Are there any writers who make serious arguments against democracy? inb4 mein kampf

File: 36 KB, 510x289, juliuscaesar_510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:05:16 2015 No.7281915 [Reply] [Original]

Are there any writers who make serious arguments against democracy?

inb4 mein kampf

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:08:46 2015 No.7281927 PLATO

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:14:36 2015 No.7281939 Nietzsche.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:15:15 2015 No.7281942 Freddy N

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:17:22 2015 No.7281949 Are there any writers who make serious arguments against republicanism? That's a better question, and harder to answer.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:18:30 2015 No.7281954 mine kraft

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:19:40 2015 No.7281959 >>7281915 Toqueville

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:22:24 2015 No.7281969 Any philosopher of any worth

Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:26:44 2015 No.7281982

>>7281939
>>7281942
Nietzsche hardly develops his argument against democracy, though. One of his admirers, Anthony Ludovici, however, does and has written a few books specifically against democracy. I recommend The Quest of Human Quality: How to Rear Leaders.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:30:08 2015 No.7281996 >>7281982 seeing as the scorn he heaped on all forms of herd movements I'm pretty sure most people can draw the conclusions with regards to democracy

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:32:21 2015 No.7282001 File: 179 KB, 1050x1572, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is what your'e looking for.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:47:59 2015 No.7282057 >>7282001 >libertarian author so how much of this is just anarchoclapitalist nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 17:54:06 2015 No.7282078 >>7282057 A lot of it, but that doesn't mean there aren't interesting insights and valid criticisms of democracy. It's just that you, like me, probably won't agree with all of the conclusions the author reaches.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 18:00:19 2015 No.7282093 >>7281949 Hobbes' 'Leviathan'? Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France'?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 18:02:24 2015 No.7282103 >>7282057 >including a call for homosexuals to be "physically removed" from a libertarian order if that order is to survive lol I thought libtards weren't supposed to care about 'irrelevant' social issues like that

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 18:37:35 2015 No.7282206 >>7281949 Fulmer's "Patriarcha." Or if you want the gonzo journalism style read Mencius Moldbug. Not the most rigorous but he's so fun to read.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 18:38:14 2015 No.7282210 >>7281915 Literally every author with any brain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 25 18:43:49 2015 No.7282230 SCIOLI ELECTO VAMOS CON EL PROYECTO HASTA EL FINAL!

Anonymous Sun Oct 25 18:50:18 2015 No.7282256
File: 20 KB, 249x249, shrak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Marx btfo of BOURGEOIS democracy
>It is crucial to note that Marx saw a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in universal suffrage, the backdrop of the coup of the Eighteenth Brumaire, rather than a direct violent means of rule. It is a system wherein people of all classes participate in the elections. But that is not all—at the same time, and inversely, in this system, all individuals are, for the first time, separated in principle from all class relations and relations of production. The representative assembly had already existed in the feudal system as well as in the absolutist monarchy; but it was at the point when universal suffrage and then secret balloting were introduced that the representative assembly turned into the unequivocal bourgeois parliament. Hiding who votes who for whom, secret voting liberates people from their relations; at the same time, however, it erases the traces of their relations. Thus the relationship between representative and represented is radically severed once, and becomes arbitrary. So it is that the representative chosen by secret balloting is no longer controlled by the represented. In other words, the representative can behave as if he represented everyone, even though that is not the case. That is the nature of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It is not quite the same as the bourgeois class running society by occupying the parliament. Rather it is a mechanism that erases class relations or the relations of domination by temporarily ‘reducing’ people into ‘free and equal individuals’—and this mechanism itself functions as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In elections, the freedom of individuals is guaranteed, but this exists only at the moment that the hierarchical relations in the real relations of production are suspended. So it is that there is no democracy sensu stricto in capitalist enterprises, outside elections. That is to say, managers are not elected by employees, and furthermore not by their secret voting. And it is impossible that state bureaucrats are elected by people’s direct voting. People’s freedom exists only to the extent that they can choose their representatives in political elections. And, in reality, universal suffrage is just an elaborate ritual to give a public consensus to what has already been determined by the state apparati (military and bureaucracy).

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 01:40:18 2015 No.7283860

>>7282256
So let me get this straight:

>Elections where you can't punish people who vote wrong are bad because you can't reward people who vote right
>Because you can't track how rich voters are when they're rich, it's actually a dictatorship of the rich
>For some reason this has a bearing on voluntary corporations
>And all of this somehow means letting everyone vote is a fancy conspiracy

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 01:43:18 2015 No.7283872 >>7283860 More like >Class relations are always more important than national unity >Anyone who tells you differently is lying, listen to Papa Marx, didn't you hear all these big words?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 01:46:33 2015 No.7283881 I am pretty sure left-wing and right-wing authors combined make up a way bigger %-tage than liberalcucks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 01:49:51 2015 No.7283890 Nick Land probably

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 01:51:37 2015 No.7283894 >>7283860 read way, way more

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 01:55:00 2015 No.7283900 >>7283894 Typical Marxist response. Can't explain your prophet in non-Marxese. >B-but bourgeoisie exploitation the laborer class because proletarian exploiter the dialectic!

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:02:21 2015 No.7283916 >>7281982 >Nietzsche hardly develops his argument against democracy, though. Yeah, perhaps if all you've read was abridged versions of Zarathustra.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:03:03 2015 No.7283918

>>7283900

>say something vague and useless
>"hey, that makes no sense"
>YA JUST DON'T GET IT.

Humanities 101, lecture number one, slide one, bullet point number one, right after telling you the professor's office is in the shack next to the engineering building.

There's really nothing to learn here.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:05:29 2015 No.7283924 >>7283916 The ultimately conclusion of Nietzsche's argument, pirated from Dostoevsky (respectfully), is that the state is altogether sinful institution. Nietzsche lost the scent.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:06:35 2015 No.7283927 >>7283924 >Nietzsche >sin kek

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:07:36 2015 No.7283930 >>7283924 "Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer." --- Freddy "the dynamite" Nietzsche

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:13:37 2015 No.7283953 >>7283930 Nietzsche unfortunately waxed imperialistic in Beyond Good and Evil. Probably a product of his admiration for war.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:15:32 2015 No.7283958 Interesting, OP. I've been realizing lately that I'm like totally against democracy at this point. Still formulating what I think (I don't think there's a category for it yet), but yeah.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:16:07 2015 No.7283961 File: 386 KB, 710x883, 1415415142955.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7283953 >imperialistic >unfortunate >admiration for war >bad

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:17:23 2015 No.7283965 >>7283958 Look up Mencius Moldbug, I'm telling you. First stop on the way out of democrazy.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:17:35 2015 No.7283966 >>7283961 It's unfortunate to be imperialistic if you realize the state is a cold monster, yeah. Admiration of war is indeed bad. >>7283668

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:19:31 2015 No.7283972 >>7283953 Woahhh wait a minute, did you not read his comments on Bismarck and Germany's imperialism???!?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:20:26 2015 No.7283975 File: 352 KB, 419x452, cleansing the temple.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7283966 >any act of violence contradicts the ethics and principles of the Kingdom of God >not peace but the sword.jpg >the LORD is a man of war.png

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:21:16 2015 No.7283978 >>7283965 honestly don't do this unless it's just to read http://thebaffler.com/blog/mouthbreathing-machiavellis

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:22:04 2015 No.7283980 >>7283966 >book of Judith >book of Job >Abraham just pop a cap in ur fucking dome, kid

Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:25:07 2015 No.7283986

>>7283975
The sword, as in Christians will suffer severe persecution.

Christ chased the money-changers, but he didn't kill any.

>Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:27:10 2015 No.7283993 >>7283978 What does a smarmy op-ed have to do with anything? >>7283986 >any act of violence >whoops I meant any act of violence where people die

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:27:21 2015 No.7283995 >>7283980 God would not allow his beloved son David to build his temple because of all the blood on his hands, even though he fought his wars at God's command. He let his idolatrous son Solomon do it.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:28:20 2015 No.7283996 >>7283995 But God gave power and more physical charm to Judith so she could behead a fucking assyrian.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:28:52 2015 No.7283998 >>7283993 Christ didn't necessarily whip anyone, he just brandished a whip, which only one account even mentions.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:28:59 2015 No.7283999

>>7283965
Hm. I do read anything and take from anything; being uninvested in any side I'll freely take what's useful from the far far left (which I'm really well-versed in at this point but generally hate) and the far far right (which I could never get behind, and yet there are a lot of things they are actually absolutely correct about and needs to be reconfigured)... but I'm trying to find a way to synthesize it. Consider myself some kind of cosmic/Romantic eco-centrist, I guess?

Will say, Libertarianism horrifies me, the answer isn't there imo.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:29:33 2015 No.7284000 >>7283980 get in here Tallis https://mibbit.com/?channel=%23%2Fmu%2Fradio&server=irc.rizon.net

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:31:23 2015 No.7284002 >>7283993 Moldbug is turgid and verbose to cover up essentially idiotic logic, but funny to laugh at

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:31:24 2015 No.7284003 >>7283998 >>7283995 But this is what the LORD says: Yes, captives will be taken from warriors, and plunder retrieved from the fierce; I will contend with those who contend with you, and your children I will save. Isaiah 49:25

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:31:41 2015 No.7284004

>>7283999
Moldbug claims his journey to neofeudalism started when he realized the only way to protect a libertarian society was to establish a police surveillance state. It makes sense, libertarians say "well, if someone commits a crime, just put them in jail then!" without considering the logistics of 100% conviction.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 02:31:43 2015 No.7284005 >>7283996 If we're speaking in parables, Christ often uses homicidal examples, even though he was surely not homicidal. But see Colossians 3:5

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:32:43 2015 No.7284008 >>7284002 >Literally Marx

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 02:33:06 2015 No.7284009 >>7284003 I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh; they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine. Then all mankind will know that I, the LORD, am your Saviour, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. Isaiah 49.26

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 02:33:28 2015 No.7284011 >>7284004 Um... yikes?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 05:38:30 2015 No.7284037 >>7284011 Yeah, I can't even.

>>	PrettyLittleHammers !hJurQj6z/s Mon Oct 26 05:40:56 2015 No.7284041 >>7281915 The Myth of the Rational Voter by Caplan

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 06:03:54 2015 No.7284077 >>7284037 Lol, right; amoral, bitter STEM nerd overlords creeping over our every thought in some math-y, hi-tech corporate state sounds like a much preferable alternative. shudders

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 06:25:09 2015 No.7284106 >>7284077 Are you trying to be a caricature? You're not the anon that linked to that Salon-tier article, are you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 06:26:12 2015 No.7284111 >>7284077 >implying that you are not describing the present world

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 06:48:32 2015 No.7284145 I agree that democracy is a mediocre race to the bottom but what's the alternative maybe when an AI comes around

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 06:59:15 2015 No.7284171 >>7281915 Look into "The Myth of the Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:08:04 2015 No.7284189 >>7284145 >but what's the alternative leadership we've had it for thousands of years in all human societies

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:10:17 2015 No.7284196
File: 15 KB, 504x432, burger_.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7284171
Isn't that the guy who thinks wealth redistribution (and this is literally how he phrases it) is a means for jocks to steal from nerds? He's also one of these Randroid ancaps, not sure which is worse.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:12:25 2015 No.7284199 >>7284189 >ride le tiger :DDDD I am the aristocrat of my soul :DDDD Monarchy has all the problems of democracy (idiots ruling with their dicks) without the stability of democracy' bread and circuses.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:12:58 2015 No.7284201 File: 53 KB, 509x772, ed7e018adb3cd6e4fa65c4b95c883d02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7281915 That feel when the stupid majority decide for all of us...

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:14:13 2015 No.7284203 >>7284199 >t. slave

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:15:08 2015 No.7284204 >>7284189 yeah cool maybe if we could revive Marcus Aurelius and keep him alive forever but we can't, the system is unstable

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:18:28 2015 No.7284208 >>7284204 >systems are unstable wow And you don't institute leadership, leadership institutes itself, it's sort of the whole deal

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:20:19 2015 No.7284211 >>7284201 That's what Plato said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:28:28 2015 No.7284231 File: 75 KB, 600x400, plato-head-shot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] haha dude come live in my communist dictatorship bro it's gonna be so radical lmao check out this cave i made up

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:31:08 2015 No.7284235 >>7283975 >jesus uses a whip to snap at people >a couple chapters later he gets whipped himself karma in action tbh

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:34:28 2015 No.7284241

>>7284203
>order ain't free. the tree of the nation gotta be littered with the tears of poorfags :DDDD Napoleon Bonaparte is not my ruler. he is anti-royalist and probably democratic as well :DDDD TRADITION and ORDER not LIBERTY and DEGENERACY, ok? praise my dad
Anyway, wouldn't we all be closer to slaves under monarchy? You're sacrificing your power because of some crank notion that a few rich assholes will hold the interests of the people better than the people themselves. Not to mention, there's never been a democracy ruled by someone who slept with a corpse every night.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:35:02 2015 No.7284242 >>7281949 >as if republic refers to anything other than a flavor of democracy in the last few centuries

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:35:46 2015 No.7284245 >>7284241 >you have power under democracy lol my voting has absolutely zero impact on how this country is run

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:41:16 2015 No.7284254

>>7282001
>>7282057
It is an interesting book for 2 reasons;
First, the author does a fair job of explaining the core issues with Democracy and his arguments against it are interesting.
Second, his advocacy of anarchism,which is the last 3rd, are actually weak and easily refuted by his own arguments.
In the end, it is a critique of Democracy and argument for Monarchy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:42:26 2015 No.7284257 >>7284235 I'm very tired, I feel sort of bad about making this post

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:52:49 2015 No.7284288
File: 397 KB, 1011x1521, stlouisix.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7281915
Try:
Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty
and
The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
both by Schmitt;
Against Democracy and Equality
by Sunic;
Patriarcha
by Filmer;
On Monarchist Statehood
by Tikhomerov;
There are a tiny handful of blogs, if anyone is interested (they tend to list more books).

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 07:57:21 2015 No.7284297

>>7284241
In a Democracy who is ultimately responsible? If parliament passes laws that allow state police to collect all data on citizens, or something oppressive what happens?
Oh the legislators and perhaps a prime minister or president don't get re-elected.If it tanks the economy, do the rich, powerfully-connected politicians suffer? No, certainly not directly.
In a monarchy if the local baron does something that pisses people off and tanks the economy *HE* is responsible, his personal wealth is directly affected, and his kids will suffer, too.
In Democracy both citizens and leaders have the impact of the Tragedy of the Commons, Free Rider Problem, etc. In Monarchy you don't have those issues.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 08:27:43 2015 No.7284360 >>7282103 You're confusing modern and classical liberals. Classical liberals focused on freedom and open markets, modern liberals like Rawles argued that true freedom requires social justice.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 08:30:24 2015 No.7284367

>>7284360
They're both Liberals, just one school of Liberal though focuses on personal liberty (with the goal of maximizing personal achievement/value) the other emphasizes the removal of obstacles via group action (with the goal of maximizing personal achievement/value).

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 08:39:10 2015 No.7284389 >>7284288 Link them please

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 08:47:52 2015 No.7284406

>>7284389
This essay is good for linking to and discussing other Monarchists
http://www.theimaginativeconservative (put a dot here) org/2014/03/im-monarchist.html

This one is interesting, if not always about Monarchism. There are som good older articles against Democracy;
http://kingdomofedan (put a dot here, too) com/blog/
And there is a blog that 4chan will never let me lin but it can be found if you put monarchistamerican, then a dot, then that spot for blogging, then a dot, then com

Those are good entry points, I think.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:07:19 2015 No.7284445

>>7284189
Yeah, actual leadership, exactly. It really was a good system. It worked. The old world was totally better.

