Tolkien's Ideal of Monarchy

[Navarro]

you know everyone says that until they are the chosen then they go "Wait I take it back!" by then it's too late as thier brain and skull matter flows into the ground.

Not to mention that he does have a utopia - only it consists of neobarb warbands aimlessly killing each other. Yes, he really does think this:

In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

is a picture of the ideal society. Demented.

It really does show how certain people just take the Whig/progressive/leftist teleological interpretation of history and morally invert it just like Satanists invert Christianity. "At the beginning of history society consisted only of hyperviolent tribes slaughtering each other AND IT WAS A GOOD THING".

 

[DocSolarisReich]

you know everyone says that until they are the chosen to be killed then they go "Wait I take it back!" by then it's too late as thier brain and skull matter spill into the ground.

And everyone who tries to find an alternative kills even more than the ancien regime ever managed.

 

[Navarro]

And everyone who tries to find an alternative kills even more than the ancien regime ever managed.

I mean, given how you posted that screed about the purpose of human existence being to kill each other ... why should you view that as a bad thing by the lights of your deranged political philosophy? If the important thing is that the blood flows and the bodies stack up, that man exterminate himself ... why not let it happen all the more, in your twisted world view?

Literal "killpeopleism" as ideology. That's a new one.

And why should you care about the aristocratic society of the middle ages? For you, it was just another step in the process of "degeneration" from a fantasy Conan-esque noble savagery that never existed. A "rule of one" that could never actually exist amongst fallen humanity.

I mean, all you literally have is an inversion; a mirror-image of classical liberalism that takes all its power by transgressing against it. Classical liberals say slavery is bad; Solaris says slavery is Good. Classical liberals say violence is bad and should only be used when necessary; Solaris says violence is Good and should be used whenever possible. Liberals say ..., and so on and so forth.

That's you. Your ideology will never be able to build anything, because it's constructed entirely from negations even when these negations end up contradicting each other. Add a thin layer of traditionalist Catholicism (but you don't have to worry about whatever the Pope or the church actually says, because they're hopelessly corrupt according to you) as branding.

Voila, we have everything you have ever posted concerning any matter of substance, and everything you ever will post in the future. Kinda lame. 3/10 for effort with the archaicisms and all.

 

[Simonbob]

Well, if we're talking about Political Power.......

Power really does corrupt as scientists claim it's as addictive as cocaine

The claim by Dr Ian Robertson that power is addictive may go some way to explain the outlandish and impulsive behaviour of city fatcats, tycoons and celebrities.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There will always be leaders. How they are chosen, that's the question, and often more importantaly, how they are removed.


Generaly, I disagree with Monarchy, at least with much power, because the ability to remove a bad leader without killing is insanely important.

The biggest advantage of Democratic Govenmental styles, is that for even those who loose power have the hope that they might regain it in the future, without war. And, I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem we have in the modern West is the colusion between Big Media, Big Corps, and Big Gov are starting to shut off that societal flex.


What was that quote? Oh, yeah. "Those that make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable."

 

[Aldarion]

The biggest advantage of Democratic Govenmental styles, is that for even those who loose power have the hope that they might regain it in the future, without war. And, I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem we have in the modern West is the colusion between Big Media, Big Corps, and Big Gov are starting to shut off that societal flex.

Problem is that the system of representative democracy and modern state in general makes that colusion inevitable.

 

[DocSolarisReich]

Well, if we're talking about Political Power.......

Power really does corrupt as scientists claim it's as addictive as cocaine

The claim by Dr Ian Robertson that power is addictive may go some way to explain the outlandish and impulsive behaviour of city fatcats, tycoons and celebrities.

www.dailymail.co.uk

There will always be leaders. How they are chosen, that's the question, and often more importantaly, how they are removed.


Generaly, I disagree with Monarchy, at least with much power, because the ability to remove a bad leader without killing is insanely important.

The biggest advantage of Democratic Govenmental styles, is that for even those who loose power have the hope that they might regain it in the future, without war. And, I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem we have in the modern West is the colusion between Big Media, Big Corps, and Big Gov are starting to shut off that societal flex.


What was that quote? Oh, yeah. "Those that make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable."

Disagree. Peaceful change of power is highly overrated. The biggest advantage of monarchy, which in a feudal monarchy in s repeated all the way down to the lowest level fractally, is if your government isn’t doing its job, you know exactly is responsible, and if It needs changing, who exactly needs to die.

