I Am A Paleo-Colonialist, Monarchal-Imperialist. - 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.
#14847055
So,

I am looking for some initial reactions to see what kind of general knee-jerk reactions there are to my position. This is a beta-test. After examining some initial reactions, I will start another thread where I will actually make some argument to spur some debate. I will only observe and ask questions on this thread.

So, I am a Paleo-Colonialist and a Monarchal-Imperialist. I go by Imperialist for short.

The major claims of the position are defined under general claims which are those claims which must be common to all who hold this position in order to qualify as being such. The specific claims refer specifically to what define the particular variety I propose.

I. General Claims.

1. Ethno-Cultural Civic Nationalism.

I am threading the needle on this because my position on this leaves room for some leeway, but it is definitely not "white nationalism" in the specific sense, but does not preclude "elements" of that. Rather, this tenant claims that the identity of a nation is NOT defined by a social contract, but by patriarchal and patrilineal origination of a historical culture that self-identifies as that nation. Hence, families and clans are acknowledged as the historic origin of a people on a particular land, who's national identity originated in history through the manifestation of some common cause and sense of destiny, and as a consequence; a shared culture; including and especially religion. For these reasons, Monarchy is necessary as a monarch represents the heir of the oldest patriarchy in the nation as the natural ruler. Another point in this position is that the "identity" of a person's children is determined by ethno-cultural identity of the father alone, of which the women and children are subsumed and assimilated. This implying that the historic practice of one ethnic group killing the men of another ethnic group and taking all of their women for reproductive purposes, does effectively result in the former ethnic group replacing the latter without committing a simultaneous suicide of its own identity.

2. The Domination Impulse.

This claim states that the rise and fall of civilizations is directly correlated to its expansive energy. Human beings desire not to merely survive, but to thrive and dominate, and this impulse is acknowledged as natural and moral under the proposed position. In order to prevent the nation from collapsing due to decadence and apathy, a nation must always have an exterior purpose that unifies the people to promote its values. A society that focuses on itself will eventually dominate itself through critique and deconstruction until it collapses, this is because the domination impulse must always be satisfied whether against others or against oneself.

3. Religious Unity and Justification.

This domination impulse and cause for expansion, as well as the establishing of those morals necessary (at home and abroad) to sustain such, must be justified by a state supported (or established) faith. In the case of my position, it is a robust Trinitarian and Augustinian Christianity. This is because, without a hearty theological and metaphysical grounds for a sense of morality, destiny, and imperative, the nation comes to question its values and loses steam. Likewise, without a metaphysical and divine grounds for rituals and traditions, cultural cohesion beings to fade away.

4. Fecundity.

For the preserving of a pro-military society, men and women are to have delegated roles, the woman's role is defined in terms of childbirth and women must be taught from an early age that their civic duty and sacrifice for the nation is child-birth, which is likewise, like all other values, religiously justified.

II. Specific Claims.

1. That the Anglo-sphere, and NOT the west or whites in general, represent an Ethno-Cultural Civic Nation-Group and should be unified under the English Monarchy after it has been reformed and restored to an authoritarian and traditionalist state of nature.

2. That the Anglo-Sphere could solve most of the world's "ills" through a re-colonization of its former Empire under fierce military campaign by a militarized and re-masculated culture and then maintained by a rigid governance of occupiers and anglo-sphere settlers.

3. That the restoration of a confessional and traditional Christian faith, to be supported by the state as a medium of citizenship, should be made.

4. That women's suffrage should be retracted, and the state enforcement and incentivization of childbirth made.
#14847057
1. That the Anglo-sphere, and NOT the west or whites in general, represent an Ethno-Cultural Civic Nation-Group and should be unified under the English Monarchy after it has been reformed and restored to an authoritarian and traditionalist state of nature.


Under what line? Surely not the current Saxe-Coburg Gotha bag of Protestant wank?

Their is a heir to the Stuart line alive today and his grandson was born in London. Time for another Jacobite rising?

