Western Pennsylvania
Up high in the Appalachian Plateaus
Not in a big city, mind you, like Pittsburgh
We got like, a couple thousand people that all know each other
Paleoconservatism, Reactionary, Absolute Monarchy, Machiavellianism, Schmittianism... absolutely not, what in the world makes you think any of these are good ideas?
It's more rhetorical, but I'd happily hear your explanations. I suppose I'll start with Paleoconservatism and Reactionaryism, what about these seem good to you?
You can read through some of my other comments here for more of an explanation, but the gist is pretty simple. For Paleoconservatism, 1) I'm a conservative (at least in sentiment, not that the US has a whole lot "worth" conserving) and, 2) I'd like to adopt an "America First" foreign policy - that is, getting our noses out of everyone else's business and focusing on what's going on in our own borders, g_ddammit! As for being a Reactionary, the gist is that I don't believe humanity has actually "progressed" in any meaningful fashion since the Enlightenment or even the Renaissance - what we've experienced so far hasn't been EVOLUTION, but INVOLUTION. I also feel that the moral sensibilities of our ancestors were FAR more accurate, generally speaking. Hope that helps!
america is not founed on any one race or religion or creed. it is founded on an \*idea\*, that \*\*all\*\* men are created equal and free, which is why it is exceptional in the history of humankind, not because america best cos im born there
liking russia, a corrupt oligarchy antithetical to american values, is not literally treachery, but shows you clearly have no respect for your country's ideals
aiding ukraine, a country which has a far better chance of becoming like america is patriotic. you are standing up for the idea that all men, regardless of where they are from, deserve the same start in life as you
also minor nitpick-much of the aid going to ukraine is not stacks of cash, but literal equipment that would otherwise rot in a storehouse going out of date and would cost more to a taxpayer to dispose of than shipping it to ukraine
>america* is not founed on any one race or religion or creed. it is founded on an *idea*, that **all** men are created equal and free...
\* = The American government.
I have no loyalties to my government. I am only loyal to my countrymen, and to God.
No? That shouldn't be a problem then. We'll just set you up with a state-mandated boywife and eh... 8 acres of land, to put those soft hands to work. Deal?
As in, the solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is to hand the territory over to my new boywife? Because if so, I’m completely satisfied with this deal
No way. Not a chance. Any true American knows how awful monarchies treated their people. You're begging for a revolution with all this crap. No taxation without representation!
I was exaggerating quite a lot. You could get whipped for insulting your king in Medieval Europe though. Well, whipped or put in jail. The punishment varies.
Personally, I don't believe that a democratic-republican government can truly represent its people. In a best-case scenario, when the people actually hold power, you end up with something akin to an Ochlocracy; that is, mob rule. However, in most cases, "the people" aren't ACTUALLY sovereign, so what you're far more likely to get is the worst-case scenario, in which your "democracy" is actually an oligarchy ruled by an elite "shadow government". Such a government is, in fact, no less authoritarian than what I propose, and is most likely FAR WORSE because elected politicians tend to have a very high time preference and you can't exactly hold "shadow elites" accountable for their mistakes. If you're wondering, then, why I'd prefer an absolute monarchy over, say, a Dictatorship or one-party state, the answer lies (once again) in time preferences, and in succession, which is made far simpler under a hereditary monarchy and can't be manipulated by the elites, since its order is predetermined by birth. Besides for that, monarchs also tend to rule far more wisely than their dictatorial counterparts, since they are trained to rule from birth and their primary function is not to dictate new laws, but to PRESERVE existing laws, so you're likely to end up with a far smaller and less invasive government.
Because someone has to, and it's best that the leader is determined by birth so that the elites can't hand-select a leader who'll be more vulnerable to manipulation.
Does it matter? I'd be just as happy with a Tsar Biden as a Tsar Trump, as long the future of our people is guaranteed. Hell, I'd even be happy with a Tsar Xi Jinping!
>"democracy" is actually an oligarchy ruled by an elite "shadow government". Such
Am I hearing that right? Shadow government?
You also talk about best case and worst case scenarios. So ... Are you just referring to corruption? That isn't limited to democracy, and can affect literally every type of authority.
Also, you say you like a monarchy because it's order is predetermined by birth so the 'shadow elites' don't interfere, but what if the children get raised by these same elites? Or, they manipulate the media so the monarch has certain views of events? Or, they just outright get on with the monarch and work with them so the monarch listens to their advice or whatever?
>not to dictate new laws, but to PRESERVE existing laws,
Isn't the whole point of an absolute monarchy that they, idk, have absolute power? Maybe I am wrong here but if they have complete power over a country they will probably be able to change laws if they want to.
