^

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

*drops mic and walks away*

Generosity in what sense? In the monetary sense I’d personally prefer a penny pincher to be put in power than a generous man, since the former will be more careful about extravagant spending.

As for IQ, I find that IQ points tend to not be the best indicator of intelligence since it mainly measures how well you can detect patterns.

And the elective nature of the monarchy doesn’t preclude the problems with authoritarian nature of the regime, such as the power hungry sycophants, internal struggles, potential coups etc. Likewise it also invests a lot power in this court which can be used as a political weapon and might encourage partisan tensions.

@Maksim What do you think?

The HRE was elective until the monarchs started getting the electors to keep voting inside of the emperors family, so the Salian dynasty held it for an incredibly long time.

@Simmons ☧

Pattern recognizing is a vital tool in international affairs. Furthermore, my generosity I mean aiding those in need - this might be measured by percentage of income spent on charity as opposed to just how much, since a rich man can obviously donate more but is he donating the same percentage as a poor man is. Extravagant spending I agree is undesirable - but I am not a conservative spender, I definitely lean towards more government spending (but without increasing debt)

If charity becomes a requirement for the title, doesn’t it lead to the purpose of charity (helping you me fellow man) being diluted? Wouldn’t people just give so they can claim to be an altruist rather than because they actually are?

And does that matter in your opinion?

@Simmons ☧ I would suggest keeping this charity requirement not public

So only the electors know the requirement

So not even the prospective kings themselves know?

Yes

Interesting workaround.

So with the IQ issue, would you prefer a pattern minded type rather than a Plato esque ‘*philosopher-king*’ ideal monarch?

Philosophy is a load of horseshit change my mind

I like the introspective kind of intelligence myself, it breeds wisdom I think.

That statement in of itself was philosophy @Maksim