Actually following on from that question what solution would you propose to the Protestant question? Their mental illness becoming widespread is when the west truly started to decline.
#14847061
The zenith of British Imperialism was under a protestant monarchy, so i'm not entirely convinced this is a protestant-catholic issue. Both have created and failed at empires and both old catholicism (pre-Vatican I) and old protestantism (pre-Lambeth Conference of 1930) were generally more nationalistic and patriarchal, both have declined since. I tend to agree with some current thinkers that there is a major traditionalist revolution boiling up in all of these groups that will result in a post-protestant/catholic divide. This is why I argued for Trinitarian and Augustinian Christianity. The faith must be orthodox and generally deterministic, one that ties the means of grace to the church, and advocates for a constantinianism (which in my opinion precludes post Vatican I catholicism), as well as advocates for episcopacy (because as King James I once said, "No Bishop, No King.").

Of course, for now, I would prefer to just get input instead of discussing major points, as I want to address objections in a thread that makes more of a polemical case. Like I said, this is just a beta-test release of my general theory with its major propositions. So if you would only ask questions for purpose of clarification and focus more on stating plain objections, that would be appreciated. I want to fine-tune the position and that would be a great help. Thanks.
#14847063
I tend to agree with some current thinkers that there is a major traditionalist revolution boiling up in all of these groups that will result in a post-protestant/catholic divide.


Disgusting, Protestants are no more Christian than a Muslim or a totem pole worsiping savage. You are no true trationalist. Trationalists burned Protestants at the stake.
#14847068
Ad-hominems? I didn't mention a single thing about you. Are you aware of the meaning of the term, pherhaps you meant something else? :eh:

I was dealing with a part of the argument you put forwards, I even quoted it my first post for your convenience.
#14847076
@Victoribus Spolia, you must understand that @Decky is an irredeemable Image and is therefore incapable of rational thought. Like everyone of the Image persuasion, he is ungrateful for the freedom that True Christianity™ provides.
#14847080
Decky wrote:Ad-hominems? I didn't mention a single thing about you. Are you aware of the meaning of the term, pherhaps you meant something else? :eh:

I was dealing with a part of the argument you put forwards, I even quoted it my first post for your convenience.


What argument? I gave clarification of my position against my better judgment because your tone was already hostile, and you replied with greater hostility and a clear dismissal of my position on the grounds that I was not a traditionalist and those of my persuasion should burn at the stake (ad hominem, red herring, etc) Dismissing my argument on the grounds of my person is ad-hominem, or at least tu qoque and discussing religion in-and-of itself is a red herring unless you can discuss it in a calm and relevant manner as it pertains to my proposals. There was no "dealing" with anything on your part. You could analyze the claims as stated and make an actual case for catholicism as it relates to political theory, i'm cool with hearing you out.....but you do not seem like someone who wants a rational dialogue, if you do, i'm all ears.
#14847100
Well, I think it's a completely ridiculous pie-in-the-sky dream, but at least a bit different to the standard alt-right edgelord stuff we've seen on the forum lately.

Main thoughts:
1. How exactly do you propose to unite the Anglosphere under the English monarchy when the entire civic identity of the United States is wrapped up in rejection of that monarchy?
2. Do you include Ireland in the Anglosphere, and if so, see question (1). I don't think there's a lot of point in trying to re-establish the Protestant English monarchy in Ireland, since it would require near-total genocide of the native population.
3. How do you justify the claim that the "state of nature" in the Anglosphere is "authoritarian and traditionalist" while praising the Protestant monarchy which is based on the 1688 settlement (hint: the Glorious Revolution was not authoritarian, and gave birth to English liberty as it is generally understood, in the form of the Bill of Rights of 1689).
4. How on earth would recolonisation of the old British Empire "solve most of the ills of the Anglosphere"? It would require massive expansion of the military to the point of bankrupting everyone, would most likely require nuclear war against India and Pakistan, and logically entails the genocide of about 2 billion people. This is a fantasy that makes Hitler's dream of exterminating the whole of Russia sound positively sane.
5. What is the inherent benefit of a "pro-military society"? Is a large military an end in itself?
6. Why are women to be reduced to nothing more than vessels for childbirth? What on earth is this supposed to accomplish?

Basically it reads to me like an attempt to fit "the Anglosphere" into the Nazi template.
#14847109
7) Also the reduction of women to mere babdy tubes would inevitably lead to a crash in living standards. There is a reason the Islamic world is a shit place to live after all. If you piss away 50% of all of your human potential by chaining it to a cooker or a bed you are wasting countless millions of workers, scientists and other socially usefull people. Sure you would get more kids but you are just playing catch up for all the minds you loose in the first place by pissing half of them up the wall.
#14847115
Thanks for the objections/questions!