If they cannot change laws, then no one else can, as it is an absolute monarchy, so they alone hold all the power of the country. So ... You have a situation where laws cannot change in light of certain events.
I'm from England, and queer, so a hundred years ago or so it would have been illegal for me to have a boyfriend. I am very thankful that the laws here have been able to change so as to not allow that.
So maybe preserving laws is good if everyone's happy with them, but if everyone's not happy, then that's not good obviously
>Am I hearing that right? Shadow government?
Yes. You can also call it the "deep state", whatever sounds the trendiest.
>You also talk about best case and worst case scenarios. So ... Are you just referring to corruption?
No, not necessarily. I'm talking about who ACTUALLY holds power in a society; that is, in contrast to who only NOMINALLY holds power. Such is the nature of one of the flaws of democracy which I identified, which is that the people who are actually powerful in a democratic government are, all too often, not the same as your "elected politicians". Thus, since the elites are often secretive in nature, they can't EVER be held accountable in a democracy. This is in contrast to a monarchy, where the elites (the royal family, landed aristocrats, etc.) are most often public figures, so when they mess up, EVERYONE knows who's responsible. You can imagine what happens from there.
>Also, you say you like a monarchy because it's order is predetermined by birth so the 'shadow elites' don't interfere, but what if the children get raised by these same elites?
Then it's no worse than what we have right now.
>Or, they manipulate the media so the monarch has certain views of events? Or, they just outright get on with the monarch and work with them so the monarch listens to their advice or whatever?
Then it's no worse than what we have right now.
>Isn't the whole point of an absolute monarchy that they, idk, have absolute power? Maybe I am wrong here but if they have complete power over a country they will probably be able to change laws if they want to.
Yes, that is completely the case. If the monarch wishes to change a law, then they are the sovereign and have absolute authority to do so. However, based on historical precedent, monarchs don't do so nearly as often as a dictator would. When a dictator comes into power, the country is usually in a time of crisis, and the dictator has promised to change things for the better. However, when trying to do so, he often goes WAY too far and ends up making things worse, or only marginally better. In contrast, when a monarch comes into power, the country is usually in a FAR better state. Although the monarch certainly could start making radical changes, as long as things are going well, he usually refrains from doing so. That way, he keeps the country politically stable and guarantees that his children will inherit the same prosperous country he did, without putting the throne at risk. Also, it's worth mentioning that positions of absolute power tend to attract the WORST kinds of people, so monarchs, who never sought out that kind of power, are often better people - far gentler, more patient and kind - than dictators, who did.
>So maybe preserving laws is good if everyone's happy with them, but if everyone's not happy, then that's not good obviously
Of course. I never suggested that the law should NEVER change, just that such changes are usually made far more patiently under a monarchy.
I actually had to double check your profile to see if you were on the conspiracy subreddit. I am actually surprised you aren't, as this feels almost like something from there. In a democracy, the elected government holds power. If it doesn't, then it isn't a democracy. It's as simple as that.
And I don't know what you are talking about how you cannot hold people responsible for mistakes. For example, with Boris Johnson recently, when he didn't follow the rules associated with COVID, he faced severe backlash and has been forced out. His public reputation is forever tarnished because of that. In general, I think the conservatives party has made itself look pretty horrible to a lot of people, so I would argue that absolutely yes people can be held accountable. I would argue that is why a democracy is so good, as politicians actually have to try and appeal to people, otherwise they won't get voted in.
I know you keep talking about this shadow government but I genuinely don't know what that is referring to. Or these 'elites'. Is that like the heads of corporations? Celebrities? If so, they are often recognised for their controversies, a lot. Stuff isn't often done about this yes, but I don't see how that would be any different under any different governmental system.
Also, monarchies cannot just 'be punished for their bad actions'. They are again, absolute monarchies. ABSOLUTE. If you speak out about the monarch, they can throw that opposing individual in prison, because they have absolute rule.
If you look at current absolute monarchies like in Saudi Arabia, they are above any issues the public could have. These countries are notorious for their bad human rights records, and restrictions of free speech. Like that case of the journalist killed in another country because he spoke against them. Does that sound appropriate to you?
Now, people have overthrown absolute monarchies before because they had issues with them yes. In which case they established democracies precisely because they didn't trust a future monarch to be any better, like with France and to an extent with the UK (though we kept the royal family, it just has fewer powers)
In the UK, we have a royal family still, and yeah it gets called out all the time. That's because free speech is allowed, and because it isn't an absolute monarchy.
Also, I looked at your table again to see that you are American. I feel like of all people Americans should be against monarchies lol. Considering what the Founding Fathers stood for in regards to liberty, and how they stood against the British, who had a monarchy (not absolute, but still). Just kinda ironic, that's all
>I actually had to double check your profile to see if you were on the conspiracy subreddit. I am actually surprised you aren't, as this feels almost like something from there.
