I renounce modern politics-I guess i'm a Monarchist - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14528567
Potemkin wrote:A good point, sir, and well put. Nonetheless, I hope you can accept my promise in the spirit in which it was made.

Indeed I will but I will not hold you to it, when the time comes it will be entirely at your discretion.
Potemkin wrote:And, in my own humble opinion, the Cosmos is large enough for us both. There will always be new worlds left to conquer....

So it is. To be honest I'd probably settle for a minor principality like Liechtenstein, or a cluster of moonbases.
#14528607
Indeed I will but I will not hold you to it, when the time comes it will be entirely at your discretion.

I am grateful for your understanding, my dear sir. Rest assured, you shall not be forgotten when the time comes for me to honour my pledges.

So it is. To be honest I'd probably settle for a minor principality like Liechtenstein, or a cluster of moonbases.

I'll throw in Andorra, Monaco and Luxembourg too, plus a fortified base on Mars. After all, every respectable Chief Minister should have his own private fiefdom on the side, don't you know?
#14528779
Potemkin wrote:The plague of Scientism can only be cured by more education, not less, annatar. After all, this sort of attitude - the idolatrous worship of science - can only arise in the minds of people who do not truly understand science itself, either in its historical development or its operational procedures. Scientists themselves make no such absolutist claims to Eternal Truth for their discipline which Starman takes it upon himself to make on their behalf. And it tends to be uneducated people who fall easy prey to charlatans of every stripe.


I'm not suggesting that everyone be mired in ignorance equally, Potemkin my friend. What I am suggesting is that natural more traditional society does not belabor people with an education that does not serve them or society very well, by the creation of an 'Intelligensiat'.... For which the 'Treason of the Clerics' is always the result. I'm not saying that when a man asks for bread for him to be given a stone, (when I say that all the science and philosophy is as Pascal said 'not worth an hour's pain'), what I am saying is that Faith and Wisdom and received Custom and Prejudice, serve man much better than the corrosive skepticism and cynicism of the endless Questioners. But you know this as well as I, when you read what Dante's companion had to say to he who loved Beatrice....

I absolutely agree with you that true science has no pretensions, and indeed is the good and helpful servant of Man in his Exile, and a true boon in his labors. What I suggest is this though; beyond 'Homo Faber' and Art, lie Magick and the Machine, and man is always ready, if not restrained, to make a Faustian deal with the Devil.

But enough talk of the Ideal, let me speak of the Real world. I live in a largely 'Republican' world, a world of Republics. I also know that Counter-Revolution is the opposite of Revolution, White Terror does not stand in place of the Red. Still, one has to start somewhere. In Europe, I support the remaining Monarchies such as those of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, likewise with the the English Crown-and thus Sovereign of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, among other places. I support Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, the Sultanate of Oman and the Kingdom of Jordan. I support Japan's Monarchy, and Thailand's, those of Malaysia/Brunei/etc..,. I support the Monarch of Swaziland. I also call for the return to their thrones of those Monarchs who have been overthrown. How and to what degree at first is not important. I am at least as much a supporter and enthusiast for Monarchy as the Republicans have been for Republics, whether called 'people's republics' or 'representative democracies'. Monarchies are simply just better, all around, than Republics.

Of course I know I live in what is called a Republic, and thus am loyal as a Citizen, as my Christian duty impels me to be. Good and lasting change is neither quick nor easy or turbulent and violent.
#14528892
starman2003 wrote:I wouldn't. But whoever the Great Man of the future turns out to be, he probably won't arise for many more years. Sadly, soaring ambitions probably aren't for this generation.

That is a baseless assertion, practically a superstition.

The world is constantly pregnant with disaster, where there is disaster there is opportunity for foolhardy madmen to soar as high as they like.
#14528961
Potemkin wrote:I'll throw in Andorra, Monaco and Luxembourg too, plus a fortified base on Mars. After all, every respectable Chief Minister should have his own private fiefdom on the side, don't you know?

And thus the seeds were planted for Sol System War I.
#14529233
taxizen wrote:That is a baseless assertion, practically a superstition.

The world is constantly pregnant with disaster, where there is disaster there is opportunity for foolhardy madmen to soar as high as they like.


Unfortunately it's realistic. Notwithstanding all the problems democracy has encountered to date, there's still no significant constituency for replacing it. It'll take quite a few more years and a number of setbacks caused or exacerbated by democracy, to break it.
#14529234
starman2003 wrote:Unfortunately it's realistic. Notwithstanding all the problems democracy has encountered to date, there's still no significant constituency for replacing it. It'll take quite a few more years and a number of setbacks caused or exacerbated by democracy, to break it.

