History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Bassoe]

So while America enters its Marian stage, I expect Europe to fall into greater chaos and bloodshed, without any real solution in sight.

I assume America undergoing their own version of the Spanish Civil War or otherwise occupying themselves to the point where they can't project power beyond their continent is an essential prerequisite for European civil wars, insofar as the oligarchy would use American military force to maintain their puppet regimes against populist revolts unless that wasn't an available option for them. Or to put it another way, say France actually falls, either to a populist latter-day Napoleon who restores order in the face of riots with the original Napoleon's recommended tactics for that situation and deports the survivors, or the Al-Cliché Caliphate. How long until the American invasion to prop up someone within their accepted range of neoliberal politics? Or if the two are fighting and it isn't clear who's going to win, which side do the Americans back?

 

[Zyobot]

The Neo-Ceasar thing is a crap shoot Romes Caesar was actually a pretty mild figure over all and in the other end you had the china whos ceasar figure had zero chill.

Yeah, but in the Western context, the spectrum ranges from a businesslike "Super-Pinochet" to an ultra-genocidal "Neo-Puritan Pol Pot" on steroids.

Should Neo-Caesar be more "averaged out", that'd still make him comparable to a vaguely Christofascist version of Lenin, Stalin, or Mao whose body count will dwarf all of theirs combined once he's finished.

Heck, Hitler himself might be jealous of how many Jews and other "undesirables" Neo-Caesar exterminates; while he may not necessarily be racist, per se, he will nonetheless genocide tons of those groups by being callously negligent, anyway, so whether he unleashes a full-blown Generalplan Ost on all of France, or "merely" engineers a Holodomor-style famine primarily meant to starve out French Muslims that treats all the dead Western Frenchmen as a perfectly acceptable loss instead of "Euro vermin to be exterminated!" doesn't make a huge difference to me.


Moreover, even if we get a businesslike Super-Pinochet instead, that's still not enough to prevent someone worse from succeeding him. For one, Neo-Antony might be there, too — and if he's as dangerously crazy and sadistic as OG Antony was, then it may actually be a Neo-Antony who acts as the Stalin to Neo-Caesar's Lenin, the Himmler to his Hitler, or the Al-Baghdadi to his Bin Laden that should scare us most. In short, Neo-Caesar can be as kind or cruel as he will; either way, there's a good chance Neo-Antony as the Dragon Ascendant will be far, far worse.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

snip

I know the conversation has already moved on, but what about sabotage? I doubt the USA and the rest of the world players like Britain will allow this Southern American entity to form. Not without pushing things to the point where CoD Ghosts becomes a "realistic" scenario.

 

[ATP]

I know the conversation has already moved on, but what about sabotage? I doubt the USA and the rest of the world players like Britain will allow this Southern American entity to form. Not without pushing things to the point where CoD Ghosts becomes a "realistic" scenario.

USA - yes.But England would help it against USA.The same goes for other european powers.

 

[Skallagrim]

I assume America undergoing their own version of the Spanish Civil War or otherwise occupying themselves to the point where they can't project power beyond their continent is an essential prerequisite for European civil wars, insofar as the oligarchy would use American military force to maintain their puppet regimes against populist revolts unless that wasn't an available option for them. Or to put it another way, say France actually falls, either to a populist latter-day Napoleon who restores order in the face of riots with the original Napoleon's recommended tactics for that situation and deports the survivors, or the Al-Cliché Caliphate. How long until the American invasion to prop up someone within their accepted range of neoliberal politics? Or if the two are fighting and it isn't clear who's going to win, which side do the Americans back?

As I've said before: what one may expect is basically a civilisation-spanning civil war (or series of wars), with the entrenched establishment of the current international system being confronted with a likewise international assembly of generally aligned populist movements.

Crises, now, are crises of the whole world-system. If the economy crashes, it's not just a national thing. So, to that extent: yes, when things are at their worst in one place, it'll be roughly the same situation in other places. It's all fairly synchronised, largely because of the globalist model itself.

The current wave of populism is already being suppressed (we're seeing how they do it, in real time) ...but of course that won't erase the problems. Once things really heat up again, it'll happen in America and Europe at roughly the same time. The difference is that in the American case, there are concrete avenues by which various disaffected groups can be united against the establishment. In Europe, the disaffected groups are so fundamentally hostile to each other that this is nigh-impossible.