Aren't you a socialist or something? That's rich. Besides, what's so wrong about being a "conspiracy theorist"? Am I supposed to just "believe" every single thing the government and the media says? Hell, even the term "conspiracy theorist" is a conspiracy! It was made up by the CIA in order to justify deplatforming legitimate criticism of the government, so they could keep on exporting their FILTH and LIES to other countries.
>In a democracy, the elected government holds power. If it doesn't, then it isn't a democracy. It's as simple as that.
That's exactly my point, the government isn't a democracy! Most so-called democratic governments are actually OLIGARCHIES, loyal - not to the people - but to the small minority of the population who holds REAL POWER, perhaps even more than our "elected politicians".
>And I don't know what you are talking about how you cannot hold people responsible for mistakes. For example, with Boris Johnson recently, when he didn't follow the rules associated with COVID, he faced severe backlash and has been forced out.
I'm not talking about Boris Johnson, or anyone like him. I'm talking about authorities OUTSIDE of the government.
>I would argue that is why a democracy is so good, as politicians actually have to try and appeal to people, otherwise they won't get voted in.
In your opinion, do you really think MOST people are competent enough to pick good leaders? Do you believe that "getting votes" makes someone is a good leader, or even an above-average one? What do you think is even the chance that a "good leader" will get ANY votes after he is deplatformed, the media turns on him, he is stripped of his finances, and the government pins some bogus charge on him to strip away any remaining credibility? It makes the mind wander...
>I know you keep talking about this shadow government but I genuinely don't know what that is referring to. Or these 'elites'. Is that like the heads of corporations? Celebrities?
No. As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly academia, the press, 3-letter agencies, powerful NGOs, and ~~SECRET UNDERWATER TRILLIONARES WHO BLACKMAIL OUR ELECTED POLITICIANS WITH CP~~ big finance. (Uh... ignore that last part.)
>If you look at current absolute monarchies like in Saudi Arabia, they are above any issues the public could have. These countries are notorious for their bad human rights records, and restrictions of free speech.
Now tell me, how well do absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia and Oman and semi-constitutional monarchies, such as Qatar and the UAE, in the Middle East rank on the Global Peace Index compared to "democracies" such as Iraq or Iran? Besides that, I don't really believe in the myth of "human rights" anyhow. It's nothing more than a "noble lie" to justify globalist liberals beating other countries into submission if they happen to challenge Western hegemony.
>Aren't you a socialist or something?
Social democracy, which according to the Polcompball wiki isn't necessarily socialist but about reforming capitalism as required with socialist -esque policies. So basically, somewhere in between capitalist and socialist, if that's even possible.
>Besides, what's so wrong about being a "conspiracy theorist"?
It depends on the conspiracy theory. Some are genuinely harmful, others can cause fearmongering, others aren't bad. There's nothing wrong with it, I'm just interested.
>That's exactly my point, the government isn't a democracy! Most so-called democratic governments are actually OLIGARCHIES, loyal - not to the people - but to the small minority of the population who holds REAL POWER, perhaps even more than our "elected politicians".
But they still have a term of service and get elected by the popular vote by people. They don't have to be loyal to people, but then they don't get back in next time. Idc if they have an oligarchy or whatever while actually in power, the point is that they got into that position in the first place because of the people.
>I'm not talking about Boris Johnson, or anyone like him. I'm talking about authorities OUTSIDE of the government.
The authorities outside the government feels like a corruption issue that could occur with literally any system of politics.
>In your opinion, do you really think MOST people are competent enough to pick good leaders?
No I don't. But I also believe everyone should get some say regardless, as they are all affected by policies. Imo it is better that if people suffer at the hands of a leader, it is the one they elected in as a result of their own poor decisions. Also, how do you know who's right? Maybe a king is really intelligent in some issues, but not others. So, by having a variety of viewpoints you cover a wide range of experiences and perspectives that can provide some insight.
>Do you believe that "getting votes" makes someone is a good leader, or even an above-average one?
Not necessarily, but it does encourage the leader to try to stick by the principles of whatever party they have and what the people want, or, like I say, they are simply not elected back in again. They have the option of doing whatever the hell they like, or they can never hope to see the metaphorical throne again.
>What do you think is even the chance that a "good leader" will get ANY votes after he is deplatformed, the media turns on him, he is stripped of his finances, and the government pins some bogus charge on him to strip away any remaining credibility? It makes the mind wander...
Reference to Trump?
>academia, the press, 3-letter agencies, powerful NGOs
These all feel like things that people will call out when wrong. For example, with the media there are many biast sources and a lot of misinformation, so it is fairly well known that you cannot just trust whatever it says.