I don't think it could ever happen again in current conditions in the West without being a nightmare, though. We don't have the coherent cosmology in place to sustain it.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:10:37 2015 No.7284452

>>7284445
Give it time.
The Second Demographic Transition is in full swing, worldwide human population will begin its century-long plunge within the decade, and the impact on all aspects of life will be more profound than we can imagine.
Our grandchildren will live in a world that looks a lot more like 1600 in terms of population and world view.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:13:10 2015 No.7284460

>>7284297
>If it tanks the economy, do the rich, powerfully-connected politicians suffer?
Yes. However third world dictators and their baron like cronies are able to get away with enriching themselves while impoverishing or at least doing little to improve the situation of the rest of the populace.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:21:18 2015 No.7284473 Germany already planning a quasi-coup looking forward to the return of legitimate anti-state activity

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:22:37 2015 No.7284476 >>7284452 k. Why?

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:25:03 2015 No.7284479
File: 795 KB, 2500x3816, 0000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7284288
>The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
Nice, Schmitt talks a bit about syndicalism in it

>According to Mosca, three radical solutions offer themselves as a corrective for the deficiencies of the parliamentary system: the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat; a return to the more or less disguised absolutism of a bureaucracy ("un assolutismo burocratico"); and, finally, a form of syndicalist government, that is, replacing the individualistic representation that exists in contemporary parliament with an organization of syndicates. The last was regarded by the speaker as the greatest danger to the parliamentary system because syndicalism springs, not from doctrines and feelings, but from the economic organization of modern society.

Georges Sorel's 'Illusion of Progress' would be a good follow up to Schmitt, I uploaded a copy here: https://archive.org/details/IllusionsofProgress

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:31:12 2015 No.7284491

>>7281915

Though not "against" democracy per se, the U.S. Supreme Court's election law jurisprudence illustrates a lot of its problems.

Check out Shaw v. Reno, Vieth v. Jubelirer, Buckley v. Vallejo, Citizens United, the White Primary cases, and many others I've forgotten. Actually, you could just get a law of democracy textbook or hornbook and read excerpts, to spare yourself some trouble.

It turns out the administration of democracy isn't as simple as it would appear.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:39:54 2015 No.7284511 >>7281915 Chinese neo-authoritarians of the 80s probably do a good job

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:49:31 2015 No.7284536

>>7284452
Yeah, things are going to get increasingly difficult in the coming decades, and people will likely get increasingly religious again under such conditions... which eventually might establish a moral framework for their to be a chance for a new monarchism or real leadership again.

Interestingly, did you know that every US president and pretty much every world leader have royal blood going back somewhere? Despite being obscured behind newer (largely bulllshit) systems, the old lineages continue, and while that really fucks with conspiracy theorists' heads, I actually like that fact. Think of it... way back in early history, kings were anointed by the will of providence, and somehow, through everything, even the upheaval of Capitalism, and a supposed total relativism, hasn't been able to stop the momentum of those ancient promises of responsibility. Basically the order has always been there and always will be somehow; we just need to stop calling things what they aren't...

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:53:39 2015 No.7284547 Nick Land tbh

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:54:59 2015 No.7284553

>>7284536
I should have proofread, that was poorly written. But it gets my idea across.

My view has always been that modernity has always been a delusion. A lot of the notions that we think have replaced those of the old world are fantasies, and the old world is actually very much alive, its laws still very much intact. People need to shed the vestigial myths of the Enlightenment and look at what's actually there, what has always been there, written latently into our nature.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:55:07 2015 No.7284555

>>7284476
a better question would be why not
Europe is undergoing a rapid demographic and ideological shift, their governments are running out of money
America is becoming increasingly polarised and dissatisfied with the establishment
Africa is a mendicant continent
there are plenty of people literally hoping for war or revolution just so they can have some sort of purpose or just something to occupy them, the New Right particularly
inauthenticity pervades everything

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 09:57:03 2015 No.7284559

>>7284445
>Yeah, actual leadership, exactly. It really was a good system. It worked. The old world was totally better.
The old world was full of terrible hackjobs. While I imagine not too many would agree with politics of the author of "The Sacred Economy of Ancient Israel" he does a great job of dispelling idealistic views surrounding many civilizations by showing how unstable they were.

A good example is taxes. The economy back then was primarily rural with peasants paying taxes with the products they grew. Being able to pay taxes implies they have some sort of surplus otherwise they would starve to death. A question lurks in the background of “what would they do with said surplus if they didn't use it to pay taxes?”. The answer is they would use that left over product for lean years because their farming techniques were piss poor so a lean year could be any year.

You may think then that the ruling class would only extract as much as needed without endangering their base. You would be wrong. Rulers demanded taxes much higher than their people could pay or taxes that were beyond the capabilities of new subjects which coupled with bad tax collection methods and others looking to dip their hand into the cookie jar continually threaten the whole system. Some kingdoms/empires required plunder to exist because there was no way their tax base could support their top heavy system. Unfortunately plunder is a non renewable resource and the gains are short term.

Another good article is
"The Irrelevance of Legitimacy" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027249

Its good because so many people have an idealistic view that political orders of the past were held together solely or mostly by "legitimacy" or people accepting certain values.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:00:02 2015 No.7284572 >>7284547 Nick Land literally lurks /pol/ lol classic Nicky

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:04:31 2015 No.7284587

>>7284553
People don't believe that witches exist. They buy into the feminist myth that witches were just persecuted women in an age of superstition.

The truth is that witchcraft was booming in Europe during the Renaissance, and it took over England under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and England exported it to the world. What we call the modern world is Christendom under the hypnotism of witches.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:06:40 2015 No.7284590

>>7284587
Our leaders are largely witches. Look up how many of them are confirmed members of Freemasonry, and then go look into a comparison between the initiation ceremony of Freemasonry and the initiation ceremony of Witchcraft. Masons even call their "brotherhood" "The Craft". Masonry is witchcraft made respectable for upper and middle class men.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:09:43 2015 No.7284601

>>7284590
Also, you can look into Shakespere's Tempest and Macbeth as allegories for the ascendency of witchcraft in Europe and Britain in particular.

If you want to read straight up history, look up the highly regarded historian Frances Yates, and her books such as "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment".

If you want to get an idea of the flavour of Elizabethan/European witchcraft/occultism, read this
http://www.alchemylab.com/chemical_wedding_rosenkruetz.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:11:06 2015 No.7284609 >>7284587 >>7284590 >>7284601 hey buddy I think you're on the wrong board, /x/ is two blocks down

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:12:12 2015 No.7284612 >>7284609 fuck you

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:17:11 2015 No.7284622 >>7284479 Illusions of Progress was good and I am sorry I forgot to include it! The webpage, Kingdom of Edan, speaks of a guild system similar to syndicalism or the Hansa as part of a monarchy to provide a counter to parliamentarian systems, too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:21:37 2015 No.7284632 >>7281969 /thread Why did it continue after this point

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:22:43 2015 No.7284635

>>7284476
All of Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Western Hemisphere have been below replacement fertility for a long time. So has North Africa and, surprisingly, a lot of the Middle East. Saharan Africa has its fertility dropping fast *and* a high mortality rate.
The Second Demographic Transistion has almost everything to do with that (a decline in fertility that look backwards - over the last 40+ years the women more likely to have more kids are very religious *educated and wealthy* women while the fertility of poor women is plunging to match that of highly educated, wealthy, Western, secular women - all over the world. At the same time. And no one knows how or why).
As Kaufmann pointed out in his excellent book 'Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?' the year 2100 will radically different - generations of shrinking population, increase in devout religious people, economy based on contracting markets where land is worth less over time, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:24:46 2015 No.7284641 >>7284632 ...so we could share book lists!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:34:27 2015 No.7284677 >>7281915 I don't think anyone has mentioned Toqcueville?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:37:26 2015 No.7284689 >>7284622 So essentially Guild Socialism? Here's a "modernized" form of Guild Socialism taking inspiration from G. D. H. Cole's 'Guild Socialism Restated': http://home.comcast.net/~romccain/gild1.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:37:59 2015 No.7284693 >>7284002 The arguments I've seen against Moldbug in the op-ed so far are: >Look at this thing he said! Booo!! I don't like that thing!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:38:22 2015 No.7284696 >>7284689 No, a guild system inside monarchy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:49:09 2015 No.7284728 >>7284689 I think this was one of the descriptions http://kingdomofedan.com/feudal-technocratic-distributism/

