[SolarCross]

Here I am going to present my own take on the Reactionary Political Model which is emerging from the writings of the Neo-Reactionaries. The reason for doing this is that many of my future writings on analysis, tactics, predictions will reference this model so its good to have an explication of it in place to save repetition. It is a model in the sense of being a description of reality. It is not a prescription for reality to emulate.

For the purpose of this model the following definitions are used:
Power is the use of force to achieve goals.
Policy is the plan or course of action employed to achieve a goal.
Political Power is the normative right to determine, or delegate to others, the policy of power.
A Polity is a group of individuals that share a mutual allegiance or at least a mutual association.
A State is the territorial possession of a Polity.
A Sovereign is defined as an individual who has political power without effective accountability to any other human being.

Observation I

Political power is easily lost or given away but is not easily recovered. When political power is lost it can either be passed on intact or divided. If political power is divided it is hard to make them whole again and more the numerous the divisions the still harder it is to re-unite them.

Observation II

Political power when divided amongst different human wills will tend to lose alignment with each other and fall into opposition and then enmity. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A polity divided against each other by division of political power will first lose coherent policy and then coherent order. When political power is so divided that it can be divided no more then there is no order only enmity and the polity is polity no more.

The following graphics chart the entropic decline of political order through division of power. (courtesy of the Radish)




Once order is totally collapsed and enmity is individual and universal, this is the anarchy. In an anarchy political entropy has reached its fullest extent, there is therefore no effective resistance to the renewal of order. From a state of anarchy new political orders can emerge.

[Saeko]

Observation I

Political power is easily lost or given away but is not easily recovered. When political power is lost it can either be passed on intact or divided. If political power is divided it is hard to make them whole again and more the numerous the divisions the still harder it is to re-unite them.

Observation II

Political power when divided amongst different human wills will tend to lose alignment with each other and fall into opposition and then enmity. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A polity divided against each other by division of political power will first lose coherent policy and then coherent order. When political power is so divided that it can be divided no more then there is no order only enmity and the polity is polity no more.

I would say that for a give individual or group power is easily lost but is not easily recovered. Nonetheless, when power is lost by one it tends to be acquired by another. And since the already powerful are in the best position to acquire more power, power tends to accrue to the top, even if it does not consistently favor any single individual or group in the long run. Political schisms where a single polity is divided into two or more equal parts are extremely rare.

Even in the case where power is shared equally between two or more factions, this is an extremely unstable situation. Very quickly, one faction overtakes all of the others. Either that or the whole polity is conquered piece by piece from the outside.

I completely disagree with your entropic view of power, i.e. that it tends to decay over time. For example, one could easily make the case that the US today is more powerful than any British King's wet dream.

[SolarCross]

I completely disagree with your entropic view of power, i.e. that it tends to decay over time. For example, one could easily make the case that the US today is more powerful than any British King's wet dream.

The US is powerful the way an erupting volcano is powerful: immensely violent but unintelligent, undirected and ineffective. I do not call this political power and it is of no use for sustainable civilisation.

Evidence:
US war policy - Always illogical but in latter decades totally insane.
Government Finances - To avoid repeating myself I refer you to my posts in the thread - Revolution Possible?
Suppression of Crime - Enormously resourced yet totally ineffective.

[Saeko]

The US is powerful the way an erupting volcano is powerful: immensely violent but unintelligent, undirected and ineffective. I do not call this political power and it of no use for sustainable civilisation.

Evidence:
US war policy - Always illogical but in latter decades totally insane.

Can you point to some specific examples of "unintelligent, undirected, ineffective, illogical, or totally insane" policies?

Government Finances - To avoid repeating myself I refer you to my posts in the thread - Revolution Possible?

"Responsible" fiscal policy (however you're defining that) is no measure of power. The government must spend money because its master (big business) commands it to. Looting the public treasury in order to enrich oneself is one of the few constants of politics across history and cultures.

Suppression of Crime - Enormously resourced yet totally ineffective

The US is actually one of the safest places to live on the planet. I would hardly describe its law enforcement as "totally ineffective".

[SolarCross]

Can you point to some specific examples of "unintelligent, undirected, ineffective, illogical, or totally insane" policies?

How about the bombing of yugoslavia?

In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo. NATO airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined.

War is never pretty, but it takes a democracy in the last stages of decay to wage a war for no rational purpose at all. No existential threat was countered. No territories gained. No prestige or glory won. It is was just random violence like the frenzied attack of frothy mouthed crack head.