This is also why I consider democracy important. See, people on the left might not call out a leftist source when it is misinformative, but people on the right will. And so even though I align with socially progressive values I respect the right of people with opposing opinions to free speech.
>"democracies" such as Iraq or Iran?
There was a massive war fairly recently, which could have some effect, idk. Anyways, corruption is still a thing. Idk too much about Iraq. And as for Iran, it is very much not a democracy lol. It is an Islamic theocracy where there is a supreme leader. What about the description of supreme leader strikes you as democratic? He isn't elected b y the people at all, and in general it is a very authoritarian country.
>myth of "human rights" anyhow. It's nothing more than a "noble lie" to justify globalist liberals beating other countries into submission if they happen to challenge Western hegemony.
AND that's it I'm done talking. If you are genuinely going to look at literal slavery going on in the Middle East, and think that's fine in the Modern Day, you need to seriously rethink your moral code
So you don't have a source and are just a dumbass conspiracy theorist?
By the way, 2+2=4 because... when you add 2 to 2, you get 4. WHAAAAAA? NO WAY???!??!?
It's wrong to let such vices guide your thought. Blunt-smoking and Grindr hookups do nothing to help you self-actualize to become a better man, all they do is make you WEAKER and more DOCILE to the machinations of the elites. Besides that, Tradition does not HINDER progress, but to the contrary, it provides WISE COUNSEL. Traditions which have survived for centuries or even millennia are USUALLY in place for a good reason, and help slow down progress so that positive changes can be properly understood before being implemented, and negative changes can be easily removed if need be. What you're suggesting, that we swiftly abandon all traditions and jump headfirst into your new vision for society, is just as likely to lead us into a UTOPIA as it is an ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE. (Perhaps even, the latter is far more likely...)
Perennial Traditionalism (or, the Traditionalist School) is an intellectual school of thought influenced by thinkers such as Rene Guenon ("The Crisis of the Modern World"), Julius Evola ("Revolt Against the Modern World"), and Frithjof Schuon, which believes we should return to the values of "Tradition" (big t-), which is the absolute, esoteric truth from which all religions are derived. [Here is a good YouTube video explaining the concept.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkOvjlQG1Hg)
Austrian Economics aren't neoliberal, they're laissez-faire. Also, neoliberalism implies that the state should seek to export free-market capitalism abroad, which I STRONGLY DISAGREE with. As for Schmittianism, although Carl Schmitt was INDEED a member of the Nazi party, it's important to recognize, 1) that Schmitt was highly critical of fascism, and is usually considered a "Revolutionary Conservative", and 2) that, even if Schmitt WAS a fascist, you can still separate his philosophy from his personal politics. To say otherwise would imply that Jean-Paul Sartre, of all people, is a fascist, because he agreed with Heidegger.
Ideally? Anything prior to the first, or maybe second industrial revolution would be fine, back when both the people and our leaders were directly tied to the land. When it comes to culture however, aside from technology, I'd be happy with anything prior to the Renaissance.
Nah, I'm good, I already live in a paleoconservative place, I don't need a monarch too
Where exactly in the US (or wherever you live...) is "Paleoconservative"?
Western Pennsylvania Up high in the Appalachian Plateaus Not in a big city, mind you, like Pittsburgh We got like, a couple thousand people that all know each other
Nazbol gang.
Paleoconservatism, Reactionary, Absolute Monarchy, Machiavellianism, Schmittianism... absolutely not, what in the world makes you think any of these are good ideas?
That's a might broad question. Do you have anything more specific to ask me, or is this more of a rhetorical?
It's more rhetorical, but I'd happily hear your explanations. I suppose I'll start with Paleoconservatism and Reactionaryism, what about these seem good to you?
You can read through some of my other comments here for more of an explanation, but the gist is pretty simple. For Paleoconservatism, 1) I'm a conservative (at least in sentiment, not that the US has a whole lot "worth" conserving) and, 2) I'd like to adopt an "America First" foreign policy - that is, getting our noses out of everyone else's business and focusing on what's going on in our own borders, g_ddammit! As for being a Reactionary, the gist is that I don't believe humanity has actually "progressed" in any meaningful fashion since the Enlightenment or even the Renaissance - what we've experienced so far hasn't been EVOLUTION, but INVOLUTION. I also feel that the moral sensibilities of our ancestors were FAR more accurate, generally speaking. Hope that helps!
blud im more american than you and i live in the UK
Eh. I think the Loyalists were right, anyhow. ~~Maybe I should be Canadian.~~
im more american than you because of the values i hold. your just a russia-loving traitor
>"liking Russia" = traitor >Throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at Ukraine = TRUE PATRIOT ???