I guess I should caution you against making the assumption that there is a single acceptable outcome when it comes to political movements. Like any political movement, ideology, or party, there is a spectrum on the acceptability scale. As example, the Alt. Right might want Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany, but they are generally supportive and accepting of Trump's agenda. So....when it comes to my "specific claims" there is both the "Ideal" scenario and the "Realistic-Yet-Acceptable" scenario. The ideal, would be a revitalized British Empire that includes the United States united under a powerful and border-line theocratic King spreading commerce, civilization, and Christianity though-out the whole world with a country whose populace is prosperous, universally employed, and where nearly every man has a wife and home full of children and all attend church together with a common faith. That is the wet-dream version for me, but I acknowledge this is not the "Realistic-Yet-Acceptable" scenario."

That being said, a realistic scenario would likely be that the same cultural forces that created Trump and Brexit coalesce in response to some sort of world crisis while nationalism and traditionalism continue to grow. The Anglo-Sphere under such conditions could arise with a common military mission and even a common currency, the monarchy could rise as the "strong-man" solution to inefficient governance on both sides of the atlantic and the Anglican church could restrict its morals out of the growing traditionalists demands and a broader "pan-Christian" ethos could arise that the anglo-sphere alliance could generally support in its cause, and women could be given tax credits and debt forgiveneness for children born to curb growing infertility rates. I do not think this scenario is really that unrealistic. the monarchy's future is about to change, the european union is in trouble, and belief in republicanism in the anglosphere is being supplanted by the desire for a strong-man. A desire to continue the petro-based economies (and necessity to maintain the petro-dollar)of the west and a growing antipathy to Islamic extremism could result in a more ethno-cultural nationalism here coupled with a clear need to maintain these resources through conquest and colonization. For the British this will be a homecoming and for Americans this would be just another day in the park. I do not think its pie-in-the-sky at all and could slowly evolve closer to my ideal vision over time.

As far as recolonization solving problems: poverty, bad environmental practices, and genocide are a result of post-colonialism for the most part, especially in Africa, there is no reason to believe that these countries are better off without colonization, and no reason to think we are better off culturally or economically, and unlike the alt. right, I believe in a white burden to fix our messes and bring these peoples into the true faith, give them the benefits of civilization, and access to global commerce.

as far as militarism and fecundity: well, a masculine and militarist society does not have the feminized tendencies of our current weak western societies. Militarism teaches heroism in battle as a high virtue, discipline, and self-defense. Likewise, women producing children is statistically shown to be their happiest state and a reproductive female populace results in more tax payers, soldiers, and workers that prevent the need of immigration which has historically toppled empires.The expansion of sexual opportunities and women rights, in all civilizations, has been correlated with their decline. Without exception.

Other Answers:

1. I do not think Southern Ireland could be part of an anglo-sphere alliance, I could be convinced otherwise, but that is my gut reaction. Irish Nationalism was a big problem in the Old British Empire and created serious fissures in its self-confidence even then.

2. When I said "Authoritarian and Traditionalist state of nature", I was referring to the Monarchy itself. That is, the monarchy's state of nature is authoritarianism and traditionalism.
The Monarchy after the glorious revolution still had a lot of power, arguably even until the 20th century, but I do think Parliament became too powerful, in fact, it was the Parliament's reforms and not King George that led to the American Revolution. Most Americans were pro-Monarchy at the time of the revolution and it was the Parliament that created the new taxes and problems for the American colonies.

3. I do not think going after India and Pakistan would be a priority, but neither do I think they would be difficult to conquer, I think it could be done by a united anglosphere without a single nuke being fired. Perhaps we'll have a good experiment on how such a scenario would go down once America gets through with North Korea.

I understand you comparing my views to the Nazis and the Alt. Right, but the Alt. Right despise a whole host of my views as stated and I personally thinking there exists a major worldview difference between National Socialism and British Imperialism.
#14847116
Decky wrote:7) Also the reduction of women to mere babdy tubes would inevitably lead to a crash in living standards. There is a reason the Islamic world is a shit place to live after all. If you piss away 50% of all of your human potential by chaining it to a cooker or a bed you are wasting countless millions of workers, scientists and other socially usefull people. Sure you would get more kids but you are just playing catch up for all the minds you loose in the first place by pissing half of them up the wall.