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 10:52:48 2015 No.7284742

>>7284693
My problem with Moldbug was he spent a lot of ink describing problems that were usually identified by others and then giving only vague, airy concepts as to how to deal with the problems.
He reminds me of 90% of Monarchists, who are like this:
>Monarchist: "Monarchy is best, here's why!"
>Observer: "That is compelling. What should we do about it?"
>Monarchist: "Uhh......"
[which is why I started reading the Kingdom of Edan stuff - he actually has plans and suggestions!]
Moldbug was similar; he'd identify an issue, do a fair job of explaining why it was negative, and then appeal to doing better.

Thomas Mon Oct 26 12:45:02 2015 No.7285076

>>7284009
>>7284003
Christ said something similar in Luke 19:27, but when it came to actual violence, he told Peter to refrain, and prayed for forgiveness for those who crucified him.

War is a product of the fall, it is a product of our sinful state. It's not something to admire.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 12:49:47 2015 No.7285086 I dislike all forms of government, they all have the same end in mind. But at least democracy, with its inherent distractions and inefficiencies, will take a lot longer to achieve its purpose.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 12:49:49 2015 No.7285087 File: 1.46 MB, 1440x1440, Screenshot_2015-10-26-09-48-08-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7281915 Stefan Molyneux / a lot of AmarchoCapitalists/Libertatians

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 12:51:54 2015 No.7285091 >>7285087 Because that isn't why raw milk is ilegal and furthermore it is a highly controversal and debated subject. What a stupid image.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 12:55:55 2015 No.7285102

>>7285091
It could also be said it's not legal because the government has to have control over most things under the veil of making sure it's healthy, which is somewhat legitimate but perhaps not legitimate enough to initiate force against 2 individuals voluntarily transacting it, why else would you call this picture stupid? The majority of people are stupid so they should have no business voting on things like economic policy or war or things like that

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 13:15:07 2015 No.7285148 >>7285091 >It's controversial and debated, therefore there isn't an obvious solution. Lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 13:16:45 2015 No.7285158 >>7285087 but he isn't a writer.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 13:25:04 2015 No.7285186

>>7285158
He actually has written a couple books but they aren't very well known at all, perhaps a more popular AnarchoCapitalist who also has good arguments against democracy is Murray Rothbard, I'm not the hugest fan of his and he has said some silly things but in regards to democracy/statism he has good points

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 13:43:40 2015 No.7285243 File: 194 KB, 591x397, molyneux1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7285091 No, you just don't understand the brilliance of St. Stefan, voice of Liberty

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:08:44 2015 No.7285314 >>7285186 >he has said some silly things C'mon. It's impossible to find good material from writers who have also said silly things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:21:30 2015 No.7285343 >>7284445 >The old world was totally better. >he bought the "Europe before the revolutions was a paradise on Earth" meme Monarchism is literally a meme movement.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:27:46 2015 No.7285368

>Some people are more fit to rule than others
>The majority of the people are not fit to rule
>Everyone gets an equal vote in deciding who should rule

Thus we will never elect those who are most fit to rule. The people do not want a ruler who is strong and wise, they do not want a king. But the people want a ruler, they want that ruler to be chosen by themselves. Hene we get democracy. But if the majority chooses our ruler, and the majority of people are not fit to rule, how could we possible elect a leader who is fit to rule? Democracy sucks tbh lads.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:32:25 2015 No.7285385 Why are we sitting on our asses anyway? If we want real change we should go out there and become leaders. If you lead they will follow. #4chan4president

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:34:14 2015 No.7285393 >>7285368 and somehow having an inbred knob whose only claim to being fit to rule is "i came out of the right vagina and probably came out of the right penis" smh tbh lad

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:40:04 2015 No.7285408 >>7285393 You seem to be confusing "monarchy" with "hereditary monarchy". They are different.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:43:15 2015 No.7285419

>>7285393
>Hereditary despotism is, then, in essence and sentiment democratic because it chooses from mankind at random. If it does not declare that every man may rule, it declares the next most democratic thing; it declares that any man may rule.

But yeah, there are other ways to have strong leadership without picking your leaders at random. Say, the modern joint-stock corporation. If the profits of city-state stockholders depended on how happy and prosperous their citizens were, theoretically people would move to happy and prosperous city-states. Of course they could turn into North Korea, but I don't think anyone wishes they'd bought into that when it started.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:52:42 2015 No.7285459

>>7285408
what kind of "monarchy" would you propose then?

please don't say elective monarchy

>>7285419
the problem i guess then lies in measuring the performance. the world would be an easier place to govern if we all had hedonic measurers implanted into our brains

even when youre just dealing in numbers it's hard. take for example american presidential "hopeful" carly fiorina, who up until this point will insist on arguing (and probably convincing a few gullible souls too) that her tenure at the head of hewlett-packard was a success. if you look at regular performance indicators like revenue growth, sure, her tenure was a success. but other indicators, such as profit growth tell another story.

the issue of interpreting incomplete information doesnt suddenly disappear when you align the interests of the parties involved in an arrangement

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 14:58:39 2015 No.7285471 >>7285459 >the world would be an easier place to govern if we all had hedonic measurers Or maybe, just maybe, our leaders should not be chosen by the people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:00:15 2015 No.7285479 >>7285471 or maybe if we didnt care about good or evil or performance indicators or performance really

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:00:47 2015 No.7285481 >>7285343 Tell that to Liechtenstein

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:01:20 2015 No.7285483 >>7285481 i cant hes dead

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:01:59 2015 No.7285486

>>7285459
The best way we've ever had to measure the performance of complex systems has been to use other complex systems; in other words, we measure the performance of corporations by the performance of the market. Fiorina says she was a success, but her shareholders are poorer now than before she was CEO, so you know they won't try that again soon. Same with these city-states. Their performance lies entirely with how much money they generate for their shareholders. Of course it wouldn't be a completely optimized system, there would be mom'n'pop states, states that hold on to an ideology and don't care that they don't make as much money, and so on, as long as they could remain independent by some means.

