We're just looking out for our group

Anyways gtg

Everyone does it

Class starting

I should head off as well

I take care of the people who are like me. 👍🏻

@Maksim cya bro. Good talk.

I’m off as well.

@Deleted User you too. Good talk.

See you later

you should always be more lenient on whites
they dont get the same gibs as blacks and a lot of stats over estimate black competence
banks in america literally engage in pure racial discrimination because even tho blacks have the same credit score as some whites they default on loans more often than their white counterparts
there was even an investigation on this by the US gov which found that they were accurately assessing risk and so they werent charged with discrimination etc

If you wanna look out for your group go ahead
Just don’t be an unneccessary asshole to other groups

Whites come first. End of story.

https://youtu.be/gK_0Yo-0r08

Conservatives don't conserve anything

^

Cringe reactionaries

All hail, the passengers of flight 93

isreal did 9/11 and we would be better off if that plane did crash into the pentagon

Oh fuck off will you

Also what is so good about Facism like actual reasons other than "because yeh" or "cringe"

Well you have to understand the differences in ontology that liberalism and reactionism holds. Reactionaries hold that almost any power that you hold now, has been passed from previous, or other power centers. Government goes far past the state apparatus, to business, finance, etc. Often power centers interact, and can be challenged. An unsecure power center will always seek to control itself. Setting up a republic or democracy is creating a system that has eternal unsecure power. Unsecure power centers will act out to destroy, or minimize the challenging power centers. Typically this is took to a monarchist standpoint, but fascists seek to ally the economy with the state through corporatism as well.

@sandwitch

Bruh Simmons typing a dissertation over here

I would argue to the contrary however, authoritarian states are always far less stable than states with less power focused in one position. Men, in their nature will always seek to profit themselves by grabbing power if they are brave and ambitious enough to take it.

In an authoritarian regime this leads to constant coups, civil wars and power struggles - all of these filled with self serving men. The more the power is delegated, the more stable a state is.

I’ll give you an example -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_revolts_and_civil_wars

The Byzantine Empire was has an overwhelming amount of rebellions and internal power struggles when compared to decentralised feudal Western European states. The reason is that in Byzantium everyone in power derived that power from the emperor and his authority alone. Anyone who governed any area or held any rank did so by his consent alone and he could strip these from people and replace them as he saw fit. His position was incredibly enviable and this caused constant internal strife.

Meanwhile in feudal states there were far fewer rebellions because while the feudal lords owed their loyalty to their king, they did not owe their power to him. They inherited their position from their fathers and it was usually a bad idea for the king to strip these positions from them without proper cause.

In a modern democracy, if the people are unhappy they voice discontent with a vote instead of flipping their shit and overthrowing you in a violent revolution. Often dictators stay in power because they are popular, but as soon as that popularity wanes they are overthrown, or even if they remain popular with the common man; the power they wield breeds the envy of their professed allies and they are betrayed by their own ruling class.

Might have gone a bit overboard there aye, but I was just thinking of what I would say.

Thanks for the TED talk Simmons <:smug:591181720565579807>

But seriously yeah that is a good point

@Simmons ☧ why are you a monarchist being opposed to authoritarian states

or are you a constitutional monarchist

I’m a constitutional monarchist, though I’m in favour of the monarch making more use of their powers rather than relying wholly on the ‘advice’ of the PM. What forget is that the monarch in the UK actually wields a lot of power and isn’t a ‘figurehead’ or whatever else liberals refer to them as.

A figurehead monarchy is called a crowned republic, a constitutional monarchy is an enfranchised monarch with powers and a position as superior to that of parliament.

The main reason I don’t approve of a full on absolute monarchy is summed up in what I wrote above. Benevolent dictatorships are a pretty dream, but the practical doesn’t work as well as the theory.

Take the Bismarck > Wilhelm problem for example. A strong leader builds a country and does it well, then he loses his power and it turns out he built a machine that only he can drive and his successor ends up being incompetent. There’s nothing worse than an incompetent leader with a lot of power.

Actually there is something worse -

an immoral man with absolute power

Elective Absolute Monarchy @Simmons ☧

Who are the electors? @Maksim

@Simmons ☧ Supreme Court - requirements for monarch bidding include a confirmed IQ of above 140, being a Nationalist, history of public service, history of generosity

I'm a proud white American

cool