Why the French Revolution was the ultimate cause of our problems

[Deleted member 88]

There would be an aristocracy-comprised of virtue and blood. Entry into the aristocracy would be highly restricted and only given in extraordinary cases.

There would be a gentry-land and property owners not of the noble class, they would hold smaller areas of land but would be more productive than the nobility.

The priesthood. This would be required for the spiritual health of the people. It would be tightly regulated, and immoral behavior grounds for expulsion or even execution.

The merchants. Useful but scorned. Money is the greatest corrupter of civilization beside sin itself. They would handle all economic activity in restricted urban zones. Would be forbidden from entry into the priesthood. Or nobility. At most they could become gentry.

The peasantry-the peasant class would handle all menial labor. And would be under both the protection and complete mercy of the nobles and the gentry.

This system would be maintained as I envision it with a security force that was strong enough to preserve the social order but too weak to carve out a role for itself.

Spiritual-genetic enhancement would the foundation of this order. The upper classes would be spiritually enhanced and genetically enhanced to be physically, intellectually, and otherwise superior. While also trained to be as absolutely moral and virtuous as humanly possible. The peasantry would be engineered into total submission and compliance. No order would be resisted. And disobedience punished severely.

If handled well, this order could endure for 10,000 years or more.

Are you a neo-reactionary, @Lord Invictus ?

In some ways yes. I would describe myself as a “Fire and Steel” Reactionary.

 

[Harlock]

Quite fascinating.
My question would be who makes the rules? I mean yeah, aristocracy, but I mean who sets the bar and makes the choices? Who gets to decide where the line is and who meets it? Assuming this happens say January before genetics and stuff can be used as a guide.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Quite fascinating.
My question would be who makes the rules? I mean yeah, aristocracy, but I mean who sets the bar and makes the choices? Who gets to decide where the line is and who meets it? Assuming this happens say January before genetics and stuff can be used as a guide.

To be fairly honest, such a society could only emerge once the rotten current order finally croaks.

Who sets the bar you ask. At the moment; no one is worthy. No one is ready.

 

[Harlock]

mainly because with these types of generational societies it is assumed that whatever makes you inferior/superior is passed on parent to child. But if it is something like belief or learned behaviour that isn't something passed on, you can alter it through education/propaganda/indoctrination etc.

So in such a scenario your inferior classes would no longer meet the benchmark and would no longer be an underclass robbing you of your menial workers. You'd either have to redefine what made them inferior as something that was passed on, like race or another genetic factor, or you'd have to deliberately restrict education and opportunities for them based on the choices of their great, great, great grandparents to keep then as untouchables.
But then they aren't inferior by their own choice, but by yours you see. That would be the immediate flaw in the system from a structural position

 

[Deleted member 88]

Eventually I’d want to develop genetic engineering tech to keep the peasantry in their state. They would be engineered for servility, submissiveness, and obedience. This would be heritable.

 

[Navarro]

Eventually I’d want to develop genetic engineering tech to keep the peasantry in their state. They would be engineered for servility, submissiveness, and obedience. This would be heritable.

Look who just sued for copyright infringement!

 

[Deleted member 88]

Look who just sued for copyright infringement!

I knew someone would bring that up. I actually do think a Draka society could be a good one, so long as it’s indiscretions were tempered by elite virtues of mercy, benevolence, and grace.

 

[Harlock]

My question would be why? If they are in that class due to belief, that isn't hereditary. Within one generation they would all qualify for at least middle class. If your system is based on rewarding/punishing people for how they live, and these people are no longer living lives worthy of punishment, why aren't you rewarding them?

 

[Deleted member 88]

Eventually because that leads to the same degeneration we have today.

Tell me Harlock, when someone fat and ugly or someone with an IQ hovering below eighty deigns to command you, do you feel the slightest sense of disdain?

Why should the masses and the degenerate lord over the righteous? Women over men? Children over their parents?

Why should anyone lower themselves to be equal with those who ought to kneel for them?

It’s not natural, and is an offense against a Godly order.

 

[Harlock]

Thing is fat can be fixed, badly educated can be fixed, attitudes can be fixed. If you have the power to reshape society why bother enacting feudalism and a slave class when instead you can fix the perceived issues through better education and vigilance?

You basically have an even worse society than any in human history because the very concept is against the laws of God and nature. You are condemning innocents to slavery for the perceived sins of their fathers and you know what the bible says about sins of the father.

The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father

No one, no one, is worthy of being kneeled before. Nobody. You kneel to God and you kneel to your wife when you propose. That is it. No man belongs on his knees no matter how vile. It is not your place to judge or punish, but to help. And if you can't help the sinner, help those sinned against.
Don't become that which you fight.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Harlock; in case you haven’t noticed the current unrest-our enemies want us to kneel to them.

Equality is a phantasm. Someone will always be lording over someone. In a virtuous world BLM and Antifa wouldn’t exist, and the people that populate these insidious movements would be kissing our feet, not demanding we kiss theirs.