"Responsible" fiscal policy (however you're defining that) is no measure of power. The government must spend money because its master (big business) commands it to. Looting the public treasury in order to enrich oneself is one of the few constants of politics across history and cultures.

"The sinews of war are infinite money" as Cicero warns. Sustainable power requires not just good governance of men but also good governance of money and other resources. The fact that you identify external agencies, various business interests, as being the "master" of government already shows you believe your government is weak. It is isn't just business that is gorging on the exposed entrails of the great beast, so are all manner of special interest groups, activists, think tanks, journalists, foreign governments, NGOs and all manner of other rabble. A strong government is sovereign within its domain and takes orders from no one and not a flyblown corpse feeding all manner of pests.

The US is actually one of the safest places to live on the planet. I would hardly describe its law enforcement as "totally ineffective".

If you compare the US with somewhere the US is currently bombing into the stone age or somewhere equally plagued by democracy, like most of Africa, then sure everything is peachy.

[Saeko]

How about the bombing of yugoslavia?

War is never pretty, but it takes a democracy in the last stages of decay to wage a war for no rational purpose at all. No existential threat was countered. No territories gained. No prestige or glory won. It is was just random violence like the frenzied attack of frothy mouthed crack head.

The goal of that war was to topple the Milosevic regime and force Serbia to accept the economic policies that the US was imposing on the rest of Europe. The war was successful in that it achieved its goals, and those goals clearly served the interests of the American capitalists. So unless there's some part of this story you disagree with, I don't see how you can say that the bombing of Yugoslavia was "just random violence".

The sinews of war are infinite money" as Cicero warns. Sustainable power requires not just good governance of men but also good governance of money and other resources. The fact that you identify external agencies, various business interests, as being the "master" of government already shows you believe your government is weak. It is isn't just business that is gorging on the exposed entrails of the great beast, so are all manner of special interest groups, activists, think tanks, journalists, foreign governments, NGOs and all manner of other rabble. A strong government is sovereign within its domain and takes orders from no one and not a flyblown corpse feeding all manner of pests.

You're right. I do believe that the US government is weak. But I certainly don't believe that the real masters of the US government are weak. I don't understand why you focus exclusively on the power of the state when it is clear that you believe that groups outside of the government have historically been strong enough to humble all the states of the world.

If you compare the US with somewhere the US is currently bombing into the stone age or somewhere equally plagued by democracy, like most of Africa, then sure everything is peachy.

How is Africa plagued by democracy? Most African countries are either outright dictatorships or de facto dictatorships. The most successful African countries are also the most democratic.

Additionally, how can you explain the relatively lower crime rates found in countries in Europe, Japan, and Australia when they are quite arguably even more democratic than the US?

[SolarCross]

The goal of that war was to topple the Milosevic regime and force Serbia to accept the economic policies that the US was imposing on the rest of Europe. The war was successful in that it achieved its goals, and those goals clearly served the interests of the American capitalists. So unless there's some part of this story you disagree with, I don't see how you can say that the bombing of Yugoslavia was "just random violence".

It was random. Its inconceivable that so much violence could be perpetrated on such a scale without some great cunning plan for good or evil, the mind just can't digest it, so people including politicians create rational sounding narratives to explain it. Economic policies, intimidating Russia, saving democracy, preventing humanitarian catastrophes, preparing the ground for a puppet regime, part of some elaborate hidden plan by the illuminati... but its just looking at shapeless clouds and seeing dragons or elephants. It was just a welling up of violence from the bowels of the bureaucracy, like a fart or a boil popping.

"every now and again the United States has to pick up a crappy little country and throw it against a wall just to prove we are serious." - Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute

Even this quote is a rationalisation but its getting closer to the truth. There comes a time when you just have to stop explaining in rational terms behaviour which not rational, if no other reason than to preserve one's own sanity.

You're right. I do believe that the US government is weak. But I certainly don't believe that the real masters of the US government are weak. I don't understand why you focus exclusively on the power of the state when it is clear that you believe that groups outside of the government have historically been strong enough to humble all the states of the world.

Still looking for dragons in the clouds. There is no one in charge, there is no illuminati and the CEOs of General Electric and Morgan Stanley are just some of the many tapeworms feeding in the guts of the mad beast. Its not even a case of the tail wagging the dog, its the fleas wagging the dog.