 

[Navarro]

Disagree. Peaceful change of power is highly overrated.

Lol. The ancients and medievals valued traditional systems of succession and despaired of civil wars precisely because they wanted peaceful transitions of power and political stability. No society in the world ever saw civil wars and succession crises as a good thing I(his is why regicide and rebellion against the king were punished so harshly even by the brutal standards of the time). Rulers who brought an end to internecine fighting were celebrated precisely for bringing peace to the realm. But then, you're not actually a follower of ancient or medieval political theory, but a Nietzschean social Darwinist LARPing as one.

The biggest advantage of monarchy, which in a feudal monarchy in s repeated all the way down to the lowest level fractally, is if your government isn’t doing its job, you know exactly is responsible, and if It needs changing, who exactly needs to die.

This is hilarious. Even traditional medieval monarchies needed a bureaucracy, civil servants, clerks, magistrates and so on. The "rule of one" never really existed, because it never could. It was never so simple as the king making arbitrary decrees which everyone else had to obey.

Also, I thought the monarch was ordained by divine right, now it's whoever can climb enough bodies to reach the throne? And I thought overthrowing and killing the king because of his bad policies was precisely what you excoriated the English Parliament in the 17th century for doing, literally saying it was a manifestation of the spirit of Antichrist?

But then, you're the sort who literally argues "the purpose of human existence is to kill each other" one day and then "the ancien regime killed less people than modern systems of government" the next. Consistency was never your strong suit.

And isn't that edgy, that talk about killing people as the only way to stop bad laws and policies?

But I've already exposed your entire ideology as what it is. The edgy ramblings of a REMF envious of the combat arms and bitter that he never saw action in Iraq who spent all his time in theater at a base repairing small arms, and so came to idolise violence as a good in its own right. An ideology based on nothing substantial, but just negation upon negation, which gains all its power (which is really nothing more than the power to shock) by denying conventional political pieties. Nihilistic Nietzscheanism hidden behind a thin veneer of traditional religion. As shallow as Cartman on South Park.

That's you and almost every post you've made on this forum. You don't need to do it any more now. Stick to talking about small arms, that's the one subject you actually have a decent amount of knowledge about.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Generaly, I disagree with Monarchy, at least with much power, because the ability to remove a bad leader without killing is insanely important.

This is actually where British Parliamentary Monarchy worked quite well. There was no need to kill or depose a bad king because there were constitutional avenues that could be used to restrain the monarch. If the king played nice with parliament, he could do whatever he liked. If not, he's not going to get anything done, especially taxation wise.

 

[DarthOne]

Filthy fucking germs got taught their place on the pecking order. Germanicus would have asserted total chad dominance over them (indeed, it's a tragedy he didn't become Emperor) if Tiberius wasn't such a pansy.

I see someone is a fan of the 'unbiased history' youtube channel.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I see someone is a fan of the 'unbiased history' youtube channel.

His recounting of the Gallic Wars is one of the few things that will send me into tears of laughter.

 

[Navarro]

This is actually where British Parliamentary Monarchy worked quite well. There was no need to kill or depose a bad king because there were constitutional avenues that could be used to restrain the monarch. If the king played nice with parliament, he could do whatever he liked. If not, he's not going to get anything done, especially taxation wise.

But ya see, that's not exciting enough. They should storm Buckingham Palace and kill the king, then hold a no-holds barred deathmatch among each other to see who gets to be the new king! Blood for the blood god, skulls for the throne of Khorne! /s

 

[Simonbob]

But ya see, that's not exciting enough. They should storm Buckingham Palace and kill the king, then hold a no-holds barred deathmatch among each other to see who gets to be the new king! Blood for the blood god, skulls for the throne of Khorne! /s

But, the Queen is all in on her dogs, and has survived everything else, so we'd be seeing the little old Queen storming the House of Lords, with her pack in war gear!

I mean, really, do you want to see that? I'd pay to see that.

 

[Navarro]

I mean, given how you posted that screed about the purpose of human existence being to kill each other ... why should you view that as a bad thing by the lights of your deranged political philosophy? If the important thing is that the blood flows and the bodies stack up, that man exterminate himself ... why not let it happen all the more, in your twisted world view?