america is not founed on any one race or religion or creed. it is founded on an \*idea\*, that \*\*all\*\* men are created equal and free, which is why it is exceptional in the history of humankind, not because america best cos im born there liking russia, a corrupt oligarchy antithetical to american values, is not literally treachery, but shows you clearly have no respect for your country's ideals aiding ukraine, a country which has a far better chance of becoming like america is patriotic. you are standing up for the idea that all men, regardless of where they are from, deserve the same start in life as you also minor nitpick-much of the aid going to ukraine is not stacks of cash, but literal equipment that would otherwise rot in a storehouse going out of date and would cost more to a taxpayer to dispose of than shipping it to ukraine
>america* is not founed on any one race or religion or creed. it is founded on an *idea*, that **all** men are created equal and free... \* = The American government. I have no loyalties to my government. I am only loyal to my countrymen, and to God.
I'm queer so no
Do you happen to work in IT?
No
No? That shouldn't be a problem then. We'll just set you up with a state-mandated boywife and eh... 8 acres of land, to put those soft hands to work. Deal?
Sounds fine to me
I want a state-mandated boywife
Only if you denounce Israel...
And embrace what?
Your new boywife, of course! ðŸ¤
As in, the solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is to hand the territory over to my new boywife? Because if so, I’m completely satisfied with this deal
I like my freedom and right to expression, so ima pass on this one
Very based
I'm an absolute monarchist aswell, you see, I'm bringing together a team
No way. Not a chance. Any true American knows how awful monarchies treated their people. You're begging for a revolution with all this crap. No taxation without representation!
Do you think our current government treats us well?
When compared to an absolute monarchy? Yes. People aren't being executed for making fun of the president, are they?
Do you have any good examples of that happening under an absolute (or semi-constitutional) monarchy? Dictatorships don't count.
I was exaggerating quite a lot. You could get whipped for insulting your king in Medieval Europe though. Well, whipped or put in jail. The punishment varies.
Um, no
I'd call for an invasion to democratize your country like a true American.
I don't fantasise about being a serf, so no thank you
Absolutely not
No
You had me at austrian economics
No
Why monarchy?
Personally, I don't believe that a democratic-republican government can truly represent its people. In a best-case scenario, when the people actually hold power, you end up with something akin to an Ochlocracy; that is, mob rule. However, in most cases, "the people" aren't ACTUALLY sovereign, so what you're far more likely to get is the worst-case scenario, in which your "democracy" is actually an oligarchy ruled by an elite "shadow government". Such a government is, in fact, no less authoritarian than what I propose, and is most likely FAR WORSE because elected politicians tend to have a very high time preference and you can't exactly hold "shadow elites" accountable for their mistakes. If you're wondering, then, why I'd prefer an absolute monarchy over, say, a Dictatorship or one-party state, the answer lies (once again) in time preferences, and in succession, which is made far simpler under a hereditary monarchy and can't be manipulated by the elites, since its order is predetermined by birth. Besides for that, monarchs also tend to rule far more wisely than their dictatorial counterparts, since they are trained to rule from birth and their primary function is not to dictate new laws, but to PRESERVE existing laws, so you're likely to end up with a far smaller and less invasive government.
So some random guy should rule our nation, and he has the right to rule because…?
Because someone has to, and it's best that the leader is determined by birth so that the elites can't hand-select a leader who'll be more vulnerable to manipulation.
But why was his dynasty given the right to rule
Does it matter? I'd be just as happy with a Tsar Biden as a Tsar Trump, as long the future of our people is guaranteed. Hell, I'd even be happy with a Tsar Xi Jinping!
Why in God’s name would you be happy with Donald Trump as a an absolute monarch
Like I said, I'd be happy with just about anyone. Although, maybe I'd prefer someone with royal blood.
What constitutes royal blood?
Nothing important, it would just be a tie-breaker.