>>7284742
Moldbug gives very firm ideas on how to deal with these problems, and in fact stopped writing in order to work on some insane kind of software architecture to deal with it somehow. But anyway the examples I've been using are straight out of Moldbug. I don't necessarily agree that they're the best, I just think they're perfectly viable alternatives to the modern system.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:02:17 2015 No.7285488 >>7285481 monaco would've been a better example at least theyre somewhat relevatn

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:03:37 2015 No.7285494 >>7285486 >moldbug >taking moldbug seriously >taking anything neoreactionary seriously oh my god please go to university OH WAIT YOU CAN'T ITS PART OF THE CATHEDRAL

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:05:20 2015 No.7285501

>>7285488
>Doesn't know that Liechtenstein recently held a plebiscite to try to limit the ruling prince's power and the people instead gave the monarch more power
>Liechtenstein is also top rated in economics, freedom, lack of government surveillance, etc., making it far superior to the surrounding parliamentarian nations
>Since the ruler's power have been incresaed the nation has improved
>Thus Liechtenstein is directly relevant to this discussion
Ah, /lit/ - never change

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:06:05 2015 No.7285505

>>7285486
>Of course it wouldn't be a completely optimized system, there would be mom'n'pop states, states that hold on to an ideology and don't care that they don't make as much money, and so on, as long as they could remain independent by some means.

yeah, so the idea of an objective measurement goes out the window. think also of a state that does absurdly well for a decade, then tanks and fails for the next fifty years. or a state that generates so many negative externalities that they screw up the world for everyone but delivers amazing shareholder value

actually, the entire point of externalities would throw much of the validity of the valuation in question. which of course could eventually be solved, but as of now is pretty much impossible to quantify into prices

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:06:36 2015 No.7285507 >>7285486 >Moldbug gives very firm ideas on how to deal with these problems Ideas? Sure. Actions? Plans, Actual concrete things to do? Nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:08:57 2015 No.7285517 >>7285501 >caring about some irrelevant micronation whose only claim to fame is that you can register your company there and pay no tax lol, okie-dokie then

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:11:24 2015 No.7285529 >>7285494 >Marx >Taking Marx seriously >Taking anything socialist seriously Read a capitalist sometime. OH WAIT YOU CAN'T THEY'RE ALL BOURGEOISIE

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:12:28 2015 No.7285538 >>7285529 Why would you assume that he must be a marxist?

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:13:59 2015 No.7285544

>>7285505
It's not like we have objective measurements now. Of course there would be states that fail after succeeding, and they wouldn't be as convenient to live in as the hypothetical liberal democracy that never fails, and it's never been possible to firmly measure those negative externalities, but those in power would have it in their best interest to try and solve these problems.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:13:59 2015 No.7285545 >>7285529 >criticizing crackpots = being a marxist lol what delusion you kids hold

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:14:12 2015 No.7285548 >>7281915 yes, but to which type of democracy are you thinking?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:16:04 2015 No.7285556 >>7285538 I'm not. I'm just pointing out that ridiculous ideologies gaining traction isn't a ridiculous concept. Like in those universities anon wanted me to go to. Which hire literal Marxists to teach. So I wouldn't be gaining much, would I?

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:19:20 2015 No.7285568

>>7285517
Translation
>Yeah, I don't know a fucking thing about actual geo-politics, so I am going to dismiss one of the most successful nations on Earth as a point for bullshit reasons because I refuse to admit to my own ignorance
Yeah, I know. That's what I think is funny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:28:59 2015 No.7285613 >>7285568 Whatever you do don't let him know about Swaziland or Thailand.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:30:28 2015 No.7285620 >>7285556 They hate/tip toe around marxism at university you basement dwelling fucking idiot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:34:59 2015 No.7285646 >>7285613 And someone (maybe the same guy) pointed to poorer, smaller Monaco as more relevant!

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:36:09 2015 No.7285656 >>7285620 Not when I went. And that was an engineering school in a red state.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:37:32 2015 No.7285664 File: 21 KB, 288x288, 1433187221386.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7283918 >say something vague and useless Are you justifying your own ignorance upon something you took interest upon? Do people have to translate it for you?

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:40:14 2015 No.7285677

>>7284693
Moldbug's anti democratic rants have the same problem as pro democratic rants, they ride so high on idealism they ignore other critical factors that influence how real democracies works. So you get people either attacking a phantom or praising a strawman.

Some good ones from off the top of my head are "The Organization of Hypocrisy", the author spending almost a decade "in the mix" researching public and private institutions.

Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership by F.G Baily is a cross cultural study of leadership examining democratic and non democratic regimes.

Constitutionalizing Democracy in Fractured Societies http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=547425 at least pays attention to how other significant factors a ffect how a democracy works.

If you want to go classical https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10423842/Cammack_gsas.harvard_0084L_10724.pdf?sequence=1 (it pretty long at 285 pages)

The Problem of Stability in Classical Political Thought http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1524000 is another good one about classical thought.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/10/masking-design-competence.html is good for questioning ideas like “those in power in anti democratic organizations like corporations are selected purely by merit/performance”.

In organization theory you have alternatives like Seymour Melman work that questioned if management was necessary, things like holocracy (http://www.holacracy.org/how-it-works/)), and other things like cooperatives which remain underdeveloped because an overwhelming majority of the left don't even bother to build the type of institutions they desire.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:42:54 2015 No.7285688 >>7285664 >Do people have to translate it for you? Would you deign to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:43:36 2015 No.7285695 >>7285656 America is extremely right wing, even the liberals, everybody hates socialism and does not know what it is. It doesn't mean anything here since even conservatives are screaming socialist each other.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:49:09 2015 No.7285716

>>7285677
I think the most practical argument against Democracy goes like this:
We know from studies thhat voters are ignorant of the topics and vote irrationally. We also know they tend to 'herd'; i.e., adopt positions or vote a certain way because *other* people seem emotionally invested in the topic.
Politicians that buck this trend tend to lose elections while politicians that pander to herding tend to win.
therefore it is rational for legislators in a democracy to pass bad laws because of their appeal to irrational, ignorant voters nets them wealth and power.
So Democracies tear themselves to pieces by the very fact that they are Democracies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:49:40 2015 No.7285720 >>7285664 ISIS-chan <3

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:50:11 2015 No.7285724 >>7285695 >America is extremely right wing Please start using a trip so educated posters can block you

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 15:53:55 2015 No.7285735 >>7285716 Word my man. In other words: Plebs gonna pleb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 16:07:45 2015 No.7285778 >>7285716 And that is a poor practical argument because like so many it ignores other factors at play and doesn't even stand up to empirical evidence of how democracies work.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 16:12:55 2015 No.7285797 >>7285695 Are you kidding? The word conservative is used more often than not as a pejorative here, and socialism is bad dummy

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 16:30:08 2015 No.7285858 >>7285778 Your post is meaningless unless you mention some examples of said factors and said empirical evidence.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 16:30:15 2015 No.7285860

>>7285778
So please tell me how the multiple studies that demonstrate that voters act irrationally (nicely summarized in the book The Myth of the Rational Voter) are false.
Then tell me how all of the studies about the ignorance of voters on critical topics (also summarized in the same work) are also false.
Then *DO* please explain how legislators that ignore their voters get re-elected.
.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 16:40:09 2015 No.7285902 >>7283972 Yes, but Nietzsche hates it because it modernist, nationalist imperialism, not because it is imperialism per se.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 16:41:52 2015 No.7285907 >>7285797 >The word conservative is used more often than not as a pejorative here Not nearly as much as "liberal", that's why liberals prefer to describe themselves as progressives.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 16:57:33 2015 No.7285997

>>7285568
>one of the most successful nations on Earth
pretty much any european country is more sucessful than lichtenstein

calling lichtenstein a successful country is like saying that notch's tacky house is a sucessful country because it has an average wealth per capita of a few billion dollars, but it's still just a tiny irrelevant place

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:01:12 2015 No.7286014

>>7285860
>(nicely summarized in the book The Myth of the Rational Voter)
You can find a critique of that book here http://criticalreview.com/crf/jf/20_3_caplan.pdf

>>7285860
>Then *DO* please explain how legislators that ignore their voters get re-elected.
By checking the book I just posted "The Organization of Hypocrisy". Another factor at play is voters either don't know exactly what specific polices their politicians enact or said politician simply justifies it post hoc. This is how you get people gushing over Reagan and paragraphs like this:

>Not surprisingly, then, the survey data betray little hint of the vaunted conservative revolution (see Page and Shapiro 1992; Schwab 1991, ch. 2). On the basis of these data, it is safe to say that most voters had no idea what specific policies Reagan advocated, and would have disapproved of them if they had.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:05:41 2015 No.7286041 >>7284547 Nick Land's writings are so weird (or his older writings were) >>7284572 haha, he does? links?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:12:12 2015 No.7286072 >>7281915 >>7281915 Pretty much all philosophers?