That watershed comes around 2060, based on historical analogy. Like the current wave of unrest, it'll also be crushed. But at that time, the crushing will have to be far more overt and violent, in order to work. At that point, democracy won't even be upheld as a fiction anymore.

By 2090 or so, you may expect the consequences of this to come to a boiling point. Because of the different outcomes three decades earlier, in America and Europe respectively, the result in America is that the establishment is defeated by Caesarism... whereas in Europe, the (counterpart-movements of) Caesarism will not have the critical mass to restore order. The establishment still collapses (again, all crises are global now), but the result will be bloody civil war as military anarchy ensues. Caesarists versus establishment remnants versus ISIS-like mini-caliphates all over the place. (Plus all sorts of militias and warlords of opportunity, as one would expect.)

Of course, Eastern Europe has far less in the way of non-Western immigration, and they aren't as soft and pampered as Western Europe. So they'll come out pretty decently, expecially since Russia will long have ceased to be a threat (and, indeed, ceased to be country) by then. So Eastern Europe will be another place where Caesarism can really take root.

Hence my prediction that about a decade later -- so at the very close of this century -- an American and a Polish soldier, both Caesarists, will shake hands on the Rhine and discuss their next steps in exterminating any remaining cells of Islamists, establishment loyalists, warlords and basically any incidental degenerates.


--------------------------------------------

I know the conversation has already moved on, but what about sabotage? I doubt the USA and the rest of the world players like Britain will allow this Southern American entity to form. Not without pushing things to the point where CoD Ghosts becomes a "realistic" scenario.

Considering the time-frame, we must question the extent to which "allowing it" is a relevant factor. Did Britain allow the USA to form as it did, post-independence? Well, that can certainly be argued. But mostly it was a passive "I guess this is fine", at least after the War of 1812 resolved all outstanding disputes. Some minor spats notwithstanding, dedicated massive amounts of effort to crushing the USA was way more trouble than it was worth. By the time the USA developed into a truly great power, it was too late to arrest this process.

Now, I would expect roughly the same in the case of... "the United Provinces of South America", or whatever it gets called. Depending on the circumstances (such as this country declaring independence from the Iberial Union at a time when Britain is at odds with said Iberian Union... so any given Tuesday...), they may even enjoy British patronage, and be viewed in Britain as a potential counterweight to the United States (especially as far as trade relationships go).

Meanwhile, by the time the USA gets powerful enough to throw its weight around, this hypothetical South American power should be robust enough to withstand the heat.

 

[ATP]

As I've said before: what one may expect is basically a civilisation-spanning civil war (or series of wars), with the entrenched establishment of the current international system being confronted with a likewise international assembly of generally aligned populist movements.

Crises, now, are crises of the whole world-system. If the economy crashes, it's not just a national thing. So, to that extent: yes, when things are at their worst in one place, it'll be roughly the same situation in other places. It's all fairly synchronised, largely because of the globalist model itself.

The current wave of populism is already being suppressed (we're seeing how they do it, in real time) ...but of course that won't erase the problems. Once things really heat up again, it'll happen in America and Europe at roughly the same time. The difference is that in the American case, there are concrete avenues by which various disaffected groups can be united against the establishment. In Europe, the disaffected groups are so fundamentally hostile to each other that this is nigh-impossible.

That watershed comes around 2060, based on historical analogy. Like the current wave of unrest, it'll also be crushed. But at that time, the crushing will have to be far more overt and violent, in order to work. At that point, democracy won't even be upheld as a fiction anymore.

By 2090 or so, you may expect the consequences of this to come to a boiling point. Because of the different outcomes three decades earlier, in America and Europe respectively, the result in America is that the establishment is defeated by Caesarism... whereas in Europe, the (counterpart-movements of) Caesarism will not have the critical mass to restore order. The establishment still collapses (again, all crises are global now), but the result will be bloody civil war as military anarchy ensues. Caesarists versus establishment remnants versus ISIS-like mini-caliphates all over the place. (Plus all sorts of militias and warlords of opportunity, as one would expect.)

Of course, Eastern Europe has far less in the way of non-Western immigration, and they aren't as soft and pampered as Western Europe. So they'll come out pretty decently, expecially since Russia will long have ceased to be a threat (and, indeed, ceased to be country) by then. So Eastern Europe will be another place where Caesarism can really take root.