This claim cannot be substantiated. The Marriage Act in Nazi Germany was arguably the main reason they got out of their depression according to all scholars on the Third Reich and they did exactly what I am suggesting. The reason that Islamic states failed is because they could not maintain western-like economies without western oversight. Think of Egypt, from the time of its Independence from the British until its descent until islamization was barely a couple of decades and its economic contribution to the world did not improve post-colonialism. The problem with the Islamic world is Islam and its adherents, not its views on gender.

Besides, for being such a good papist, you have some pretty "progressive" views on childbearing, I just wonder where you really stand as a supposed greater catholic and traditionalist than I?
#14847117
Victoribus Spolia wrote:For these reasons, Monarchy is necessary as a monarch represents the heir of the oldest patriarchy in the nation as the natural ruler.


A Monarchist. Rare on here. Why do you believe someone should be born into power and not earn this? Why do you think a monarchy is necessary over a democracy?

For the preserving of a pro-military society, men and women are to have delegated roles, the woman's role is defined in terms of childbirth and women must be taught from an early age that their civic duty and sacrifice for the nation is child-birth, which is likewise, like all other values, religiously justified.


Women sole purpose is childbirth? Are you sure you're definately not a white supremacist. :lol:

1. That the Anglo-sphere, and NOT the west or whites in general, represent an Ethno-Cultural Civic Nation-Group and should be unified under the English Monarchy after it has been reformed and restored to an authoritarian and traditionalist state of nature.


Define anglosphere? Unified over someone who inherits power rather than elected. What happens if the monarch was Donald Trump? Should we unite over him? :lol:

2. That the Anglo-Sphere could solve most of the world's "ills" through a re-colonization of its former Empire under fierce military campaign by a militarized and re-masculated culture and then maintained by a rigid governance of occupiers and anglo-sphere settlers.


Because military campaigns haven't resulted in the world's ills today. Your solution is more wars. :lol:

3. That the restoration of a confessional and traditional Christian faith, to be supported by the state as a medium of citizenship, should be made.


Yippee. Suppressive Faith.

4. That women's suffrage should be retracted, and the state enforcement and incentivization of childbirth made.


So you're sexist.
#14847119
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Rather, this tenant claims that the identity of a nation is NOT defined by a social contract, but by patriarchal and patrilineal origination of a historical culture that self-identifies as that nation. Hence, families and clans are acknowledged as the historic origin of a people on a particular land, who's national identity originated in history through the manifestation of some common cause and sense of destiny, and as a consequence; a shared culture; including and especially religion. For these reasons, Monarchy is necessary as a monarch represents the heir of the oldest patriarchy in the nation as the natural ruler. Another point in this position is that the "identity" of a person's children is determined by ethno-cultural identity of the father alone, of which the women and children are subsumed and assimilated. This implying that the historic practice of one ethnic group killing the men of another ethnic group and taking all of their women for reproductive purposes, does effectively result in the former ethnic group replacing the latter without committing a simultaneous suicide of its own identity.


As has been pointed out, the problem with some of this reasoning is that—even if we are to entertain the dubious idea that families and clans are the origin of a people—there is a problem as to which one of these families and clans should be the monarch. And to add religion into the mix makes it a more volatile mix, historically speaking. And, as demonstrated, this probably extends today.

I would encourage you to think about why these systems developed in the first place. In my view, the families that mattered within the timeframe we're speaking about were intimately connected and identified with land in a way that we are not any more. I see difficulty in trying to create the superstructure you propose without going back to a feudal base. Do you, ultimately, want to go back to feudalism? This, itself, is problematic as production is considerably lower...

This claim states that the rise and fall of civilizations is directly correlated to its expansive energy. Human beings desire not to merely survive, but to thrive and dominate, and this impulse is acknowledged as natural and moral under the proposed position. In order to prevent the nation from collapsing due to decadence and apathy, a nation must always have an exterior purpose that unifies the people to promote its values. A society that focuses on itself will eventually dominate itself through critique and deconstruction until it collapses, this is because the domination impulse must always be satisfied whether against others or against oneself.


I would, again, ask you to critically look at why this has been the case. Is it mere nature? If so, how do you account for those that do not want to dominate and thrive, but instead paint a picture in a garage? If everyone walks away from a nation, is it necessarily a bad thing? And if it is, why? What does the national impulse give that is worth preserving—and more importantly—why does this impulse exist in the first place?