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:19:32 2015 No.7286100

>>7285368
I actually think people are inherently Fascist or Monarchistic. look how much we worship heroes. look how, regardless of what they may say, women demand their men to be strong, capable, and high status, while naturally detesting weak men (by strong or weak I mean in character). look how much people love and admire a strong man leader. the Russians love Putin. most people, conservative and progressive, overtly or secretly (despite themselves) really admire Theodore Roosevelt because he acted on principle, not caving or compromising to the crowd.

of course, such a person has to actually care about the people they take responsibility for. but people admire a good leader, a good father/husband. feminist anger is actually just the product of resentment against bad fathers.

but yeah, I agree with you, very few are fit to lead and putting things to a vote is ridiculous. it's also terrible for culture and art (which should be shaped by the best) - look at what information capitalism, which allows market data to shape product, has done to film.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 17:20:44 2015 No.7286107 >>7285902 Hahahah that implies such a fucking misreading of Nietzsche's comments on the Greek state and the Roman state; he literally fucking destroys imperialism in Dawn IIRC

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 17:21:58 2015 No.7286111 File: 279 KB, 954x1638, 1433410829657.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7285486 >Their performance lies entirely with how much money they generate for their shareholders.

Thomas Mon Oct 26 17:23:59 2015 No.7286119

>>7286107
He loves imperialism, that's why Napoleon is his hero and predicts with hope that Russia will become a great imperialist state in Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche's whole concept about existentialism isn't even personal freedom except as expressed through dominating others, which he sees imperialism to be the highest expression of.

If you read the The Dawn without reading Nietzsche's other works, he'd come off as a socialist feminist.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 17:26:53 2015 No.7286132 >>7286119 uwotm8 >that's why Napoleon is his hero As a man. >which he sees imperialism to be the highest expression of. He states imperialism creates shallow culture and degeneracy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:32:15 2015 No.7286166 >>7286111 What's the name of the man in the bottom portion of the picture? I can't remember his name.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 17:40:05 2015 No.7286201 File: 107 KB, 851x544, 1435987670927.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7286166 Billy Graham

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 17:44:22 2015 No.7286219 >>7286119 Definition of the German: obedience and long legs... It is a fact deeply meaningful that the rise of Wagner is coincident to the advent of the Empire: these two things are equal symptoms of obedience and long legs.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 17:47:39 2015 No.7286226 >>7286219 But since a new animal ravages the vines of the german mind, the word of the Empire, the famous Rhinoxera, not a single of my words is being understood.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:49:42 2015 No.7286236 >>7286219 What did he mean by "long legs"?

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 17:54:08 2015 No.7286254 File: 29 KB, 600x450, daddylonglegs10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7286236

Thomas Mon Oct 26 17:56:49 2015 No.7286266

>>7286219
A slave race.

Nietzsche hates German imperialism because he sees it as a modernist, nationalist imperialism, not one of great men. He'd probably view the British empire the same way. Can't compare that with Alexander and Napoleon and Caesar and so on

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 17:58:29 2015 No.7286274 >>7286254 C'mon m8

Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 18:02:05 2015 No.7286296

>>7286266
Commerce and industry, interchange of books and letters, the universality of all higher culture, the rapid changing of locality and landscape, and the present nomadic life of all who are not landowners,—these circumstances necessarily bring with them a weakening, and finally a destruction of nationalities, at least of European nationalities ; so that, in consequence of perpetual crossings, there must arise out of them all a mixed race, that of the European man. At present the isolation of nations, through the rise of national enmities, consciously or unconsciously counteracts this tendency; but nevertheless the process of fusing advances slowly, in spite of those occasional counter-currents. This artificial nationalism is, however, as dangerous as was artificial Catholicism, for it is essentially an unnatural condition of extremity and martial law, which has been proclaimed by the few over the many, and requires artifice, lying, and force to maintain its reputation.

Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 18:12:45 2015 No.7286337

>>7286266
" It is now necessary that a generation of anti-Alexanders should arise, endowed with the supreme strength necessary for gathering up, binding together, and joining the individual threads of the fabric, so as to prevent their being scattered to the four winds. The object is not to cut the Gordian knot of Greek culture after the manner adopted by Alexander, and then to leave its frayed ends fluttering in all directions; it is rather to bind it after it has been loosed. That is our task to-day. In the person of Wagner I recognise one of these anti-Alexanders: he rivets and locks together all that is isolated, weak, or in any way defective; if I may be allowed to use a medical expression, he has an astringent power. And in this respect he is one of the greatest civilising forces of his age."

Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 18:13:46 2015 No.7286345

>>7286266
"The Hellenising of the world—and to make this possible, the Orientalising of Hellenism—that double mission of Alexander the Great, still remains the most important event: the old question whether a foreign civilisation may be transplanted is still the problem that the peoples of modern times are vainly endeavouring to solve."

Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 18:17:15 2015 No.7286361

>>7286266
In Napoleon Nietzsche admired the man, and Renaissance; not imperalism as in national imperialism.

My Belief in the Virilising of Europe.— We owe
it to Napoleon (and not at all to the French
Revolution, which had in view the " fraternity " of
the nations, and the florid interchange of good
graces among people generally) that several warlike
centuries, which have not had their like in past
history, may now follow one another — in short, that
we have entered upon the classical age of war, war
at the same time scientific and popular, on the
grandest scale (as regards means, talents and
discipline), to which all coming millenniums will
look back with envy and awe as a work of perfection :— for the national movement out of which
this martial glory springs, is only the counter
against Napoleon, and would not have existed
without him. To him, consequently, one will one
day be able to attribute the fact that man in Europe
has again got the upper hand of the merchant and
the Philistine; perhaps even of "woman" also,
who has become pampered owing to Christianity
and the extravagant spirit of the eighteenth
century, and still more owing to " modern ideas."
Napoleon, who saw in modern ideas, and accordingly in civilisation, something like a personal
enemy, has by this hostility proved himself one of
the greatest continuators of the Renaissance : he
has brought to the surface a whole block of the
ancient character, the decisive block perhaps, the
block of granite. And who knows but that this
block of ancient character will in the end get the
upper hand of the national movement, and will
have to make itself in a positive sense the heir and
continuator of Napoleon : — who, as one knows,
wanted one Europe, which was to be mistress of
the world.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:23:19 2015 No.7286391

A recent book that questioned the value of democracy compared to other systems is "The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy" by Daniel Bell.

Here are some reviews:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/05/chinese-democracy-isnt-inevitable/394325/

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6105bd40-15a4-11e5-8e6a-00144feabdc0.html

http://www.chinausfocus.com/political-social-development/democracy-at-the-bottom-meritocracy-at-the-top-experimentation-in-between/

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:41:08 2015 No.7286482 >>7285501 Liechtenstein and Monaco are tax havens, that in itself explains a lot more than their political system. Switzerland is also a tax haven but a democracy it is magnificently wealthy

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:46:36 2015 No.7286510

>>7286014
that only reinforces his argument though. A democracy requires an informed citizenry. Now, you can argue that republicans defunded the school system or that information is withheld from the public. But Reagan's policies were known to anyone who picked up the new york times or some other relatively "unbiased" newspaper. That is to say, voters elected Reagan for irrational reasons such as his feel good message and entirely against their interests

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:46:43 2015 No.7286511 >>7281915 Hobbes

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:48:19 2015 No.7286520 >>7286361 >several warlike centuries, which have not had their like in past history, may now follow one another — in short, that we have entered upon the classical age of war, war at the same time scientific and popular, on the grandest scale Whoah.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:50:32 2015 No.7286531 >>7286520 My body is prepared for the global resource wars between the major world powers just as prophesied by the peak oil scare poster on /sci/ all those years ago

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 18:53:03 2015 No.7286544 >>7286361 Do you think Nietzsche would have admired Napoleon if he didn't build an empire?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 18:54:09 2015 No.7286549 >>7281915 Literally who doesn't? The Republic, i.e. the most famous text ever written on political philosophy, would be a good place to start.