How is Africa plagued by democracy? Most African countries are either outright dictatorships or de facto dictatorships. The most successful African countries are also the most democratic.

Additionally, how can you explain the relatively lower crime rates found in countries in Europe, Japan, and Australia when they are quite arguably even more democratic than the US?

The most successful african countries were autocracies until they became democracies and then they all went to hell.
The best countries in Europe, by a significant margin are constitutional monarchies. The democratic parts of government are overtly or covertly answerable to the monarch. Its not that different from an absolute monarch delegating affairs of state to a minister except she gets her ministers through a democratic lottery instead of by considered appointment. Japan is the same, Japan is a constitutional monarchy. Australia is constitutional monarchy by proxy. The elected representatives are somewhat answerable to a governor-general who is appointed by the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom. Canada is the same too.

[Saeko]

It was random. Its inconceivable that so much violence could be perpetrated on such a scale without some great cunning plan for good or evil, the mind just can't digest it, so people including politicians create rational sounding narratives to explain it. Economic policies, intimidating Russia, saving democracy, preventing humanitarian catastrophes, preparing the ground for a puppet regime, part of some elaborate hidden plan by the illuminati... but its just looking at shapeless clouds and seeing dragons or elephants. It was just a welling up of violence from the bowels of the bureaucracy, like a fart or a boil popping.

Even this quote is a rationalisation but its getting closer to the truth. There comes a time when you just have to stop explaining in rational terms behaviour which not rational, if no other reason than to preserve one's own sanity.

This is just psychologizing. I don't care why you think people don't agree with you that the attack on Yugoslavia was purposeless and random. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of documented evidence that clearly proves that the goal of the war was to force Serbia and the other Balkan states to accept a certain set of economic policies. Thus far, you don't have any evidence that contradicts it.

Still looking for dragons in the clouds. There is no one in charge, there is no illuminati and the CEOs of General Electric and Morgan Stanley are just some of the many tapeworms feeding in the guts of the mad beast. Its not even a case of the tail wagging the dog, its the fleas wagging the dog.

You're just restating your original claim. I still don't understand how you can justify ignoring the fleas when they're strong enough to wag the whole dog

The most successful african countries were autocracies until they became democracies and then they all went to hell.

Any specific examples? As it is right now, the most successful African countries are democracies, and the least successful are autocracies.

The best countries in Europe, by a significant margin are constitutional monarchies. The democratic parts of government are overtly or covertly answerable to the monarch. Its not that different from an absolute monarch delegating affairs of state to a minister except she gets her ministers through a democratic lottery instead of by considered appointment. Japan is the same, Japan is a constitutional monarchy. Australia is constitutional monarchy by proxy. The elected representatives are somewhat answerable to a governor-general who is appointed by the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom. Canada is the same too.

None of these are de facto monarchies, which is what counts. The monarchs in none of these states have any actual power, nor does anyone actually have to "answer" to them. But even then you've completely left out France, Germany, and Finland.

You also forgot to take into account actual present day monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Thailand, neither of which anybody is too excited to live in.

[SolarCross]

This is just psychologizing. I don't care why you think people don't agree with you that the attack on Yugoslavia was purposeless and random. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of documented evidence that clearly proves that the goal of the war was to force Serbia and the other Balkan states to accept a certain set of economic policies. Thus far, you don't have any evidence that contradicts it.

So what were the economic policies they were supposed to adopt? Did they adopt them? How did the US government (or anybody) benefit from those policies more than what it cost to impose them (military expeditures, human lives, reputation etc.)? If the purpose was just to get some economic policies adopted why didn't they just threaten war first?
Can we have some links to this documented evidence?

You're just restating your original claim. I still don't understand how you can justify ignoring the fleas when they're strong enough to wag the whole dog

I don't ignore them, but in an effective government with unity of command they wouldn't matter and they wouldn't be wagging anything. If they are nice and polite they can keep there businesses, but you can't bribe a king, if they start playing games then they will be lucky to keep their heads attached to their shoulders.

The most successful african countries were autocracies until they became democracies and then they all went to hell.

Any specific examples? As it is right now, the most successful African countries are democracies, and the least successful are autocracies.