Hmm, speaking of twisted world views ... he may be more twisted than I thought! I mean, everything he's said can be easily put together to reconstruct a certain ideology the advocacy of which is forbidden on this forum. Before we begin, let it be said that having been on the receiving end of being called a crypto-fascist multiple times I would never make such an accusation lightly.

Stirling for the Draka

Translation from Solaris-ese to English: I'm willing to throw out all my supposed ideological preconceptions to glorify a faction who epitomise Nietzschean anti-Christian triumph of the will shenanigans. Because I only really care about Christianity, throne-and-altar, garden-variety reactionaryism et al as a crutch and disguise for my real beliefs.

If you must know, I view all forms of corvee labour, including the chattel slavery practiced in the antebellum South to be a morally neutral question of the prudential order.

'Eugenics' is literally just Aristocratic concern for good breeding and mate selection.

In contrast to the church's moral teaching, I view slavery as a good thing if you can get away with it, tick. I also do the same for eugenics (tick), because the church's clear teaching on that matter doesn't count for me because reasons. So when I invoke the church's teaching as a gotcha card when my views are challenged, you can easily tell I'm just doing it to try and end the argument.

The German tribal volkswanderung conquered from Alexandria in Aegypt to Carthage, to Rome, to Seville, West and East Frankia, and into the lands of the Kievan Russ. Goths, Franks, Lombards, Vandals, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, all Germans, and all founding stock of nearly every nation within Christendom

the Hidalgos are themselves Visigoths who took Hispania through might and main.

Fighting inside the family when our enemies bay for our blood is contra-indicated.

"RAH RAH MUH GLORIOUS BARBARIAN CONQUERING ARYAN GERMANIC TRIBES RAH RAH", tick. Also, politics and history seen solely as race warfare, tick.

Its not what I would have done, but I am not the one who was there, and refuse to judge the men who were, seeing as they are my ancestors and brothers in Christ.

To disparage the German contribution to Christendom is to attack the racial and cultural base thereof.

But 'whiteness', at least, as I understand and use the term, is more than culture, more than cult, it is a bloodline.

False, but I've already covered that above. Further reading.

The Germanization of Christianity.
The Gospel of the Saxons.

Its not what I would have done, but I am not the one who was there, and refuse to judge the men who were, seeing as they are my ancestors and brothers in Christ.

Translation from Solaris-ese to English: I support "Christendom" if by Christendom you mean "the white race". Doctrinal and organisational differences pale in comparison to this solitary factor. Only "Aryans" can truly be Christians. Tick.

The 'individual' has nothing that is his own, .... his soul.

False. Nations and Peoples do have immortal souls. They're called Angels.

"Because I know openly spouting my racially mysticist views about collective racial souls (tick) would shatter the disguise that I'm just a really devout Catholic (despite the fact I have no problem claiming that the last three Popes have been illegitimate) I cover them in a thin coating of baptismal water."

Yes, power politics. What do you think monarchy actually is?

"Find in any country the Ablest Man that exists there; raise him to the supreme place, and loyally reverence him: you have a perfect government for that country; no ballot-box, parliamentary eloquence, voting, constitution-building, or other machinery whatsoever can improve it a whit." ~ Thomas Carlyle.

Whenever you hear me opining about "monarchy" read "totalitarian dictatorship" and when I say the word "king" hear "Leader". This is because I'm not actually a traditionalist or a reactionary, but a modern-day totalitarian. Tick.

The last time anyone in France had the stomach to actually do anything against the disintegration of France was in 1961, and non je ne regret rien.

Disagree. Peaceful change of power is highly overrated ... who exactly needs to die.

"Kill them all, God will know his own" in Latin as sig

I tried the IRL organizing thing ... Turns out dissident politics isn’t any good for your career ...

Sedition and rebellion are a young man’s game.

Translation from Solaris-ese to English - I'm obsessed with the supposed power of violence as a "pure" method of resolving disputes even when it's ineffectual or counterproductive. I'm a coward though, so I'll never stick my own neck out on the line. Tick.

I don't really claim an 'economic theory'. I guess Third Position if you held a gun to my head. The important thing is ordering the political-economy to the common good and the final end of man.

I support the literal economic position of neo-fascism and neo-Nazism. Tick.

See this is the problem with the farce of Nurenburg, it destroys centuries of legal tradition in the name of liberalism.