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 18:55:14 2015 No.7286556 >>7286544 If Napoleon didn't build an empire, Nietzsche wouldn't be alive :^)

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 18:57:11 2015 No.7286568 >>7286549 But since it advises women being in politics, effectively abolishing slavery, and making all property common, it would probably be in effect more democratic than Athenian democracy was.

No True Scottist Mon Oct 26 18:58:09 2015 No.7286572

>>7281915

Joseph de Maistre has a very in depth and sustained critique of Democracy all throughout his works. " Considerations on France" " Study On Sovereignty" " The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions" and " Du Pape" are all magisterial works.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 18:58:12 2015 No.7286573 >>7286556 Do you disagree that Nietzsche's hard-on for Napoleon was contingent upon Napoleon's seizing state power and conquering the shit out of people?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:01:24 2015 No.7286590 >>7286568 egalitarian =/= democratic Athens was run by officials elected to public office, ergo Athens was a democracy regardless of social hierarchy. Plato's Utopia is run by philosopher-kings reared for enlightened despotism, ergo not a democracy.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:01:40 2015 No.7286593

How do people go from libertarian
>Big government is evil! All decisions should be made by the people they will affect! Small state 5ever!

to monarchists?
>One guy decides everything! He'll surely only make good decisions!

C'est proper weird.

>>7284257
Have a pray, God will forgive you. He's real nice like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:05:03 2015 No.7286606 >>7284587 >>7284590 >>7284601 take your pills

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:07:26 2015 No.7286613 >>7283975 >Well this Palestinian peasant who lead an anti-Roman death cult said this, therefore...

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:11:34 2015 No.7286637 >>7283999 >im neither a leftist nor a conservative gee i wish there was some third way...

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:13:04 2015 No.7286645

>>7286593

Anarchy and bureaucracy are close bedfellows in praxis.

Small and efficient governance means autocratic governance.

If decision by committee was adaptive, it would be the norm in contexts where decision making is put to the sternest and most immediately obvious tests, such as military organization. Its not, so it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:18:12 2015 No.7286663 >>7284199 The very concept of bread and circuses to begin with came from the roman empire. Your ideology is making you retarded (or are you retarded, and therefore a democlap?)

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:20:59 2015 No.7286681

>>7286568
>But since it advises women being in politics, effectively abolishing slavery, and making all property common, it would probably be in effect more democratic than Athenian democracy was.
What do any of those things have to do with a rule by the demos? Our demos is different from the Athenian demos, and even its definition has changed considerably within some of our lifetimes.

>>7286645
>If decision by committee was adaptive, it would be the norm in contexts where decision making is put to the sternest and most immediately obvious tests, such as military organization. Its not, so it isn't.
I recommend Adam Roberts' New Model Army on that one. He posits technology allowing the military to have the advantages of democracy, and the incredibly destructive effects of that advance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:21:32 2015 No.7286684 >>7286573 ...for the future betterment of the aristocracy, not as an end-in-itself

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:36:36 2015 No.7286750

>>7286681

The chief benefit of democracy is that it satisfies a psychological desire, a fetish. Democracy is to power like pornography is to sex.

Lots of people want democracy because people want to feel like they have control. In return for food, safety, and luxuries, they get 'rights' and 'freedoms', which are defined as more democracy (not to be confused with rights or freedoms), making it a neat tautological loop.

If, however, the satisfaction of conceits is not high on your civilizational priority list, democracy has little to recommend itself, invoking as it does serious coordination problems built into its very system, and a validation feedback system that is largely self-contained and isolated from reality, such that even a population of geniuses can arrive at perplexing and profoundly shortsighted positions.

Thomas Mon Oct 26 19:39:53 2015 No.7286761

>>7286590
Economic power is the main impetus behind political power, including in democracies. If property is public, then there goes 95% of political power. The remaining might not be democratic, but it totals less than the non-democratic power wielded in democracies.

Thomas Mon Oct 26 19:41:53 2015 No.7286768

>>7286681
>What do any of those things have to do with a rule by the demos? Our demos is different from the Athenian demos, and even its definition has changed considerably within some of our lifetimes.
The state is just a tool for economic class rule. Plato keeps classes, but abolishes the economic aspects of them. So the function of the state shrinks drastically.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 19:59:47 2015 No.7286854

>>7286510
"They had a feel good message" doesn't explain why voters chose one candidate over another that may have a similar message. Things like http://www.campaignsandelections.com/magazine/2132/heuristics-shortcuts-voters-use-to-decide-between-candidates do a better job.

>>7286750
>The chief benefit of democracy is that it satisfies a psychological desire
This seems pretty unwarranted with how apolitical people are and their willingness to leave it to the experts.

>invoking as it does serious coordination problems built into its very system
The current system has several non democratic elements that do not require wide scale coordination to function.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 20:02:08 2015 No.7286865

>>7286768
>The state is just a tool for economic class rule.
With a loose enough definition of "economic," sure.

>Plato keeps classes, but abolishes the economic aspects of them.
That's cool. What does any of that have to do with slavery being incompatible with democracy?

Thomas Mon Oct 26 20:12:43 2015 No.7286916

>>7286865
>With a loose enough definition of "economic," sure.
Plato's rulers come from the highest class, but must live meagerly. They don't own or appropriate the profits from production.

>That's cool. What does any of that have to do with slavery being incompatible with democracy?
It's not just slavery, but 95% of social power being economic. So you democratize 5%, but society is only superficially a democracy. Whereas if you make 95% public, and say 5% is not democratic, well, it is superficially not a democracy, but in fact far more controlled by the people than a superficial democracy is.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 20:18:15 2015 No.7286937

>>7286916
And here I was using suffixes like -ocracy and -archy like a sucker. I'm not talking about social power, I'm not talking about economic power, I'm talking about the power to sit in the throne and make the rules. Of course other factors can influence them, and most thrones have a power behind them, but in a democracy the people or their representatives have their butt in that throne.

And philosopher-kings don't have to wifeshare, guardians do. I'd say that's a pretty big difference in appropriating the profits from booty.

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 20:22:20 2015 No.7286963 >>7286937 The Constitution is not determined democratically, and in a contemporary democracy, you cannot be nominated for a high position of power without having a great deal of money and/or support from the elites.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 20:33:44 2015 No.7287029

>>7286937
>I'm not talking about social power, I'm not talking about economic power, I'm talking about the power to sit in the throne and make the rules
Those things are related. Also Kings rarely wielded such power as they had to deal with others "butting in on their throne" sometimes resulting in them being neutralized by the nobility. An example of this in literature is The Romance of the Three Kingdoms where the emperor is essentially at the mercy of warring warlords.

Anonymous Mon Oct 26 20:53:54 2015 No.7287117

>>7287029
>Those things are related.
That's what I meant by most thrones having a power behind them.

>>7286963
The original question was, what does any of that have with something being more or less democratic than Plato's Republic or Athens? And you didn't talk about the demos and you didn't talk about the ocracy. I don't even know where you're going anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 20:55:04 2015 No.7287124 >>7287117 tl;dr a car is a car even if it has a flat tire or is drawn by horses, a horse is a horse even if it's dragging a car behind it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 21:01:33 2015 No.7287164 >>7285724 >Implying he's wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 21:27:11 2015 No.7287326 File: 29 KB, 303x450, gongsun long.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7287124 >implying a white horse is a horse

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 21:28:28 2015 No.7287335 File: 15 KB, 480x360, yuri.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7287164 he's wrong

>>	Thomas Mon Oct 26 21:28:30 2015 No.7287336 >>7287117 Public = demos Property = kratos

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 26 21:36:52 2015 No.7287373 File: 839 KB, 142x146, laughing 2ds.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7287336 >Property = kratos From what retarded dictionary did you draw that one?

>>	Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo Mon Oct 26 21:46:11 2015 No.7287402 >>7287336 what kek

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 00:21:37 2015 No.7288226

>>7286854

>The current system has several non democratic elements that do not require wide scale coordination to function.