Hence my prediction that about a decade later -- so at the very close of this century -- an American and a Polish soldier, both Caesarists, will shake hands on the Rhine and discuss their next steps in exterminating any remaining cells of Islamists, establishment loyalists, warlords and basically any incidental degenerates.


--------------------------------------------




Considering the time-frame, we must question the extent to which "allowing it" is a relevant factor. Did Britain allow the USA to form as it did, post-independence? Well, that can certainly be argued. But mostly it was a passive "I guess this is fine", at least after the War of 1812 resolved all outstanding disputes. Some minor spats notwithstanding, dedicated massive amounts of effort to crushing the USA was way more trouble than it was worth. By the time the USA developed into a truly great power, it was too late to arrest this process.

Now, I would expect roughly the same in the case of... "the United Provinces of South America", or whatever it gets called. Depending on the circumstances (such as this country declaring independence from the Iberial Union at a time when Britain is at odds with said Iberian Union... so any given Tuesday...), they may even enjoy British patronage, and be viewed in Britain as a potential counterweight to the United States (especially as far as trade relationships go).

Meanwhile, by the time the USA gets powerful enough to throw its weight around, this hypothetical South American power should be robust enough to withstand the heat.

Earlier,thanks to economy.EU would fall about 2030,and USA 2040 if they stick to fiat money.And they would,becouse banksters rule there.
So,we would have economical disaster,and either real WW3,collapse of states, muslims taking over,or green gulag.

No matter what happen,they would be no time and place for new Ceasar to appear,becouse nobody need them in gulags or caliphate.
And if some Western states survive,they would have Kings,not Ceasars.

 

[Bassoe]

No matter what happen,they would be no time and place for new Caesar to appear, because nobody need them in gulags or caliphate.

This assumes Caesar's politics are reactionary and he originates as some politician or warlord using populism to justify his regime. Michael Anton and Charles Haywood are way too optimistic with their assumption that any Caesar figure motivated by anything but their personal politics would be weakened by their failed ideology to the extent that they'd lose.

WHAT TO DO WHEN CAESAR COMES — The Asylum

WHAT TO DO WHEN CAESAR COMES Charles Haywood Is a Caesar, an authoritarian reconstructor of our institutions, soon to step onto the American stage? A...

asylummagazine.ca

I could just as easily see a technocratic Caesar being one of the oligarchy technocrats who gets an advantage in terms of military and industrial force under their control and purges their fellows to centralize all power under themselves, or a theocratic Islamic Caesar ruling as a populist who redistributes the stolen wealth and political careers of their defeated opponents to the cronies in exchange for loyalty, but with their religion as justification.

 

[Cherico]

As I've said before: what one may expect is basically a civilisation-spanning civil war (or series of wars), with the entrenched establishment of the current international system being confronted with a likewise international assembly of generally aligned populist movements.

Crises, now, are crises of the whole world-system. If the economy crashes, it's not just a national thing. So, to that extent: yes, when things are at their worst in one place, it'll be roughly the same situation in other places. It's all fairly synchronised, largely because of the globalist model itself.

The current wave of populism is already being suppressed (we're seeing how they do it, in real time) ...but of course that won't erase the problems. Once things really heat up again, it'll happen in America and Europe at roughly the same time. The difference is that in the American case, there are concrete avenues by which various disaffected groups can be united against the establishment. In Europe, the disaffected groups are so fundamentally hostile to each other that this is nigh-impossible.

That watershed comes around 2060, based on historical analogy. Like the current wave of unrest, it'll also be crushed. But at that time, the crushing will have to be far more overt and violent, in order to work. At that point, democracy won't even be upheld as a fiction anymore.

By 2090 or so, you may expect the consequences of this to come to a boiling point. Because of the different outcomes three decades earlier, in America and Europe respectively, the result in America is that the establishment is defeated by Caesarism... whereas in Europe, the (counterpart-movements of) Caesarism will not have the critical mass to restore order. The establishment still collapses (again, all crises are global now), but the result will be bloody civil war as military anarchy ensues. Caesarists versus establishment remnants versus ISIS-like mini-caliphates all over the place. (Plus all sorts of militias and warlords of opportunity, as one would expect.)

Of course, Eastern Europe has far less in the way of non-Western immigration, and they aren't as soft and pampered as Western Europe. So they'll come out pretty decently, expecially since Russia will long have ceased to be a threat (and, indeed, ceased to be country) by then. So Eastern Europe will be another place where Caesarism can really take root.