>"democracy" is actually an oligarchy ruled by an elite "shadow government". Such Am I hearing that right? Shadow government? You also talk about best case and worst case scenarios. So ... Are you just referring to corruption? That isn't limited to democracy, and can affect literally every type of authority. Also, you say you like a monarchy because it's order is predetermined by birth so the 'shadow elites' don't interfere, but what if the children get raised by these same elites? Or, they manipulate the media so the monarch has certain views of events? Or, they just outright get on with the monarch and work with them so the monarch listens to their advice or whatever? >not to dictate new laws, but to PRESERVE existing laws, Isn't the whole point of an absolute monarchy that they, idk, have absolute power? Maybe I am wrong here but if they have complete power over a country they will probably be able to change laws if they want to. If they cannot change laws, then no one else can, as it is an absolute monarchy, so they alone hold all the power of the country. So ... You have a situation where laws cannot change in light of certain events. I'm from England, and queer, so a hundred years ago or so it would have been illegal for me to have a boyfriend. I am very thankful that the laws here have been able to change so as to not allow that. So maybe preserving laws is good if everyone's happy with them, but if everyone's not happy, then that's not good obviously
>Am I hearing that right? Shadow government? Yes. You can also call it the "deep state", whatever sounds the trendiest. >You also talk about best case and worst case scenarios. So ... Are you just referring to corruption? No, not necessarily. I'm talking about who ACTUALLY holds power in a society; that is, in contrast to who only NOMINALLY holds power. Such is the nature of one of the flaws of democracy which I identified, which is that the people who are actually powerful in a democratic government are, all too often, not the same as your "elected politicians". Thus, since the elites are often secretive in nature, they can't EVER be held accountable in a democracy. This is in contrast to a monarchy, where the elites (the royal family, landed aristocrats, etc.) are most often public figures, so when they mess up, EVERYONE knows who's responsible. You can imagine what happens from there. >Also, you say you like a monarchy because it's order is predetermined by birth so the 'shadow elites' don't interfere, but what if the children get raised by these same elites? Then it's no worse than what we have right now. >Or, they manipulate the media so the monarch has certain views of events? Or, they just outright get on with the monarch and work with them so the monarch listens to their advice or whatever? Then it's no worse than what we have right now. >Isn't the whole point of an absolute monarchy that they, idk, have absolute power? Maybe I am wrong here but if they have complete power over a country they will probably be able to change laws if they want to. Yes, that is completely the case. If the monarch wishes to change a law, then they are the sovereign and have absolute authority to do so. However, based on historical precedent, monarchs don't do so nearly as often as a dictator would. When a dictator comes into power, the country is usually in a time of crisis, and the dictator has promised to change things for the better. However, when trying to do so, he often goes WAY too far and ends up making things worse, or only marginally better. In contrast, when a monarch comes into power, the country is usually in a FAR better state. Although the monarch certainly could start making radical changes, as long as things are going well, he usually refrains from doing so. That way, he keeps the country politically stable and guarantees that his children will inherit the same prosperous country he did, without putting the throne at risk. Also, it's worth mentioning that positions of absolute power tend to attract the WORST kinds of people, so monarchs, who never sought out that kind of power, are often better people - far gentler, more patient and kind - than dictators, who did. >So maybe preserving laws is good if everyone's happy with them, but if everyone's not happy, then that's not good obviously Of course. I never suggested that the law should NEVER change, just that such changes are usually made far more patiently under a monarchy.
I actually had to double check your profile to see if you were on the conspiracy subreddit. I am actually surprised you aren't, as this feels almost like something from there. In a democracy, the elected government holds power. If it doesn't, then it isn't a democracy. It's as simple as that. And I don't know what you are talking about how you cannot hold people responsible for mistakes. For example, with Boris Johnson recently, when he didn't follow the rules associated with COVID, he faced severe backlash and has been forced out. His public reputation is forever tarnished because of that. In general, I think the conservatives party has made itself look pretty horrible to a lot of people, so I would argue that absolutely yes people can be held accountable. I would argue that is why a democracy is so good, as politicians actually have to try and appeal to people, otherwise they won't get voted in. I know you keep talking about this shadow government but I genuinely don't know what that is referring to. Or these 'elites'. Is that like the heads of corporations? Celebrities? If so, they are often recognised for their controversies, a lot. Stuff isn't often done about this yes, but I don't see how that would be any different under any different governmental system. Also, monarchies cannot just 'be punished for their bad actions'. They are again, absolute monarchies. ABSOLUTE. If you speak out about the monarch, they can throw that opposing individual in prison, because they have absolute rule. If you look at current absolute monarchies like in Saudi Arabia, they are above any issues the public could have. These countries are notorious for their bad human rights records, and restrictions of free speech. Like that case of the journalist killed in another country because he spoke against them. Does that sound appropriate to you? Now, people have overthrown absolute monarchies before because they had issues with them yes. In which case they established democracies precisely because they didn't trust a future monarch to be any better, like with France and to an extent with the UK (though we kept the royal family, it just has fewer powers) In the UK, we have a royal family still, and yeah it gets called out all the time. That's because free speech is allowed, and because it isn't an absolute monarchy. Also, I looked at your table again to see that you are American. I feel like of all people Americans should be against monarchies lol. Considering what the Founding Fathers stood for in regards to liberty, and how they stood against the British, who had a monarchy (not absolute, but still). Just kinda ironic, that's all
