[annatar1914]

As a Christian, the point must be to cultivate goodness inside of you, rather than being a part of the process that seeks to eliminate suffering from the world. The alleviation of suffering must spring forth from that internal goodness. If this does not eliminate suffering from the world, then perhaps this world was never meant to be anything other than a spiritual way-station at the bottom of the Fall.

True, when it comes right down to it, I know that as a Pilgrim in this World but not of It, I can live a loyal Citizen of any Nation whatsoever, as long as it does not restrict my worship of my God, at which point i'm prepared to pay the penalties for that worship if they happen to exist in said Nation.

That being said, I believe that Monarchism is both the most natural in conforming to true human nature, and that political system most congenial to my Orthodox Christian spiritual beliefs.

On the other hand, as I am a Modern even as I reject Modernism interiorly, I support a certain geopolitics that is bound to result in a less catastrophic imminent collapse, so that certain civilizational values are preserved for the future. Civilization versus Barbarism. Thus I tend to support Nations/cultures geopolitically that only appear to be contradictory theoretically. Thus in a way I can support Russia's traditional ally Serbia and not Serbia's Russophilia or Russian Imperialism, Zionism/Israel and not International Jewry, Imperial Japan and not it's Shinto/Buddhism, America/England and no longer the American experiment in Republicanism, Ukraine and not Uniatism, Iran and not Islam.

[starman2003]

*faints*

[annatar1914]

Sigh... I feel like 'Treebeard' in the JRR Tolkien Lord of the Rings novels, when he says that 'he isn't exactly on anybody's side because nobody is really on his side'....

So, I'm not any ideology as such, or any negative reaction or rejection of these modern ideologies either. I don't have much that would be considered coherent as a 'worldview' because i'd be viewed as 'anachronistic' as the 'Islamic State' is today. An eruption of an 'archaic' and 'reactionary' past. To 'liberty, equality, fraternity', I can oppose my 'Faith, Autocracy, Nation' as a pan national universal ideal.

Is this Monarchism? You bet. But Orthodox Christian Monarchy. 'Symphonia', all of that. One man rules by Grace of God, by Divine Right, and all submit to his will as he protects the Faith from attack. And in this submission man finds all his social needs (including paradoxically, liberty) satisfied.

Does this regulate me to the margins of modern political thought and life? Realistically and certainly, yes. I fought it a long time, this seeming consignment to irrelevance. But.... With the collapse of the Modern Age-because of it's unsustainability- and the return of natural humanity there will be a return to old truths and old falsehoods as well, which resemble old truth in form if not substance.... So nobody has to exactly 'do' anything ('except' repent), it's going to happen, it is inevitable because it is the reality and intersection of Man, and Power, and God, and Life, and Death, Health and Sickness... There is no debate, no need to elaborate, time itself will prove 'me' right-I say 'me' as a placeholder for everybody, for what all can feel in their hearts as right. There really is nothing new under the sun....

Does this mean that in the interim there will be no commentary on modern politics from me? No, not at all, I will definitely be commenting, for these events playing out now only ratify my belief in the un-sustainability of the modern age and the return of the pre-modern.

[starman2003]

Does this regulate me to the margins of modern political thought and life? Realistically and certainly, yes.

Same here but it's different. At least what I favor is consistent with reality or scientific truth, as opposed to ancient superstition. "god" is a myth; even now christianity is waning. Extrapolate the trend a few decades or several and...

[One Degree]

This is like watching identical twins argue over who is the ugliest.

Any ideology that meets the needs of the people is acceptable.

Demanding that the ideology meets the needs of ALL people is always unacceptable.

[annatar1914]

Same here but it's different. At least what I favor is consistent with reality or scientific truth, as opposed to ancient superstition. "god" is a myth; even now christianity is waning. Extrapolate the trend a few decades or several and...

As i've told you before, we shall see.

At any rate, the realities of the Modern Age, at the very least, suggest that it's liberal capitalist/'representative democracy' phase is nearing it's well-deserved end.

[warsmith17]

At least what I favor is consistent with reality or scientific truth

Not that I agree with annatar but this statement is just blatantly untrue. You're literally the only poster whose ideas I see no value in. The system you advocate seems unsustainable and ultimately pointless. Perhaps I just don't understand your goals, but all I see are delusions of grandeur, and you imagining yourself as big brother.

[redcarpet]

Absolute monarchy, outright, is basically a myth. Hardly any monarch was able to act unilaterally on policy.

Some Kings like Charles the 1st forgot that.

[starman2003]

At any rate, the realities of the Modern Age, at the very least, suggest that it's liberal capitalist/'representative democracy' phase is nearing it's well-deserved end.

Yes indeed. It may not happen for several more decades, but I've long felt it's inevitable. But as science and technology advance so will Worldviews. We won't go back but forward.

Perhaps I just don't understand your goals, but all I see are delusions of grandeur, and you imagining yourself as big brother.

I never once said I would be a great leader. A future transition may not even be in my lifetime; it may not be until 2050-2100.

[annatar1914]

Absolute monarchy, outright, is basically a myth. Hardly any monarch was able to act unilaterally on policy.