Hence my prediction that about a decade later -- so at the very close of this century -- an American and a Polish soldier, both Caesarists, will shake hands on the Rhine and discuss their next steps in exterminating any remaining cells of Islamists, establishment loyalists, warlords and basically any incidental degenerates.


--------------------------------------------




Considering the time-frame, we must question the extent to which "allowing it" is a relevant factor. Did Britain allow the USA to form as it did, post-independence? Well, that can certainly be argued. But mostly it was a passive "I guess this is fine", at least after the War of 1812 resolved all outstanding disputes. Some minor spats notwithstanding, dedicated massive amounts of effort to crushing the USA was way more trouble than it was worth. By the time the USA developed into a truly great power, it was too late to arrest this process.

Now, I would expect roughly the same in the case of... "the United Provinces of South America", or whatever it gets called. Depending on the circumstances (such as this country declaring independence from the Iberial Union at a time when Britain is at odds with said Iberian Union... so any given Tuesday...), they may even enjoy British patronage, and be viewed in Britain as a potential counterweight to the United States (especially as far as trade relationships go).

Meanwhile, by the time the USA gets powerful enough to throw its weight around, this hypothetical South American power should be robust enough to withstand the heat.

How long do you give it before western countries start defaulting on their debts because lets be honest there is no way in hell a lot of them can possibly pay what they owe.

 

[ATP]

How long do you give it before western countries start defaulting on their debts because lets be honest there is no way in hell a lot of them can possibly pay what they owe.

According to what i read - 2030 for Europe,2040 for USA.

This assumes Caesar's politics are reactionary and he originates as some politician or warlord using populism to justify his regime. Michael Anton and Charles Haywood are way too optimistic with their assumption that any Caesar figure motivated by anything but their personal politics would be weakened by their failed ideology to the extent that they'd lose.

WHAT TO DO WHEN CAESAR COMES — The Asylum

WHAT TO DO WHEN CAESAR COMES Charles Haywood Is a Caesar, an authoritarian reconstructor of our institutions, soon to step onto the American stage? A...

asylummagazine.ca

I could just as easily see a technocratic Caesar being one of the oligarchy technocrats who gets an advantage in terms of military and industrial force under their control and purges their fellows to centralize all power under themselves, or a theocratic Islamic Caesar ruling as a populist who redistributes the stolen wealth and political careers of their defeated opponents to the cronies in exchange for loyalty, but with their religion as justification.

Then you would have neo stalin who would purge other green leaders,but still fuck economy and genocide most of population.
Or Caliph who would kill other muslim leaders.

I do not belive,that any of them could be counted as Ceasars.

 

[Skallagrim]

Earlier,thanks to economy.EU would fall about 2030,and USA 2040 if they stick to fiat money.And they would,becouse banksters rule there.
So,we would have economical disaster,and either real WW3,collapse of states, muslims taking over,or green gulag.

I could just as easily see a technocratic Caesar being one of the oligarchy technocrats who gets an advantage in terms of military and industrial force under their control and purges their fellows to centralize all power under themselves, or a theocratic Islamic Caesar

Two flavours of doomerism here. One under-estimates the establishment and assumes complete collapse on short notice, one over-estimates the establishment and thinks it can produce (or co-opt) Caesarism. And both over-estimate the organisational abilities of the Muslim trouble-makers.

-- Regarding a collapse in the near future: not plausible. Sure, it's easy to under-estimate systemic inertia, and assume that 'just' because something is obviously terrible and harmful, it must collapse at the 'logical' point. Ha! If that were true, our current establishment would have fallen in 2008 already! In reality, too many people with power have a stake in perpetuating the system, even if this is certainly bad for all involved in the long term (even for themselves). They'll drag it out for as long as they can... which is always longer than you'd expect, based on reason and good sense.

-- Regarding a technocratic oligarch Caesar: that's an insane contradiction, which completely fails to grasp what Caesarism is. To be sure, we'll see such a figure brought to the fore: in the role of a Sulla. Such a figure will be the arch-foe of (proto-)Caesarism, and try his utmost to stamp it out. He will fail, as such attempts always fail. They can delay the inevitable, but not avert it.