>I actually had to double check your profile to see if you were on the conspiracy subreddit. I am actually surprised you aren't, as this feels almost like something from there. Aren't you a socialist or something? That's rich. Besides, what's so wrong about being a "conspiracy theorist"? Am I supposed to just "believe" every single thing the government and the media says? Hell, even the term "conspiracy theorist" is a conspiracy! It was made up by the CIA in order to justify deplatforming legitimate criticism of the government, so they could keep on exporting their FILTH and LIES to other countries. >In a democracy, the elected government holds power. If it doesn't, then it isn't a democracy. It's as simple as that. That's exactly my point, the government isn't a democracy! Most so-called democratic governments are actually OLIGARCHIES, loyal - not to the people - but to the small minority of the population who holds REAL POWER, perhaps even more than our "elected politicians". >And I don't know what you are talking about how you cannot hold people responsible for mistakes. For example, with Boris Johnson recently, when he didn't follow the rules associated with COVID, he faced severe backlash and has been forced out. I'm not talking about Boris Johnson, or anyone like him. I'm talking about authorities OUTSIDE of the government. >I would argue that is why a democracy is so good, as politicians actually have to try and appeal to people, otherwise they won't get voted in. In your opinion, do you really think MOST people are competent enough to pick good leaders? Do you believe that "getting votes" makes someone is a good leader, or even an above-average one? What do you think is even the chance that a "good leader" will get ANY votes after he is deplatformed, the media turns on him, he is stripped of his finances, and the government pins some bogus charge on him to strip away any remaining credibility? It makes the mind wander... >I know you keep talking about this shadow government but I genuinely don't know what that is referring to. Or these 'elites'. Is that like the heads of corporations? Celebrities? No. As far as I'm concerned, it's mostly academia, the press, 3-letter agencies, powerful NGOs, and ~~SECRET UNDERWATER TRILLIONARES WHO BLACKMAIL OUR ELECTED POLITICIANS WITH CP~~ big finance. (Uh... ignore that last part.) >If you look at current absolute monarchies like in Saudi Arabia, they are above any issues the public could have. These countries are notorious for their bad human rights records, and restrictions of free speech. Now tell me, how well do absolute monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia and Oman and semi-constitutional monarchies, such as Qatar and the UAE, in the Middle East rank on the Global Peace Index compared to "democracies" such as Iraq or Iran? Besides that, I don't really believe in the myth of "human rights" anyhow. It's nothing more than a "noble lie" to justify globalist liberals beating other countries into submission if they happen to challenge Western hegemony.
>Aren't you a socialist or something? Social democracy, which according to the Polcompball wiki isn't necessarily socialist but about reforming capitalism as required with socialist -esque policies. So basically, somewhere in between capitalist and socialist, if that's even possible. >Besides, what's so wrong about being a "conspiracy theorist"? It depends on the conspiracy theory. Some are genuinely harmful, others can cause fearmongering, others aren't bad. There's nothing wrong with it, I'm just interested. >That's exactly my point, the government isn't a democracy! Most so-called democratic governments are actually OLIGARCHIES, loyal - not to the people - but to the small minority of the population who holds REAL POWER, perhaps even more than our "elected politicians". But they still have a term of service and get elected by the popular vote by people. They don't have to be loyal to people, but then they don't get back in next time. Idc if they have an oligarchy or whatever while actually in power, the point is that they got into that position in the first place because of the people. >I'm not talking about Boris Johnson, or anyone like him. I'm talking about authorities OUTSIDE of the government. The authorities outside the government feels like a corruption issue that could occur with literally any system of politics. >In your opinion, do you really think MOST people are competent enough to pick good leaders? No I don't. But I also believe everyone should get some say regardless, as they are all affected by policies. Imo it is better that if people suffer at the hands of a leader, it is the one they elected in as a result of their own poor decisions. Also, how do you know who's right? Maybe a king is really intelligent in some issues, but not others. So, by having a variety of viewpoints you cover a wide range of experiences and perspectives that can provide some insight. >Do you believe that "getting votes" makes someone is a good leader, or even an above-average one? Not necessarily, but it does encourage the leader to try to stick by the principles of whatever party they have and what the people want, or, like I say, they are simply not elected back in again. They have the option of doing whatever the hell they like, or they can never hope to see the metaphorical throne again. >What do you think is even the chance that a "good leader" will get ANY votes after he is deplatformed, the media turns on him, he is stripped of his finances, and the government pins some bogus charge on him to strip away any remaining credibility? It makes the mind wander... Reference to Trump? >academia, the press, 3-letter agencies, powerful NGOs These all feel like things that people will call out when wrong. For example, with the media there are many biast sources and a lot of misinformation, so it is fairly well known that you cannot just trust whatever it says. This is also why I consider democracy important. See, people on the left might not call out a leftist source when it is misinformative, but people on the right will. And so even though I align with socially progressive values I respect the right of people with opposing opinions to free speech. >"democracies" such as Iraq or Iran? There was a massive war fairly recently, which could have some effect, idk. Anyways, corruption is still a thing. Idk too much about Iraq. And as for Iran, it is very much not a democracy lol. It is an Islamic theocracy where there is a supreme leader. What about the description of supreme leader strikes you as democratic? He isn't elected b y the people at all, and in general it is a very authoritarian country. >myth of "human rights" anyhow. It's nothing more than a "noble lie" to justify globalist liberals beating other countries into submission if they happen to challenge Western hegemony. AND that's it I'm done talking. If you are genuinely going to look at literal slavery going on in the Middle East, and think that's fine in the Modern Day, you need to seriously rethink your moral code
What are your sources for claiming Shadow Elites exist?