What has equality gotten us? A sky high divorce rate, racial unrest, vicious attacks against tradition and virtue, the notion that everyone has something valuable to say. Leading to the dumbest most wretched people holding the megaphone.

Tell me how human equality has demonstrably made civilization any happier, closer to God, or more in tune with the Truth.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Thing is fat can be fixed, badly educated can be fixed, attitudes can be fixed. If you have the power to reshape society why bother enacting feudalism and a slave class when instead you can fix the perceived issues through better education and vigilance?

I'd like to see High Schoolers have a War Veteran-Cripple as an "Ethics" teacher, if Public School or Departments of Education stays a thing

 

[Harlock]

They absolutely want you to kneel, many of them do, and they are lesser men because of it. I'm British but I don't kneel to royalty. I'd offer a bow to the Queen because I respect her personally, but I don't kneel. You can't be a man if you aren't upright
But by that same token I want no one to kneel to me. I'm just a man, if someone knelt to me I'd lose all respect for them. It wouldn't make me feel powerful, just pity for the poor fool who thinks a man should submit to anything other than his own morals.

Yeah, equality of outcome is not something to be aimed for, but I absolutely believe in equality of opportunity and that is something your world takes away. There is no opportunity, no chance to improve, therefore no hope.
Without hope for a better future why live? and that attitude, when people are ready to die than live in your world, thats where revolutions happen.

You are born the same, Bible says so too, now some people waste that, get misled, lose themselves and that is a shame, but others thrive and use their talents to the best. If a peasant is a good person they should have the same chance as a king to better themselves and forge a good life. Who has the right to deny such a thing?

The world is inequal, or more properly unfair not because of the rules and laws but because many seem above said laws. All you examples are against the American Constitution, what you need is not to throw it out but make sure nobody is above it. Thats your problem, you don't need to change the foundations of your country you just need to stop people ignoring them

It hurts to say it but the basic beliefs that made America are really, really good. Obviously traitors etc, but even sat here in England I have respect and admiration for the ideas behind America. People fought for them, died for them, you don't need to change what is written. Just apply it to everyone.

Equality under the law. That is what you don't have right now and the basis of all your issues. Enforce those laws and watch how things change

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@Harlock
Main problem is, getting people to believe in themselves and each other, rather than just believing some all powerful and all wise government will be able to fix everything

Also, those decades of stuff Yuri Berezmenov warned you all about, only to get ignored as conspiracy shit

That said, they may not want to kneel, but they probably DO want in on part of a cult so they can get a particular high and act like Hitler’s Brownshirts and get away with things and feel high doing so

They also want to be worshipped(get likes)and step on people, which is why they even go after nerds, because they’re so easy to hurt and they’ll get praise for it

 

[The Name of Love]

I think it's a little disingenuous to boil down everything he said to "Inequality is fine"

True, he did say more than that. But I say that, as a general principle, if you want to bring back an aristocracy, you'd ought to learn to stop acting like a democratic citizen start learning how to be a proper subject. Is that fair?

No one wants to be a peasant, and I don’t have illusions I’d be king. I do think I deserve to have a higher place than the human refuse that boldly proclaims it’s my equal.

Yes, but you ultimately don't decide that, do you? It'll be whoever gets to be in charge.

Quite fascinating.
My question would be who makes the rules? I mean yeah, aristocracy, but I mean who sets the bar and makes the choices? Who gets to decide where the line is and who meets it? Assuming this happens say January before genetics and stuff can be used as a guide.

Such orders were decided within the societies themselves, when they are first formed by the authorities that formed them. As long as whoever is in charge creates a more virtuous state and takes responsibility for their mistakes, I'm game, no matter what form it takes.

 

[Harlock]

@Harlock
Main problem is, getting people to believe in themselves and each other, rather than just believing some all powerful and all wise government will be able to fix everything

Also, those decades of stuff Yuri Berezmenov warned you all about, only to get ignored as conspiracy shit

That said, they may not want to kneel, but they probably DO want in on part of a cult so they can get a particular high and act like Hitler’s Brownshirts and get away with things and feel high doing so

They also want to be worshipped(get likes)and step on people, which is why they even go after nerds, because they’re so easy to hurt and they’ll get praise for it

Yeah, to me this is the issue in both scenarios. They want to change what exists today, but they want to do so in a way that gives them power without earning it, and which punishes those they hate.
That to me is the very definition of a failed system, power not because you earn it but because it is just handed to you by cronies with no sense of its value. I reckon if you don't earn something yourself you can never really appreciate it and it becomes more likely to be abused.
Not always, but very often.

It's like a world where you rise up by destroying others. Plenty of that going around but it isn't something to aspire toward. The Western ideal is to lift yourself without ruining others and it is is possible. Sure some people will rise higher than others, but if you can lead a good life and the law is applied fairly to all, I can live with that.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Yes, but you ultimately don't decide that, do you? It'll be whoever gets to be in charge.

And how was this decided? It wasn’t decided through a vote or even a committee. It would be decided through struggle.