-- Regarding an Islamic "Caesar": I've considered this as a long-shot scenario, but the Muslims in Europe just don't show any signs of developing in this direction. They lack the organisational cadre and anything resembling a coherent set of goals. Their agitations and acts of mass violence will, in the context of governmental collapse, only allow them to turn the (mostly urban) regions where they are represented in large numbers into little fiefs of barbaric tyranny. In short: many a CHAZ-with-ISIS-characteristics will be seen in Western Europe.

How long do you give it before western countries start defaulting on their debts because lets be honest there is no way in hell a lot of them can possibly pay what they owe.

Since they're all living the same lie, they'll just lie with ever greater boldness. Note how they print (physically and digitally) staggering amounts of money, but then give you bullshit inflation numbers. Hello? Inflation is simply the degree by which the amount of currency is expanded, compared to the more modest expansion of the economy! So you can easily see that their bullshit figures ludicrously under-estimate how bad it really is. They'll keep lying to you like that, even if the evidence is all around you. They'll keep lying, with their last gasps, as they're strung up from lamp posts.

But for that to happens, things must get worse. Much worse. Because the establishment leeches off the residual wealth that the West created and accumulated in earlier ages. There is still a lot of that left, and they'll burn though it all, before the people really face starvation.

Then, and only then, will you a Caesar. He is the one doles out bread to his loyalists and death to their enemies. That is why they love him; their hunger and their hate makes them willing to fight and kill and die for him-- and that is why he wins.

We're a good few decades away from that. Once your last meal has been the day before last, and you don't know where the next one's gonna come from; once you have nothing, while the oligarchs still feast in their high glass towers; once passivity is death and only war gives you a shot at life-- only then does it happen. Not one day sooner.

 

[Skallagrim]

It bewilders me how European Muslims can complain about how "bigoted" their hosts are or how "scrutinized" they feel — only to turn around and freely practice shit like Taqiya, honor killings, and terrorist attacks to terrify anyone who dares speaks out.

Frankly, lying to outsiders about your faith and threatening dissenters with a gruesome death is a bad look all around, so really, I think they bring public suspicion upon themselves by refusing to integrate or reform in a more humane, reasonable direction. If there's anyone who needs a cultural makeover, it's probably them.

Ethically speaking, I certainly agree. Yet my ethics are informed, to some extent, by my own cultural sensibilities. Divorced from morality, we can coldly say that what you describe has long been an effective strategy.

For us, faced with it, the imperative question becomes: what is the best counter-strategy?

Civilise the barbarians.

Cast out the ones that resist.

Ah, theoretically, it's sure to work. History leaves no doubt as to that.

Roads to practicability are another matter. The current climate is hospitable to migrants that cannot be plausibly assimilated, and inhospitable to the sort of policy you mention. That'll turn around in due time, but that process is still measured in decades at best.

That hospitality is constrained to a specific avalanche of fools who will fall in the end. Wider society meanwhile is probably more receptive to those ideas than any of the aforementioned avalanche would like to think.

I'm responding to the above here, because it's outside the topic of the other thread, and does contain some discussion of the "future of Europe" and whatnot.

-----------------------------------------------------

My experience is that, at the present time, in practically of of Europe (and indeed the West in general) there is only a minority of people who actually want mass immigration-- but that minority does control all institutes of power. For this reason, first and foremost, mass immigration will not be stopped until this group is thoroughly removed from power.

Now, if it is accurate that wider society is fairly receptive to "civilise them, and expel those who resist" ...then why has this not happened? By now it is starkly clear that every established, no matter its promises, will, once in power, continue to support mass immigration. Every time. For the past decades.

Yet there are also parties that explicitly oppose mass immigation. More often than not, these parties are fairly centrist socio-economically, essentially advocating policies that favout "the common man". If most people are opposed to mass immigration, why aren't these parties getting a bigger share -- indeed a majority share -- of the vote?

I surmise, again from experience, that most people aren't actually receptive to common sense at all. They don't like mass immigration, but they're attached to the parties they've always voted for, even though those parties have betrayed them during the last 20 elections or more. They're afraid to rock the boat, even though the boat is sinking. They see crime levels going up, and they know that it's caused by an influx of barbarians, but they don't want to be seen as "evil Nazi bigots", so they dutifully follow the "acceptable" thinking patterns with great care.

The fact is... there is no pressing reason for them to act, so they don't. They will, in time, when the problem becomes personal. They have to experience it themselves. And that will happen! If you let in enough barbarians, you get to a point that no man remains who doesn't have a sister or a daughter that has been raped by an immigrant.

