way around.

Today's democracy exists precisely to legitimize elites in the eyes of the people without giving any power to the very same people. Regarding Churchill, well, I wrote on democracy before:

Argument for Monarchy, Part 1 – Tyrannical Nature of Democracy

This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary. Tyrannical nature of democracy Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons. Democracy formalizes pol…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Argument for Monarchy, Part 2 – Democracy as Failure of Human Nature

Democracy and professional psychopathy What is even more frightening than size of democratic government is the quality of the same. In democracy, politicians are under constant pressure to gain and…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Argument for Monarchy, Part 3 – Issue of Centralization

Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 mill…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Mathias obiit, iustitia periit.

 

[Marduk]

Problem is that all of these were temporary setbacks at best. Average leftist today is to the left of Stalin, average right-winger is only slightly right. Also, all of these "setbacks" were centered mostly or entirely on the political sphere, but never in the areas that actually matter.

Disillusionment with Soviet promises? Today's leftists adore USSR, and are worse leftists than actual Communists.
Setbacks under Thatcher and Reagan? Temporarily, but all that Thatcher and Reagan achieved was a bunch of irrelevant stuff that quickly got rolled back, and also made themselves into scarecrows. If anything, they helped the Left, and I wouldn't even call those two properly right-wing to begin with.
Fall of the Soviet Union and end of Communism in Europe? Doesn't matter, Europe itself has become pseudo-Communist anyway, and some of the worst Communist ideas had been accepted in the West in 1960s and 1970s, two decades before the fall of the USSR.
Arab socialism? Same.
Compromising of the Swedish model? It is still seen as an ideal, and from my limited knowledge about it, it was compromised thanks to globalization, which is one thing even worse than socialism.
Chinese communism? Same.
Backlash against pedo advocacy? A temporary victory at best. They are doing it again, and banning anyone who points it out. And in few decades pedophilia will be perfectly normal.

Anti-woke backlash is the only thing giving me any hope, but then I remember all of the above, and how leftist many younger people are anyway...

Of fucking course all gains and setbacks are temporary, as this is an ongoing conflict. Battles are won and lost, but none of them are nearly decisive enough to decide who won the war.

Today's democracy exists precisely to legitimize elites in the eyes of the people without giving any power to the very same people. Regarding Churchill, well, I wrote on democracy before:

Argument for Monarchy, Part 1 – Tyrannical Nature of Democracy

This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary. Tyrannical nature of democracy Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons. Democracy formalizes pol…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Argument for Monarchy, Part 2 – Democracy as Failure of Human Nature

Democracy and professional psychopathy What is even more frightening than size of democratic government is the quality of the same. In democracy, politicians are under constant pressure to gain and…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Argument for Monarchy, Part 3 – Issue of Centralization

Centralization of government has led to greatest evils in history. Going by demicides, it is exactly strong governments which caused greatest mass murders in history. Communism killed 107 mill…

politicalreactionary.wordpress.com

Mathias obiit, iustitia periit.

I don't share your monarchy fanboyism at all. You are comparing idealized monarchies of the world half a millenium ago, which was a very different world. to more or less degenerated democracies (or even "democracies" at that point) of today. Centralized governments weren't something rulers avoided out of their wisdom and grace, they did so because it was incredibly difficult to arrange the means to create a stable and reasonably functioning centralized government back then, while those who did manage to pull off that feat back then were both feared and respected to a great degree, usually ending up with an empire written about in the history books. If you compare modern democracies to real, contemporary monarchies, the charm disappears completely. Even in few best scenarios they are almost catching up, and in the typical they are competing with average democracies at best, usually failing at that. There is a reason that even worst run democracies don't see their people flocking to become subjects of Saudi or Jordanian kings, and even if you count European monarchies only, if you do some research on the political views of the remaining more symbolic monarchs of Europe, their are disturbingly similar to the political elites who do have power too.

 

[WolfBear]

On the other hand Turkey is aligned with the west, is in NATO and has an association agreement with the EU, but the cultural border is rock solid when it comes to progressivism. To a lesser degree the same goes for the Slavic countries aligned with the west.

27% of Turks support same-sex marriage, so Turkey isn't completely cut off from Western influence--at least not in comparison to, say, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

 

[Marduk]

27% of Turks support same-sex marriage, so Turkey isn't completely cut off from Western influence--at least not in comparison to, say, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

OTOH those are not aligned with the west, and have far worse problems than a minority of light progressives.

 

[Aldarion]

Of fucking course all gains and setbacks are temporary, as this is an ongoing conflict. Battles are won and lost, but none of them are nearly decisive enough to decide who won the war.

Yet only the Left is making permanent gains, from what I can see.

I don't share your monarchy fanboyism at all. You are comparing idealized monarchies of the world half a millenium ago, which was a very different world. to more or less degenerated democracies (or even "democracies" at that point) of today. Centralized governments weren't something rulers avoided out of their wisdom and grace, they did so because it was incredibly difficult to arrange the means to create a stable and reasonably functioning centralized government back then, while those who did manage to pull off that feat back then were both feared and respected to a great degree, usually ending up with an empire written about in the history books. If you compare modern democracies to real, contemporary monarchies, the charm disappears completely. Even in few best scenarios they are almost catching up, and in the typical they are competing with average democracies at best, usually failing at that. There is a reason that even worst run democracies don't see their people flocking to become subjects of Saudi or Jordanian kings, and even if you count European monarchies only, if you do some research on the political views of the remaining more symbolic monarchs of Europe, their are disturbingly similar to the political elites who do have power too.