Libya under Gaddafi was a successful African country, now anarchic / democratic now gone to hell. Ethiopia under Emperor Haile Sellassie was successful, now democratic and now gone to hell. The Congo under the rule of the Kingdom of Belgium was successful, now democratic now gone to hell. Swaziland is ruled by a absolute monarch King Mswati III - stable, peaceful, though not super prosperous. Morocco is a kingdom and relatively stable and prosperous.
If you look at a list of the countries ranked the very poorest they are all democratic republics and most of them African.

Can you cite specific examples?

None of these are de facto monarchies, which is what counts. The monarchs in none of these states have any actual power, nor does anyone actually have to "answer" to them. But even then you've completely left out France, Germany, and Finland.

They are defacto monarchies that have lost or conceded some political power to elected representatives however invariably the monarchy holds some real powers in reserve: The Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown as do members of parliament, the prime minister regularly is required by custom to meet with the monarch to explain himself and get feedback and the monarch retains the formal power to dissolve parliament and veto any act passed by parliament. A pale shadow of the monarch's former powers but it is not insignificant for keeping politicians relatively well behaved.

France and Germany are not so great actually, despite Germany industrial prowess, they rather below almost all of the European monarchies: The Kingdom of Norway, The Kingdom of Sweden, The Principality of Liechtenstein, The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, The Kingdom of the Netherlands...
The UK and the Kingdom of Belgium is on about the same level as France and Germany but the UK and Belgium are the most democratic of all the European monarchies.

You also forgot to take into account actual present day monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and Thailand, neither of which anybody is too excited to live in.

Saudi Arabia recieves a steady stream of people going there (from democratic countries) for paying work. You probably wouldn't want to live there but I am guessing that has more to do with the local culture than its form of government. I could also have mentioned Qatar (absolute monarchy and richest country in the world by GDP per capita) and the UAE a loose association of 7 emirates (absolute monarchies albeit very small ones). Lots of people from the west like to go to Thailand, its one of the better countries to go to in south east asia.

[Far-Right Sage]

So what were the economic policies they were supposed to adopt? Did they adopt them? How did the US government (or anybody) benefit from those policies more than what it cost to impose them (military expeditures, human lives, reputation etc.)? If the purpose was just to get some economic policies adopted why didn't they just threaten war first?
Can we have some links to this documented evidence?

I can't be certain if you've seen this, but it's an excellent film documenting every aspect of the financial colonization of the Balkans and South Slavic people which was set into motion once the Cold War was out of the way in the early 90's via the stoking of inter-ethnic quarrels and secession to destroy a truly remarkable market-socialist model and one of Europe's last independent states. It seems like yesterday the tragedy was unfolding. I suppose a few years back they added it as a video on the internet over the video collection website:

[youtube]waEYQ46gH08[/youtube]

No better source to document in the same amount of time how centuries of tension over various issues minor and major was exploited at just the most opportune moment and channeled into a frenzy of ethnic cleansing on all sides by international commercial interests and the Western behemoth they lead by the nose. How the deliberate creation of a civil conflict to tear asunder someone else's country in a scripted formula we have seen repeatedly used since led to a terror bombing offensive led to the puppetization of a divided and impotent Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, and to a large extent, indeed Serbia, that we see today.

The Congo under the rule of the Kingdom of Belgium was successful

This point of yours requires some definite revision...

[SolarCross]

I can't be certain if you've seen this, but it's an excellent film documenting every aspect of the financial colonization of the Balkans and South Slavic people which was set into motion once the Cold War was out of the way in the early 90's via the stoking of inter-ethnic quarrels and secession to destroy a truly remarkable market-socialist model and one of Europe's last independent states. It seems like yesterday the tragedy was unfolding. I suppose a few years back they added it as a video on the internet over the video collection website:

....

No better source to document in the same amount of time how centuries of tension over various issues minor and major was exploited at just the most opportune moment and channeled into a frenzy of ethnic cleansing on all sides by international commercial interests and the Western behemoth they lead by the nose. How the deliberate creation of a civil conflict to tear asunder someone else's country in a scripted formula we have seen repeatedly used since led to a terror bombing offensive led to the puppetization of a divided and impotent Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, and to a large extent, indeed Serbia, that we see today.

I have just finished watching the video (no hadn't seen it before). My impression is that Tito should have secured his legacy by making himself formally monarch of yugoslavia. If he had done this and trained a successor, perhaps one his own sons, then yugoslavia could have withstood both internal and external malfeasance and remained prosperous and united. Of course he was working under the communist ideology so making this move would have been ideologically difficult to justify but in hindsight necessary.