It's not bad enough yet, is what I'm saying. The majority can still afford to pretend it's not happening, and far as long as that remains an option, they will pretend it's not happening.



As such, my stance: "civilise them, and expel those who resist" is a good idea for sure, but I don't see it being implemented. Europeans, generally, don't even give electoral majorities to parties that say things half-way in that direction. What I expct is that it'll get worse, and that by and large, nothing will be done to address the issue-- until matters really come to a head.

To act now, in the manner you suggest, would be the humane and decent thing. But when have things ever gone decently?

 

[Aldarion]

Honestly, parties don't matter. Rule has always been about power, and power is in the money (banks), mass media, education and deep state. You can vote however you like, but the Cathedral will never allow any candidate who goes against them to succeed. Even Trump was neutered long before he lost the elections.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The reason people don't tend to vote for those parties is because they are political nobodies filled with a lot of hot air and have little staying power. These are flashes in the pan who have not put in any work on the grassroots, and don't actually present a coherent vision (which is the only way you will get anywhere in Anglosphere politics).

The ones that do?

Last I checked the Sweden Democrats were doing astonishingly well in the most progressive country in Europe. AfD are incredibly prominent as well, and the Dutch almost had their own version of it in Forum for Democracy until its leader went mad over Covid and scared away the moderates.

 

[Skallagrim]

The reason people don't tend to vote for those parties is because they are political nobodies filled with a lot of hot air and have little staying power. These are flashes in the pan who have not put in any work on the grassroots, and don't actually present a coherent vision (which is the only way you will get anywhere in Anglosphere politics).

The ones that do?

Last I checked the Sweden Democrats were doing astonishingly well in the most progressive country in Europe. AfD are incredibly prominent as well, and the Dutch almost had their own version of it in Forum for Democracy until its leader went mad over Covid and scared away the moderates.

Sweden Democrats and Finns Pary: easily locked into coalitions with more moderate governing parties. Do you see them adopting the kind of policies that you suggested? Because I haven't seen it happen. I'm very willing to be happily surprised, of course!

AfD? At 10.6% nationally, and 12.4% locally (on average). Which is nice, and by no means enough to break the "never-with-them" barrier that the establishment has erected. So, as things stand: eternal opposition, getting zero results.

In the Netherlands, Forum for Democracy was exactly the kind of flash-in-the-pan thing you mentioned. An ad hoc coalition of people with little in common, and a vain loony for a front man. But that's no excuse for the people to vote for the establishment! Geert Wilders was advocating closed borders over a decade before Thierry Baudet even entered politics. In fact... I think Wilders is by now just about the 'grand old man' of Dutch politics! He's been going for two decades! And he's altogether very reasonable, with no crazy ideas. And how have the masses responded? By voting for establishment parties. In fact, Wilders is seeing his numbers dwindling, since by now, he's seen as a guy who can never win. The establishment has simply... outlasted him.

Then we have France, where Le Pen tries and tries, and never quite gets there. The people always vote for the "respectable" establishment party that calls itself centre-right but is centre-left and globalist. Same in Belgium, when the Flemish nationalists always lose out to the more "respectable" N-VA. Every. Fucking. Time.

We can go back to when the FPÖ was in the Austrian coalition, back when they had some balls... how did that turn out? Did Austria actually stop importing North Africans. Ah... no. They did not.



No. I don't see it. I see a long struggle of far too honest people who genuinely try to use the democratic process to change things that need changing; and I see them failing time and again. If they can be excluded they are excluded, ideally until enough of their supporters lose faith. If they can't be excluded, they are co-opted into a coalition that dilutes all policy to a thin, watery outcome that sorts no effects. And if all else fails, a "lone madman" kills the nasty far-right would-be Hitler, in a tragic incident that nobody saw coming.

 

[Aldarion]

The reason people don't tend to vote for those parties is because they are political nobodies filled with a lot of hot air and have little staying power. These are flashes in the pan who have not put in any work on the grassroots, and don't actually present a coherent vision (which is the only way you will get anywhere in Anglosphere politics).

The ones that do?

Last I checked the Sweden Democrats were doing astonishingly well in the most progressive country in Europe. AfD are incredibly prominent as well, and the Dutch almost had their own version of it in Forum for Democracy until its leader went mad over Covid and scared away the moderates.