It could be me in charge, it could be you. We just have to seize the day and enshrine our progeny as our heirs.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Yeah, to me this is the issue in both scenarios. They want to change what exists today, but they want to do so in a way that gives them power without earning it, and which punishes those they hate.
That to me is the very definition of a failed system, power not because you earn it but because it is just handed to you by cronies with no sense of its value. I reckon if you don't earn something yourself you can never really appreciate it and it becomes more likely to be abused.
Not always, but very often.

It's like a world where you rise up by destroying others. Plenty of that going around but it isn't something to aspire toward. The Western ideal is to lift yourself without ruining others and it is is possible. Sure some people will rise higher than others, but if you can lead a good life and the law is applied fairly to all, I can live with that.

Bit of a theory, those Far Left types believe that "ruining others" is how people reach for the top

They use historical examples and go on about slavery, "Western Imperialism", "Mysogyny", "Bigotry", "Stealing Land from non-existent oft-romanticized Noble Savages" and latest of all "Capitalism"

As such, the only way to solve "racism" is with MORE RACISM, the only way to deal with "inequality" is with MORE INEQUALITY, this time with the targets reversed

 

[Navarro]

And how was this decided? It wasn’t decided through a vote or even a committee. It would be decided through struggle.

It could be me in charge, it could be you. We just have to seize the day and enshrine our progeny as our heirs.

I mean, if our civilisation totally collapses in such a way as to bring about a neo-feudalistic society, it won't be you taking over. It'll be those who already have wealth and power in our society retreating to their country estates and watching the cities burn.

Yes, but you ultimately don't decide that, do you? It'll be whoever gets to be in charge.

Which most likely, in the event of the conditions that lead to feudalism (read: the collapse of government and civilisational structures) won't be anybody who cares about the things you value.

Such orders were decided within the societies themselves, when they are first formed by the authorities that formed them.

That is, the fractious warlords whose ancestors made it good out of looting the more sophisticated society that existed before. A period of feudalism is always proceeded by a governmental or even civilisational collapse, and can be seen as the state to which a more sophisticated society falls back to when infrastructure and bureaucratic structures collapse. In that sense, feudalism can be seen as a sort of 'interregnum' between advanced civilisations, not some sort of morally-ordained societal structure.

And in its ultimate sense, European feudalism had its origins in the Emperor Diocletian, in between vicious persecutions against Christianity, trying to save the faltering Roman economy by tieing the coloni, or freeman tenant farmers, to the land owned by the owners of the great latifundiae. Like his other famous effort in that vein, the attempt to fix a "just price" via the edict on maximum prices, it failed, though it did not have as immediate a backfiring effect as the latter.

As long as whoever is in charge creates a more virtuous state and takes responsibility for their mistakes, I'm game, no matter what form it takes.

And you yourself have admitted in this thread that the feudal lords of medieval Europe weren't a noble group humbly taking on their obligations demanded by the Great Chain of Being and harmoniously accepting the rule of the supreme secular authority, that being the Holy Roman Emperor, but a bunch of fractious warlords who constantly fought with each other and the man they owed obligations of fealty to (never mind the Emperor).

Is a society run by warlords who constantly fight each other and their ruler really supposed to be the optimum social model?

 

[The Name of Love]

And how was this decided? It wasn’t decided through a vote or even a committee. It would be decided through struggle.

It could be me in charge, it could be you. We just have to seize the day and enshrine our progeny as our heirs.

Well, it's going to be a matter of who can gain influence over the people and rally them to their cause, no matter their means.

Which most likely, in the event of the conditions that lead to feudalism (read: the collapse of government and civilisational structures) won't be anybody who cares about the things you value.

Then things wouldn't have changed all that much, now would it?

That is, the fractious warlords whose ancestors made it good out of looting the more sophisticated society that existed before. A period of feudalism is always proceeded by a governmental or even civilisational collapse, and can be seen as the state to which a more sophisticated society falls back to when infrastructure and bureaucratic structures collapse. In that sense, feudalism can be seen as a sort of 'interregnum' between advanced civilisations, not some sort of morally-ordained societal structure.

I suppose that's one way of looking at it, though I struggle to see how our society is more "advanced" than medieval Europe's besides the technology and physical sciences.

And you yourself have admitted in this thread that the feudal lords of medieval Europe weren't a noble group humbly taking on their obligations demanded by the Great Chain of Being and harmoniously accepting the rule of the supreme secular authority, that being the Holy Roman Emperor, but a bunch of fractious warlords who constantly fought with each other and the man they owed obligations of fealty to (never mind the Emperor, whose rule was strictly nominal outside of Germany and Italy).

Is a society run by warlords who constantly fight each other and their ruler really supposed to be the optimum social model?

As opposed to a society run by bureaucrats who constantly fight each other and feel the need to micromanage every insignificant aspect of our lives? Yes.

Let me put it this way: modern democratic society takes the fractious state of affairs in medieval Europe and makes it the justifying principle of the state. How the hell is that better? I mean, we constantly are at war now because the different factions within our government use foreign wars as a proxy for domestic conflict. And because we have a state that is more powerful than anything the medieval kings could dream of, they can raise all the money and recruit all of the soldiers they want.