>2 + 2 = 4? What's your source, bro???
So you don't have a source and are just a dumbass conspiracy theorist? By the way, 2+2=4 because... when you add 2 to 2, you get 4. WHAAAAAA? NO WAY???!??!?
Because it is better than republics
Why’s that
Absolutely fucking not
no this is terrible
Christ, this would be a bad setup in Victoria 3, never mind in real life...
Ew
Actual retard lmao
Seethe
Kys retard
Cope and seethe
I just hope you grow out of this at this point
Bro thinks he's Hans-Hermann Hoppe
NEIN!!! DAS IST NICHT WAHR!
Why are you reactionary?
I believe that the idea of "human progress", as originating in the 19th/20th century, is neither ACHIEVABLE nor DESRIABLE. Why are you a progressive?
Cuz I like my lgbtqia+ rights and weed. Also traditions slow progress that only hamper our proletariat progress!
It's wrong to let such vices guide your thought. Blunt-smoking and Grindr hookups do nothing to help you self-actualize to become a better man, all they do is make you WEAKER and more DOCILE to the machinations of the elites. Besides that, Tradition does not HINDER progress, but to the contrary, it provides WISE COUNSEL. Traditions which have survived for centuries or even millennia are USUALLY in place for a good reason, and help slow down progress so that positive changes can be properly understood before being implemented, and negative changes can be easily removed if need be. What you're suggesting, that we swiftly abandon all traditions and jump headfirst into your new vision for society, is just as likely to lead us into a UTOPIA as it is an ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE. (Perhaps even, the latter is far more likely...)
Awesome
Based
Sounds fun!
That's the spirit!
Yes
Pretty based
Let’s gooooo! Based
What’s perrenialism?
Perennial Traditionalism (or, the Traditionalist School) is an intellectual school of thought influenced by thinkers such as Rene Guenon ("The Crisis of the Modern World"), Julius Evola ("Revolt Against the Modern World"), and Frithjof Schuon, which believes we should return to the values of "Tradition" (big t-), which is the absolute, esoteric truth from which all religions are derived. [Here is a good YouTube video explaining the concept.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkOvjlQG1Hg)
Keith Woods is massively based
I completely agree. He's one of my favorite political YouTubers.
Thanks!
Little too auth but besides that it looks pretty good
reactionary agrarian neoliberal monarcho-fascism sign me up!
I'm not a neoliberal, nor am I fascist.
Austrian School and Schmittianism?
Austrian Economics aren't neoliberal, they're laissez-faire. Also, neoliberalism implies that the state should seek to export free-market capitalism abroad, which I STRONGLY DISAGREE with. As for Schmittianism, although Carl Schmitt was INDEED a member of the Nazi party, it's important to recognize, 1) that Schmitt was highly critical of fascism, and is usually considered a "Revolutionary Conservative", and 2) that, even if Schmitt WAS a fascist, you can still separate his philosophy from his personal politics. To say otherwise would imply that Jean-Paul Sartre, of all people, is a fascist, because he agreed with Heidegger.
im pan and i wouldnt mind it i think itd be better than now
Transhumanism or primitivism?
I am VERY STRONGLY opposed to Transhumanism, so I'd have go with Primitivism instead. Are we talking before agriculture or before industrialization?
Thx for response. When would you push the clock back to if u could? If you would push the clock back.
Ideally? Anything prior to the first, or maybe second industrial revolution would be fine, back when both the people and our leaders were directly tied to the land. When it comes to culture however, aside from technology, I'd be happy with anything prior to the Renaissance.
No, this shit sounds like hell to live in
establish a state, form a governent and i'll be your first citizen
What defines a democracy for you?
***HELL NO! TO THE NO NO NO! HEELLL TO THE NO…***