This domination impulse and cause for expansion, as well as the establishing of those morals necessary (at home and abroad) to sustain such, must be justified by a state supported (or established) faith. In the case of my position, it is a robust Trinitarian and Augustinian Christianity. This is because, without a hearty theological and metaphysical grounds for a sense of morality, destiny, and imperative, the nation comes to question its values and loses steam. Likewise, without a metaphysical and divine grounds for rituals and traditions, cultural cohesion beings to fade away.


Historically nationalism has been separated from the Church (this is part of the Protestant reformation) and this was done for a material reason. Again, I'd encourage you to look deeper and explain why you think things are the way that they are. To my mind, this is what makes a compelling argument or ideology.

For the preserving of a pro-military society, men and women are to have delegated roles, the woman's role is defined in terms of childbirth and women must be taught from an early age that their civic duty and sacrifice for the nation is child-birth, which is likewise, like all other values, religiously justified.


Strictly through education, or through force? If I wanted an anal-and-oral-only girlfriend because we shared a particular kink about her being deprived of certain forms of pleasure in the bedroom, would the police come and haul me off? Or would I be educated in a certain way to view sex as only procreation? This has been problematic in the past; even at the height of the British Empire the general form was that a respectable class of women were suited for motherhood and should not enjoy sex, while another class were suited to enjoy sex and have it with married men in exchange for money.

Why would this have developed, and what would you do to address this?

The other points are well enough covered by others, though I will reiterate that you'd essentially have to genocide the Irish and the Americans to make this happen, which doesn't seem likely.
#14847126
B0ycey wrote:A Monarchist. Rare on here. Why do you believe someone should be born into power and not earn this? Why do you think a monarchy is necessary over a democracy?


I suppose I could ask why do you feel they should have to earn it? However, my real answer is that monarchy is the state of nature from the natural and historic development of nations from family units governed by fathers. That is, groups of families, joining together, and intermarrying, are the origin of the nation and the structure of that nation under monarchy is merely a continuation and extension of the natural family model that serves as the basic unit. The king is ethnically related to his people and rules as representative of them as a father over his family, or a lord over his clan. Why this natural structure is preferred to later inventions such as the social contract and democracy is demonstrated by historically observed stability. Monarchies last longer and are more stable and democracies revert back to monarchal or authoritarian systems overtime, we are headed there now.

B0ycey wrote:Women sole purpose is childbirth? Are you sure you're definately not a white supremacist.


Not "sole" purpose, but definitely her primary "civic" purpose. When childbearing is abandoned as the primary civic service for women a rise of infertility and social decadence emerges which eventually results in overall civic apathy on the part of the populace, moral decadence, and a need for mass immigration from foreign nations that results in the nation's eventual collapse. There are no exceptions to this as a historical pattern for civilizations and they have all tried it. The expansion of sexual opportunity ALWAYS leads to the collapse of civilizations.

B0ycey wrote:Define anglosphere? Unified over someone who inherits power rather than elected. What happens if the monarch was Donald Trump? Should we unite over him?


The Anglosphere is, at the least, the United Kingdom, Canada, The United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

I cannot conceive of Trump becoming such a monarch, but if he does and effectively unites the anglosphere in the ways I have outlined, then yes we should. That would be an "Imperium" scenario like the rise of the Caesars in Rome, which were effectively expansionist Monarchs.

B0ycey wrote:Because military campaigns haven't resulted in the world's ills today. Your solution is more wars.


Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

The Pax Romana and Pax Brittanica were not accomplished by pacifism, and as Edmund Burke once said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Pacifism does nothing and we allow the evils that go on in the middle-east and Africa to continue even though the implementation of our worldview there could solve it. That is the triumph of evil.

B0ycey wrote:Yippee. Suppressive Faith.


Irreligion has never benefited a civilization's survival and people left to their own devices always tend to irreligion, it is therefore in the interest of civilization to promote religion, especially true religion.

B0ycey wrote:So you're sexist.


That depends on your definition. I affirm that Anglo-Saxon civilization ought to survive and thrive, but historically that is impossible if women have expanded sexual opportunity and political enfranchisement outside of the family role of producing children. So I cannot be pro-civilization, pro-western, pro-Christian, or any such values and support feminism in any sense whatsoever, the two are opposed at their root. I choose Civilization and when its survival is threatened (which is coming soon) most people will end up agreeing with me. The time is coming. buckle up.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

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[…]