Usury + fiat money + democracy is such a toxic combination I wouldn't be too surprised if a runaway catastrophic collapse couldn't happen quite soon and suddenly then you will have a very significant constituency wanting something done. There are always opportunities for Greatness if one does not have too narrow a definition of "Greatness". I'd say the present time is more than usually ripe for it. Somewhere out there right now is a Hitler 2 or a Napoleon 2 toiling in obscurity as a bit of hopeless loser but with an enormous latent talent for mischief waiting for his moment to shine. Believe.
#14529300
taxizen wrote:Usury + fiat money + democracy is such a toxic combination I wouldn't be too surprised if a runaway catastrophic collapse couldn't happen quite soon and suddenly then you will have a very significant constituency wanting something done. There are always opportunities for Greatness if one does not have too narrow a definition of "Greatness". I'd say the present time is more than usually ripe for it. Somewhere out there right now is a Hitler 2 or a Napoleon 2 toiling in obscurity as a bit of hopeless loser but with an enormous latent talent for mischief waiting for his moment to shine. Believe.


Oh yes, absolutely. And there will be Monarchies around then too that will find a new vigor and momentum behind them as well. A predict a major power, presently a Republic, will return to being a Monarchy within my lifetime.
#14529330
taxizen wrote: I'd say the present time is more than usually ripe for it. Somewhere out there right now is a Hitler 2 or a Napoleon 2 toiling in obscurity as a bit of hopeless loser but with an enormous latent talent for mischief waiting for his moment to shine. Believe.


Hitler Mark 2 is already here and his name starts with P and ends with utin.

Image

An aggressive nationalistic elected dictator with a historic chip on his shoulder? Recalling the memories of former glory to bolster his power? Justifying massive military spending to "protect against instability"? He's already remilitarized the Rhineland (Donbass) and taken the Sudetenland, (Crimea). Now all thats left is Anschluss with Austria (Belarus) and it'll be time for WW2 again in reverse. Lublin or War, anyone?
#14529482
annatar1914 wrote:Oh yes, absolutely. And there will be Monarchies around then too that will find a new vigor and momentum behind them as well. A predict a major power, presently a Republic, will return to being a Monarchy within my lifetime.

Russia?

I have a feeling old Charles when he comes into his own will be rather more assertive than recent British monarchs. It may be that his mum named him Charles with just this in mind..

ComradeTim wrote:Hitler Mark 2 is already here and his name starts with P and ends with utin.
Nothing so shabby and plebian, Putin deserves better he should pull a Napoleon and make himself Emperor, or rather Czar!

Image
#14529615
taxizen wrote:Russia?

I have a feeling old Charles when he comes into his own will be rather more assertive than recent British monarchs. It may be that his mum named him Charles with just this in mind..


I am not sure exactly which major Nation will be the first to turn back to real Monarchy, but it is certain that it will be clearly a Nation completely turned off and burned by the Modern era, and will be a Nation that turns back to Monarchy as a matter of societal survival.
#14529636
taxizen wrote:Usury + fiat money + democracy is such a toxic combination I wouldn't be too surprised if a runaway catastrophic collapse couldn't happen quite soon and suddenly then you will have a very significant constituency wanting something done.


I've long predicted economic collapse leading to dictatorship, but nothing has happened for 30 years. Deficits may be piling up, but something else is need to trigger the collapse like an oil supply interruption resulting from a Mideast war. Even in the event of that, circumstances must be such that democracy is widely perceived to be the culprit. There have been some hopeful signs lately like acknowledgement the US should've left saddam alone. But the current climate, in which democratic Israel is still on a pedestal, and holocaust preachers keep reminding us of the "evils" of authoritarianism, still sucks.

I'd say the present time is more than usually ripe for it.


Honestly I don't think so. Even if a disaster soon strikes, authoritarianism on a lasting basis can't win out without some movement behind it. Right now there's no significant, or even visible, antidemocratic movement comparable to the nazi or fascist parties which spawned dictatorships in the past century. To remedy this, I've envisaged a "preliminary jolt," convincing enough people the system is obsolete prior to its fall due to a subsequent setback.

Somewhere out there right now is a Hitler 2 or a Napoleon 2 toiling in obscurity as a bit of hopeless loser but with an enormous latent talent for mischief waiting for his moment to shine. Believe.