“That’s why We have invited Herr Doctor William Joseph von Steuben-Bayer of IG Farben to address this council today

Translation from Solaris-ese to English: I think the folks who were found guilty at Nuremberg ought to have gotten off, and I have no problem with going out of my way to present their co-conspirators in genocide as heroic allies of the protagonists (who always win easily, and are always right and never wrong) in my works of fiction. Tick, tick.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and sympathises with ducks to the point of writing them as heroes... what is it?

You thought you were smart, weren't you, @DocSolarisReich (and isn't that username itself mighty odd for someone not of German origin?), putting all the pieces of your real ideological position out like sections of a jigsaw without connecting them together and while camouflaging them with all that traditionalist/reactionary guff? I had thought you were a coward, but perhaps this is a better explanation for your consistent refusal to defend your positions when they were subjected to in-depth rebuttal. Because otherwise you would have to make an admission you knew would get you thrown off of the board like the trash you are. No wonder your last reply to me was pathetic bitching about being "misrepresented" followed by a failure to correct said "misrepresentation" when I publicly challenged you to do so.

But still, you're far less clever than you think you are, because you didn't realise that by putting the pieces of your ideology out in the open at all you left them right out there for those dumb degenerate "right-liberals" to connect. Go sell your trash ideology (which never achieved anything more than killing millions, destroying the country that tried to implement it, and giving leftists an easy slur to call their opponents) on /pol/, Stormfront or Iron March. There you can do it without bothering to disguise it, which I think would be less of a burden for you than doing it on here. Or you could be a real man and start preaching your beliefs at church after the service, at work, and to your D&D group instead of on a place where no-one knows you aren't a dog.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Go sell your trash ideology (which never achieved anything more than killing millions, destroying the country that tried to implement it, and giving leftists an easy slur to call their opponents) on /pol/, Stormfront or Iron March.

Funniest thing you will ever see is German monarchists spiraling into apoplectic rage over the Nazis (IE, the people who destroyed their Reich). There's a reason the old imperial flag flies at most German nationalist rallies instead of the swastika, and it isn't just down to censorship.

 

[DarthOne]

Funniest thing you will ever see is German monarchists spiraling into apoplectic rage over the Nazis (IE, the people who destroyed their Reich). There's a reason the old imperial flag flies at most German nationalist rallies instead of the swastika, and it isn't just down to censorship.

Yeah, the Monarchists from what I've seen tend to start frothing at the mouth when the neo-nazis start trying to use Imperial German symbols. Understandable really. I'd do the exact same thing in their place.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Yeah, the Monarchists from what I've seen tend to start frothing at the mouth when the neo-nazis start trying to use Imperial German symbols. Understandable really. I'd do the exact same thing in their place.

Same, although if I were a German patriot, I'd do it whilst wearing a picklehaube and bashing them over the head with a flagpole, from which the Reichskriegsflagge is billowing. Gott mit uns, my guys.

Remove socialism, restore the Empire.

 

[DarthOne]

Same, although if I were a German patriot, I'd do it whilst wearing a picklehaube and bashing them over the head with a flagpole, from which the Reichskriegsflagge is billowing. Gott mit uns, my guys.

Remove socialism, restore the Empire.

Someone needs to draw propaganda-poster-style art of that...

Because say all you like about the flaws of Willhelm II (most of which can be blamed for his General's lack of communication, not understanding just how far Austria-Hungry was going to go and quote-mining what he was actually saying) I'm pretty sure even he'd do a better job of handling modern Germany then Merkle. Who from what I can see is doing a fine job of bringing her own country down around her to the point where I'm starting to question if it's on purpose.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Someone needs to draw propaganda-poster-style art of that...

Denizens of the Sietch, the challenge has been issued.

Because say all you like about the flaws of Willhelm II (most of which can be blamed for his General's lack of communication, not understanding just how far Austria-Hungry was going to go and quote-mining what he was actually saying) I'm pretty sure even he'd do a better job of handling modern Germany then Merkle. Who from what I can see is doing a fine job of bringing her own country down around her to the point where I'm starting to question if it's on purpose.

Nah, it's just the worst sort of short term thinking imaginable, built of virtue signalling and momentary gain. It's one of democracy's big weaknesses as, essentially, it is rabble politics via popularity contest. This is why the founding fathers were very specific about American being a Constitutional Republic instead of a democracy.

 

[bullethead]

Okay guys, let's keep it chill in here.

 

[DarthOne]

Okay guys, let's keep it chill in here.

Sorry boss. Just to clarify, it's because of going off topic, right?