"Astonoshingly well" is only a descriptor you can apply to Swedish Democrats and AfD because standards you are using are pathetic. And they are pathetic because of everything I have noted - and because of the fact that humans are easy to control. Much like dogs, we have an inherent "desire to please", and that can easily be manipulated. Now add brainwashing through education, media etc. ...

 

[Zyobot]

Question: Is this a good place to discuss AH macrohistorical scenarios, or should we mostly stick to OTL macrohistory here?

For one, I know @Skallagrim (and others, including myself) has posited a few counterfactuals to better illustrate the mechanics of how things "rhyme" (if not repeat exactly) across not just different periods of OTL history, but also across the many ATLs out there, too. Got a few I'd like to post or follow up on here myself, a number of which can be further developed from some standalone AH scenarios I've shared in the General AH Thread.

 

[Skallagrim]

Generally speaking, I think the AH thread is easily the best place for that.

(If you have a lot of them, perhaps a "Macrohistorical Alternate History" thread in the General AH subforum might be a good idea. But I imagine that a lot of stuff can easily fit into the general AH discussion thread. Especially since in many cases, you don't even need to specifically 'market' such scenarios as being overtly macrohistorical.)

 

[Zyobot]

Generally speaking, I think the AH thread is easily the best place for that.

(If you have a lot of them, perhaps a "Macrohistorical Alternate History" thread in the General AH subforum might be a good idea. But I imagine that a lot of stuff can easily fit into the general AH discussion thread. Especially since in many cases, you don't even need to specifically 'market' such scenarios as being overtly macrohistorical.)

Fair.

Guess my main concern was whether enough users would "get" that I'm asking about the long-term macrohistorical implications (rather than just short to mid-term details). Even on The Sietch, most users subscribe to a vaguely "Anything can happen!" view of history, and I'd rather not have to explain what's already been said to them before reiterating my question.

In which case, maybe I'll just posit macrohistorical AH scenarios here, since others have done so without trouble already and are more likely to know what I'm asking for in the first place. Oh, well; can't convince them all, I guess. 😕

 

[Cherico]

Sweden Democrats and Finns Pary: easily locked into coalitions with more moderate governing parties. Do you see them adopting the kind of policies that you suggested? Because I haven't seen it happen. I'm very willing to be happily surprised, of course!

AfD? At 10.6% nationally, and 12.4% locally (on average). Which is nice, and by no means enough to break the "never-with-them" barrier that the establishment has erected. So, as things stand: eternal opposition, getting zero results.

In the Netherlands, Forum for Democracy was exactly the kind of flash-in-the-pan thing you mentioned. An ad hoc coalition of people with little in common, and a vain loony for a front man. But that's no excuse for the people to vote for the establishment! Geert Wilders was advocating closed borders over a decade before Thierry Baudet even entered politics. In fact... I think Wilders is by now just about the 'grand old man' of Dutch politics! He's been going for two decades! And he's altogether very reasonable, with no crazy ideas. And how have the masses responded? By voting for establishment parties. In fact, Wilders is seeing his numbers dwindling, since by now, he's seen as a guy who can never win. The establishment has simply... outlasted him.

Then we have France, where Le Pen tries and tries, and never quite gets there. The people always vote for the "respectable" establishment party that calls itself centre-right but is centre-left and globalist. Same in Belgium, when the Flemish nationalists always lose out to the more "respectable" N-VA. Every. Fucking. Time.

We can go back to when the FPÖ was in the Austrian coalition, back when they had some balls... how did that turn out? Did Austria actually stop importing North Africans. Ah... no. They did not.



No. I don't see it. I see a long struggle of far too honest people who genuinely try to use the democratic process to change things that need changing; and I see them failing time and again. If they can be excluded they are excluded, ideally until enough of their supporters lose faith. If they can't be excluded, they are co-opted into a coalition that dilutes all policy to a thin, watery outcome that sorts no effects. And if all else fails, a "lone madman" kills the nasty far-right would-be Hitler, in a tragic incident that nobody saw coming.

this is basically the ingrediants that make civil wars invitable isn't it?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Moving away from all the miserable stuff (convincing yourself it can't be done is the death of action), I have noted there are other figures who are almost "Augustus" like throughout the world. Although I think I'd disagree with some by saying the Asian Augustus was not Qin Shi Huang, but Tokugawa Ieyasu; a man who in all honesty was more formidable than Augustus himself.

In Britain's case meanwhile, I'd give that honour to King Alfred the Great.