Oh I've believed for many years but we can't be sure a real opportunity will come anytime soon. Btw the significance and stature of Putin have been vastly exaggerated. Even if he takes all of Ukraine, Russia will be only a shadow of former soviet strength, in relative terms.
#14529769
starman2003 wrote:Honestly I don't think so. Even if a disaster soon strikes, authoritarianism on a lasting basis can't win out without some movement behind it. Right now there's no significant, or even visible, antidemocratic movement comparable to the nazi or fascist parties which spawned dictatorships in the past century. To remedy this, I've envisaged a "preliminary jolt," convincing enough people the system is obsolete prior to its fall due to a subsequent setback.

I think you are looking for democratic (populist) solution to end democracy which is more or less what fascists tried to pull off (with some success it must be noted). Using democracy to end democracy is a contradiction though it may have made some sense in the early days of universal sufferage. I think a return to rational authoritarian government will have its best chance from populist apathy rather than stoking up populist enthusiasm. There is always the army. When the general populace is maximally disinterested and disgusted with politics then the army can simply disband democracy, fill its shoes and no one will care enough to oppose it. It can happen just by an anti-democratic feeling in the army and the passive indifference in everyone else. I can see the constitutional monarchies becoming more overtly absolute monarchies this way.
#14529819
I think you are looking for democratic (populist) solution to end democracy which is more or less what fascists tried to pull off (with some success it must be noted). Using democracy to end democracy is a contradiction though it may have made some sense in the early days of universal sufferage. I think a return to rational authoritarian government will have its best chance from populist apathy rather than stoking up populist enthusiasm. There is always the army. When the general populace is maximally disinterested and disgusted with politics then the army can simply disband democracy, fill its shoes and no one will care enough to oppose it. It can happen just by an anti-democratic feeling in the army and the passive indifference in everyone else. I can see the constitutional monarchies becoming more overtly absolute monarchies this way.

So basically, you're just a common or garden variety reactionary, taxizen?
#14530024
Potemkin wrote:So basically, you're just a common or garden variety reactionary, taxizen?

I appreciate monarchy for its utilitarian and aesthetic qualities. I am not a romantic too much though; I don't believe in Divine Right. Right by Conquest is a surer more realistic footing for Monarchy. Coup d'Etat is as much Right by Conquest as anything won on the battlefield. So you might say I am even more "reactionary" than the average reactionary for I like monarchy as it was before priestly fundies used their lying powers to bewitch honest warlords. Christians were the first wave of progressives.

Image

King Henry II had the right idea about what to do with priestly fundies.
#14530031
taxizen wrote:I think you are looking for democratic (populist) solution to end democracy which is more or less what fascists tried to pull off (with some success it must be noted). Using democracy to end democracy is a contradiction though it may have made some sense in the early days of universal sufferage.


I certainly don't think democracy can be ended via elections! I meant that no regime can be established without substantial backing, mainly from an elite group forming a party.

I think a return to rational authoritarian government will have its best chance from populist apathy rather than stoking up populist enthusiasm. There is always the army. When the general populace is maximally disinterested and disgusted with politics then the army can simply disband democracy, fill its shoes and no one will care enough to oppose it.


I've always envisaged a coup by the armed forces oneday eliminating democracy and establishing a new regime. But it's naive to think "apathy" will create the right climate for a coup, or trigger it. The masses have always clung to democracy and while there was often a perception that existing politicians were crummy, they won't give up their "democratic rights" that easily. History shows that a crisis or major emergency is needed to break democracy.


It can happen just by an anti-democratic feeling in the army and the passive indifference in everyone else.


I've long predicted the army will ultimately get fed up with existing government and take matters into its own hands but it can't do so until the present system screws up big time, causing a major crisis that'll justify a takeover.

I can see the constitutional monarchies becoming more overtly absolute monarchies this way.


Na, the army will establish new regimes reflecting new times.
#14530059
starman2003 wrote:Na, the army will establish new regimes reflecting new times.

That is very unlikely in the constitutional monarchies. Taking the UK for example: the monarchy consistently enjoys 80% approval by the general public since almost forever and still higher approval amongst the soldiery (in part because many royals have served in the military and maintain extensive associations with members of the military). The Monarch retains all the formal powers to disband parliament. All this means that even if an "elite group" within the army took it upon themselves to make a new regime, their only chance of succeeding would be to have the monarch's backing.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why would you Americans care? For years you got a[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]