The history of yugoslavia's decline after Tito is almost a "textbook" example of the Reactionary Political Model.
WW2 (-1943) - Anarchy -> War enough said.
Tito (1943-1980) - (defacto if not formal) Monarchy -> All good.
Republican Government / League of Communists (1980 - 1990) - Aristocracy -> Things starting to look shaky.
Multi-party democracy (1990 - 1991) - Democracy -> Disunity kicking up a notch or two.
Various soldiers, police, journalists, foreign NGOs, activists etc (1991 - ) - Bureaucracy -> Rapid descent into..
Yugoslav wars (1991 - ) - Anarchy -> Crash and burn.

[Saeko]

So what were the economic policies they were supposed to adopt? Did they adopt them? How did the US government (or anybody) benefit from those policies more than what it cost to impose them (military expeditures, human lives, reputation etc.)? If the purpose was just to get some economic policies adopted why didn't they just threaten war first?
Can we have some links to this documented evidence?

What do you think of the rationality of the bombing of Yugoslavia after watching Far-Right-Sage's video? I was hoping you would give a comment about that in your latest post.

I don't ignore them, but in an effective government with unity of command they wouldn't matter and they wouldn't be wagging anything. If they are nice and polite they can keep there businesses, but you can't bribe a king, if they start playing games then they will be lucky to keep their heads attached to their shoulders.

Now you're changing the subject. It doesn't matter how the fleas would be dealt with in a monarchy, what matters is your belief in whether or not they can be strong enough to replace the state when it is weakened. If you don't agree with that, then, yes, you are unjustifiably ignoring them.

Libya under Gaddafi was a successful African country, now anarchic / democratic now gone to hell. Ethiopia under Emperor Haile Sellassie was successful, now democratic and now gone to hell. The Congo under the rule of the Kingdom of Belgium was successful, now democratic now gone to hell. Swaziland is ruled by a absolute monarch King Mswati III - stable, peaceful, though not super prosperous. Morocco is a kingdom and relatively stable and prosperous.
If you look at a list of the countries ranked the very poorest they are all democratic republics and most of them African.

Libya's situation is best explained by the US's bombing the place to hell. It certainly isn't a democracy by any stretch of the imagination, seeing as it doesn't even currently have an organized government.

As for Congo, are you even serious? You do realize that King Leopold II enslaved and otherwise murdered the entire native population to extract a few rocks from the dirt right? Is that your idea of a successful country? You also blithely proclaim Congo a democracy gone to hell, while completely ignoring Mobutu Sese Seko's tyrannical reign.

I don't know much about the history of the others, but it's telling that the most you can say for them is that they are "relatively" stable but not "super" prosperous.

They are defacto monarchies that have lost or conceded some political power to elected representatives however invariably the monarchy holds some real powers in reserve: The Armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown as do members of parliament, the prime minister regularly is required by custom to meet with the monarch to explain himself and get feedback and the monarch retains the formal power to dissolve parliament and veto any act passed by parliament. A pale shadow of the monarch's former powers but it is not insignificant for keeping politicians relatively well behaved.

No, they are not "de facto monarchies" that have lost or conceded "some" political power to elected representatives and then hold some "real" powers in reserve. A terminally ill patient is not a healthy patient that has merely lost "some" aspect of health. Even if these monarchs retain some formal powers, the whole point is that they can't actually exercise any of these formal powers precisely because they don't have any actual powers.

France and Germany are not so great actually, despite Germany industrial prowess, they rather below almost all of the European monarchies: The Kingdom of Norway, The Kingdom of Sweden, The Principality of Liechtenstein, The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, The Kingdom of the Netherlands...
The UK and the Kingdom of Belgium is on about the same level as France and Germany but the UK and Belgium are the most democratic of all the European monarchies.

They are all de facto representative republics.

Saudi Arabia recieves a steady stream of people going there (from democratic countries) for paying work. You probably wouldn't want to live there but I am guessing that has more to do with the local culture than its form of government. I could also have mentioned Qatar (absolute monarchy and richest country in the world by GDP per capita) and the UAE a loose association of 7 emirates (absolute monarchies albeit very small ones). Lots of people from the west like to go to Thailand, its one of the better countries to go to in south east asia.