Some Kings like Charles the 1st forgot that.

I'm not advocating that mythical 'absolute monarchy', what I'm advocating is Orthodox Autocracy, which is not 'unilateral' in that sense on policy by any means. Anglo-Saxon England was Orthodox, and was a good example of Orthodox Autocracy for it's time and place, prior to 1066 AD, and it had the 'Witanagemot', a kind of Senate. The hand of Autocracy upon the lives of it's subjects is almost Minarchist in practical terms, even when you examine Czarist Russia prior to 1917 this is still the case.

[starman2003]

a good example of Orthodox Autocracy for it's time and place, prior to 1066 AD

Here we are racing ahead technologically and scientifically and he thinks ideologically the clock can be turned back a thousand years. Won't happen.

[Potemkin]

There have been many conflicts over succession in monarchical systems. There weren't any in the USSR or China.

Actually, there were. Ever heard of Lavrenty Beria, or the Gang of Four?

[annatar1914]

Here we are racing ahead technologically and scientifically and he thinks ideologically the clock can be turned back a thousand years. Won't happen.

Good ideas and hard-won truths don't have an expiration date, are valid whether from 10 minutes or 10 centuries ago, and the course of human history can take a degenerative downturn or a progressive leap based on any number of factors.

So your assumptions about science and progress are simply un-scientific and non-progressive, ironically.

[Potemkin]

Good ideas and hard-won truths don't have an expiration date, are valid whether from 10 minutes or 10 centuries ago, and the course of human history can take a degenerative downturn or a progressive leap based on any number of factors.

So your assumptions about science and progress are simply un-scientific and non-progressive, ironically.

Indeed, he seems to have a rather linear and one-sided view of the historical process. In fact, the past constantly returns to transform the present and shape the future, just as ancient Roman Republicanism returned in the late 18th century to sweep away feudalism in revolutionary France, or the defeated Paris Commune returned to inspire the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. In other words, his thinking is mechanistic rather than dialectical, and ignores the internal contradictions and involutions of the historical process. 'Progress' is a highly non-linear thing, and is not subject to mechanistic causality. Rather, it is, as Walter Benjamin put it, "a storm blowing out of Paradise"....

[starman2003]

Good ideas and hard-won truths don't have an expiration date, are valid whether from 10 minutes or 10 centuries ago,

I do believe in some things which are older than medieval monarchy, such as hegemonism, Caesarism and the meritocracy of Plato's republic.

and the course of human history can take a degenerative downturn or a progressive leap based on any number of factors.

In a sense the clock will be turned back two thousand years but only in limited ways. By far the most likely scenario is for scientific and technical progress (coupled with crises) to give rise to a new secular worldview, the basis of a new nondemocratic or statist system.

In fact, the past constantly returns to transform the present and shape the future, just as ancient Roman Republicanism returned in the late 18th century to sweep away feudalism in revolutionary France...

I'm well aware of that. At our stage of history the most likely "rerun" will be the return of Caesarism at the expense of democracy. But some things die for good. Christianity continues to wane in the face of scientific and material progress and critical scholarship. It's foolish to think we'll soon--if ever again-- see a divine right monarchy.

[One Degree]

It's foolish to think we'll soon--if ever again-- see a divine right monarchy.

This dismisses the fact that the vast majority of humans still need religion to alleviate their fear of death.

This simple fact has controlled politics for thousands of years.

I see no reason it should be dismissed for the immediate future.

[SolarCross]

Ceasarism is a species of monarchism. Don't get too hung up on "divine right" type monarchism as being the only or default kind of monarchy. If anything divine right monarchy is atypical and only resulted because monarchs were getting soft (in a military sense), too dependant on lords with too much economic independence to be properly relied on for military back up and in the context where priestly snake oil merchants selling after life insurance had captured the loyalties of large mobs of civilians. Divine right was a weak attempt at a non-military support for rule. In a secular age monarchy would not wear that justification but it would be no less monarchy for that.

[starman2003]

This dismisses the fact that the vast majority of humans still need religion to alleviate their fear of death.

But unlike in the prescientific past religious types today tend to be less intelligent or educated hence less politically important (at least in western countries). And just because many people fear death doesn't mean they take religion as seriously as they did in the past--to the point where a political system is based on it.

This simple fact has controlled politics for thousands of years.

But not recently in western countries.

I see no reason it should be dismissed for the immediate future.

Maybe not totally in the immediate future.

Caesarism is a species of monarchism.

It was mostly that way in Rome but modern authoritarian systems are based on ideology not blood and tend to be more meritocratic.

[One Degree]

But not recently in western countries.

Are you unfamiliar with the impact of the Tea Party in the US? The entire Republican strategy is based upon religious conservatives.

Non stop war in the world due to religion. Religion only exists because we are afraid of death. How ironic. How pointless and stupid.

[starman2003]

The entire Republican strategy is based upon religious conservatives.

Entire?

Religion only exists because we are afraid of death. How ironic. How pointless and stupid.

Sure. But secularization has still made considerable strides. Someday we may be able to halt/reverse aging or conquer death. That'll be the final nail in the coffin of hogwash.