If we actually look at historical patterns, it is not that democracies secure high living standard, but rather that high living standard leads to democracy.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Yet only the Left is making permanent gains, from what I can see.

So what is your fucking solution that has such broad appeal to stop it? I for one am tired of internet wizards who claim to know all the answers and yet somehow only offer worse alternatives or 'buts' on the issue.

Dictatorship? Pinochet tried to literally kill every leftist he could in Chile and guess who is president now! A freaking left wing government headed by Boric. Same with Spain and Portugal!

Fascism under a different umbrella? "HELL TO THE NO!!!" as if that fixes anything it's just antisemitism/racism mixed with garden Socialism!

Absolute Monarchy? In your dreams! Most Monarchs these days are socialist anyway and nobody wants them in this country or any other so what the hell would it change?

Libertarianism? For all it's pro's people are drunk off the idea of exchanging liberty for security and safety net these days and thus they have no popular appeal! Coupled with their inability to realize that companies don't always benefit the masses and protectionism isn't always this great evil that holds people back.

The problem with combating the left is they have always embodied the 'different' and 'new' so when everybody is sick of the way things are or hate the way things were will always hate conservatism for embodying those things.

Calvin Coolidge for example was a great man who lead a great administration but has been forgotten about largely and it wasn't for anything he 'did' but the lack their of because society thinks a president needs to do something even if it isn't necessary.

Society doesn't exist in a vacuum and technological change has caused these social shocks which has attributed to extreme ideologies gaining prominence again coupled with the fact that our generation really hasn't seen many examples of how terrible they can go wrong or are starting to view dictatorship as the best alternative of getting what they want both left and right.

 

[Aldarion]

So what is your fucking solution that has such broad appeal to stop it? I for one am tired of internet wizards who claim to know all the answers and yet somehow only offer worse alternatives or 'buts' on the issue.

Dictatorship? Pinochet tried to literally kill every leftist he could in Chile and guess who is president now! A freaking left wing government headed by Boric. Same with Spain and Portugal!

Absolute Monarchy? In your dreams! Most Monarchs these days are socialist anyway and nobody wants them in this country or any other so what the hell would it change?

Fascism? "HELL TO THE NO!!!" as if that fixes anything it's just antisemitism/racism mixed with garden Socialism!

Libertarianism? For all it's pro's people are drunk off the idea of exchanging liberty for security and safety net these days and thus they have no popular appeal! Coupled with their inability to realize that companies don't always benefit the masses and protectionism isn't always this great evil that holds people back.

The problem with combating the left is they have always embodied the 'different' and 'new' so when everybody is sick of the way things are or hate the way things were will always hate conservatism for embodying those things.

Calvin Coolidge for example was a great man and lead a great administration but was forgotten about and it wasn't for anything he 'did' but lack their of.

Society doesn't exist in a vacuum and technological change has caused these social shocks which has attributed to extreme ideologies gaining prominence again coupled with the fact that our generation really hasn't seen many examples of how terrible they are or are starting to view dictatorship as the best alternative of getting what they want both left and right.

Nice tirade, but it misses the point. A political system alone cannot hope to stop the Left, because they are fighting the war on a completely different level. At this point, regardless of what political system you choose, Left will subvert it. So despite the fact that literally any of the systems on your list are better than where Left is taking us, none of them can provide a solution, because merely changing the political system is not a solution in the first place.

There are some things that have to be done, though.

Whatever the solution is, it has to reject leftist values such as equality. If you allow your enemy to dictate the terms of engagement, you have already lost. Problem is that leftist values are appealing, especially to modern humans who tend to be on emotional level of toddlers.

First thing that is necessary is to provide something that will combat the Left on the emotional level - because that is where the Left has been winning since the beginning. Left provides a dream of a better future, so Right has to offer something similar. This means nationalism, at the very least, and without accepting any of Leftist terms when it comes to discussion. Ideally, it would be something more than nationalism.

Second, it has to be understood that controlling the government doesn't matter. Elections, political parties... none of that matters, at least at first. Right has to take over the media and the educational institutions - kindergartens, schools, universities - or else completely destroy them. Basically, it is necessary to copy the manner in which the Left has taken over the civilization: they didn't take over governments immediately. They started with taking over the means of indoctrination, and only when that was done, they took over the government. And by that time, it was too late to stop them. We have to do the same, but in reverse: problem here is that rich people were always leftist, and I do not know how to compensate for that. But taking over the media and the institutions (what Yarvin calls the Cathedral) is absolutely necessary.

This also means combating Left's discourse in historiography. Left has been extremely successful at placing blame on right-wing ideas for literally everything, and then using labels to prevent pushback. First world war? It is the fault of either monarchs, or nationalists, or both (flash news: it was the fault of colonialism and economic globalisation). Second world war? It is the fault of nationalism and racism (flash news: no, Hitler actually started it because socialist policies were causing German economy to fail).

Above is also why I see the idea of monarchy as important. It provides an emotional appeal: as I have pointed out before, monarch is pater familias. Monarchy is family, expanded to the level of the state. Second, monarchy rejects the leftist in its basis. Democracy, fundamentally, reinforces the idea of socialism: that all people are equal. It is an inherently leftist system. Monarchy however is based on the idea of family, and rejects the idea of equality. That being said, monarchy is not strictly necessary to combat the left: other ideas such as ethnic nationalism may be successful.

But whatever the case, it will be a slow process - and we are running out of time.