Saudi Arabia's government is extremely oppressive, and often uses torture and mutilation as punishment for crimes or political dissent. It's also one of the most resource rich places on Earth, but leave it to the royal family to use that natural wealth to impoverish the people while enriching themselves. Qatar and the UAE are also extremely unequal, and Thailand sucks for similar reasons.

[SolarCross]

What do you think of the rationality of the bombing of Yugoslavia after watching Far-Right-Sage's video? I was hoping you would give a comment about that in your latest post.

Well clearly there was opportunism on the part of all manner of western organisations in the run up to the bombing and its aftermath.. If you want to call that rationality, fine, but I see it as a very low chaotic sort of "rationality". It is not very much like the old way of conquests, which to a great extent was very measured and calculated and aimed to take the target state intact as far as possible and then sustainably develop it once secured.
On the macroscopic level the bombing of yugoslavia still looks insane to me although on the finer level plainly various actors were consciously profiting from the parts they played.

Now you're changing the subject. It doesn't matter how the fleas would be dealt with in a monarchy, what matters is your belief in whether or not they can be strong enough to replace the state when it is weakened. If you don't agree with that, then, yes, you are unjustifiably ignoring them.

Well its a matter of perspective, are the fleas really strong or is it just that the dog is really weak even dead? Did the fleas kill the dog or were they just taking advantage of its inevitable decline?

Libya's situation is best explained by the US's bombing the place to hell. It certainly isn't a democracy by any stretch of the imagination, seeing as it doesn't even currently have an organized government.

True though it does have a notional democratic government although none of the competing factions are paying it any attention. The Western countries aren't bombing Libya anymore though, not since 2011.

As for Congo, are you even serious? You do realize that King Leopold II enslaved and otherwise murdered the entire native population to extract a few rocks from the dirt right? Is that your idea of a successful country? You also blithely proclaim Congo a democracy gone to hell, while completely ignoring Mobutu Sese Seko's tyrannical reign.

Well there is another side of the story to the Belgium Congo which is quite different to the one put out by the friends of Cecil Rhodes in London and Washington... I think to some extent Leopold was the target of a smear campaign not terribly unlike the smear campaigns directed at Gaddafi and Milosevic... and by much the same kind of characters too, meaning the London / Washington mob.

I don't know much about the history of the others, but it's telling that the most you can say for them is that they are "relatively" stable but not "super" prosperous.

It telling that for you the goal posts are somewhat narrow for a monarchy but permissively wide for a democracy. Morocco can't be good unless it is great, Venezuela or Greece are not so bad even when they are self-ruined.

No, they are not "de facto monarchies" that have lost or conceded "some" political power to elected representatives and then hold some "real" powers in reserve. A terminally ill patient is not a healthy patient that has merely lost "some" aspect of health. Even if these monarchs retain some formal powers, the whole point is that they can't actually exercise any of these formal powers precisely because they don't have any actual powers.

That is what you like to think and that is probably what those monarchs and their supporters are happy for you to think. They are playing a long, long game, monarchies can do that, they have kept all the important levers whilst letting slip only the ones that are not so important, waiting for the centuries long demotic fad to finish itself off, and then recover everything when the time is right. The right time is when democracy has finally decayed into anarchy and thoroughly discredited itself. The monarchies of europe have one other power that I have not yet mentioned: popularity. The monarchs of europe have managed to maintain enormous popularity with their publics. Now put that altogether... popularity, strong ties with the military (both formally and informally), formal power to dissolve parliament and what do you suppose they could do in the event of democratic collapse into anarchy..? That's right restore all of their lost powers in a matter of days and with the blessing of the greater part of the populace. All it will take is anarchy.

Saudi Arabia's government is extremely oppressive, and often uses torture and mutilation as punishment for crimes or political dissent. It's also one of the most resource rich places on Earth, but leave it to the royal family to use that natural wealth to impoverish the people while enriching themselves. Qatar and the UAE are also extremely unequal, and Thailand sucks for similar reasons.

This is a very demotic narrative. SA is authoritarian, it punishes crime sternly and stubbornly works to prevent political decay. The result is vanishingly little crime and little political decay which is all good at least to my view.
SA has oil but nothing else, its a desert in case you haven't noticed. Other more demotic countries have oil and many, many other natural resources in abundance: water, fertile soil, minerals.. So why is SA, Qatar and the UAE rich while Venezuala, Russia, Nigeria relative economic basket cases? Oil is not the answer. Good governance is.
Qatari police


Venezuelan police