And they arose because they are improvements to the situation.

For all the monstrosity that governance through a permanent sovereign civil service bureaucracy is, it is at least prefferable to the spoils system and actual mob rule.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 01:00:19 2015 No.7288355 Neo-reactionaries seem to miss the point a bit, yeah? The king is the king because of God's will. How well he governs or the merits of monarchy are irrelevant to the fact that he is de jure and should be de facto king.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 01:17:49 2015 No.7288406

>>7288355
I don't know, I think they're the only ones that read Fulmer, or even unironically read Carlyle.

Fulmer especially has a neat take on Mencius' right to rebellion to determine the mandate of heaven. Not that he likely ever read Mencius, mind. But his divine-right monarchy from the divine right of fathers certainly has that Confucian simplicity to it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 01:46:46 2015 No.7288484 >>7288355 you can have monarchy or feudal systems without the divine right of kings lad

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 01:51:26 2015 No.7288496

>>7288355
They're a bit compressed as a group at this point. In the future I'm sure we'll have more text from divine-right nrx along with syndicalists, dominionists, traditionalists, and well-dressed fascists (WDF). It's still fringe and it didn't really exist before the Iraq war. Give it some time.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 03:19:08 2015 No.7288689

>>7288226
>And they arose because they are improvements to the situation.
They have been there since the beginning. Things like the constitution, the supreme court, and rule of law are anti democratic devices. Few have argued for "pure democracy", mob rule has never been a major problem, and the spoils system has existed in every single type of government and even things like corporations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 05:57:07 2015 No.7288981 >>7281954 Mike pls go

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 07:30:48 2015 No.7289173 >>7282230 Mi negro

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 07:32:53 2015 No.7289177 >>7288484 I find this very hard to believe

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 07:54:19 2015 No.7289217

>>7286014
>http://criticalreview.com/crf/jf/20_3_caplan.pdf
OK, let's check the review
>Unsupported claims about economics that are irrelevant
>Confirmation that voters are confirmed to be ignorant of economics, politics, and policy from multiple studies
See, the reviewyou posted refutes the argument particular to the book; I was referring to the studies that show that voters are ignorant and vote based on 'herding' *WHICH THIS REVIEW ALSO CONFIRMS*.
In other words, you refutation actually strengthens my argument.
Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 07:56:46 2015 No.7289220 >>7285997 So you think having a richer, freer, more economically and socially mobile, better educated, and healthier population means you are less successful than a poorer, sicker, dumber, less free nation? You like Democracy, obviously

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:02:09 2015 No.7289230

>>7286854
Anon
>"Democracy has a problem: voters are ignorant and rather that rational, they use herding"
You
>"Voters aren't ignorant and irrational. OK, they ARE ignorant, but they use heuristics. Heuristics based on herding...."
I'd LOVE to hear which heuristics YOU use!

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:04:29 2015 No.7289237 >>7286593 In actuality a Monarchy could have a very, very small actual government.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:05:35 2015 No.7289243 >>7286637 I know, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:11:01 2015 No.7289254 >>7288355 I would contend most "neo-reactionaries" aren't truly Monarchists, they just use that term to cover their lack of political acumen. And most actual Monarchists are not neo-reactionaries.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:15:26 2015 No.7289264 >>7285646 Except it is more relevant Maybe not in crackpot, confirmation bias land, but in the real world it is

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:26:56 2015 No.7289290

>>7289264
Care to explain how one European monarchy that is wealthy, secure, stable, and has a high ranking on indexes of freedom is more relevant than another European monarchy that is wealthy, secure, stable, and has a high ranking on indexes of freedom when the latter recently had it's people *increase* the power of its monarch - bearing in mind the original point was about Monarchism?

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:37:11 2015 No.7289311

>>7289217
>I was referring to the studies that show that voters are ignorant
I wasn't arguing against that. Converse did that in the 60's. Your original argument was a lot more than that claiming that legislators are induced to enact "bad laws" because they will lose their seat if they don't.

>>7289230
Its impossible to get away without using heuristics because of the limits of human's cognitive ability which is why markets also make heavy use of heuristics.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:38:49 2015 No.7289316

>>7289290
One has a casino, hosts a yearly Grand Prix, is a by-word for "glamorous European vacation," and has a prince/monarch that is famous beyond the borders of his micro nation.

The other is a small geographical anomaly which happens to be a tax haven, it's only claim to relevancy in the world stage

The original statement of Monaco being more relevant was clearly having to do with relevancy to the wider world, not just to this insular little debate.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 08:43:14 2015 No.7289325

>>7289220
it's a tiny irrelevant "country"
saying a countrylet is among the most successful countries on earth, a group which contains culturally and technologically dominant hyperpowers like america or even normal prolific countries like germany is ridiculous

pure last man-dom

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:36:44 2015 No.7289473 >>7289325 But is Luxembourg a nicer place to live than dominant hyperpowers or normal prolific countries? Would you rather be an average Luxembourger or average burger?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:38:55 2015 No.7289483 >>7289473 The average bankster in Luxembourg relies on the average burger who funds the World police.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:41:22 2015 No.7289487 >>7289473 Saying that a Luxembourger can have the standard of life he has without countries like the USA is like saying any first world billionaire could make his money without the government there to build roads for him

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:52:48 2015 No.7289521

>>7289473
Why an average luxembourger or an average american? Why can't I be the top-tier american or the top-tier luxembourger? What does average wealth have to do with success of a nation? Is money the only thing which signifies success? So why are you here and not on /biz/?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:55:31 2015 No.7289531 >>7289521 What on earth does money have to do with a place being nice to live in? I didn't say money, I said nice place to live. Looks like someone here has dollar signs on their mind though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:56:15 2015 No.7289535 >>7281915 >Monarchy: You get anything from Really Good to Really Bad and everything inbetween >Democracy: You get a slowly festering pile of marginally acceptable watered-down shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 09:58:08 2015 No.7289541 >>7289473 >Would you rather be an average Luxembourger or average burger? Burger because I have more choices among nice places to live.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:00:58 2015 No.7289547

>>7289311
Heuristics are, by definition, sub-optimal for decision making. Combined with demonstrable ignorance and irrational behavior this means that politicians react to/manipulate based upon their own heuristics to influence/partake in herding behavior.
Thus, decision making, including legislation, is based upon politicians using heuristics to attempt to predict the behavior of large, irraitonal groups of ignorant voters using their own heuristics based on emotional herding.
This leads to demonstrably bad laws resulting in re-elections, etc.
So far you have refuted nothing: confirmed the core concepts that voters are irrational and ignorant? Sure, you've done that. But done anything remotely akin to addressing the core contention?
Only if you count an unsupported assertion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:02:19 2015 No.7289553 >>7289316 In other words, this boils down to >you've heard of Monaco, but not Liechtenstein Let me know how picking examples based on name recognition versus applicability works out for you.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:09:19 2015 No.7289577

>>7289325
>its a tiny irrelevant "country"
Since it is a demonstration of real people deciding to limit Democracy in favor of Monarchy it is, yes, very relevant to the point that was being made.
Again, this is just more of the same,
>I'll dismiss it because I want to
of before.
You remind me of the PUA types who are rather odd for saying things like
>"See that rich, handsome, well-respected man with the beautiful wife, great kids, and many friends? Well, he's a beta. The pizza delivery guy that lives in his mother's basement, has no friends, and is a moron? He's an alpha because he sleeps with a different skank every week"
[that is, yes, what many of them think]
All across the world, most starkly in Europe, Monarchies have citizens that are freer, wealthier, and happier than their democratic peers. This pattern is well-known amongst political scientists. The fact that those monarchies that retain, even empower, their monarchs is a critical point in the discussion of Democracy vs. Monarchism whether you like it or not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:12:03 2015 No.7289585 >>7289483 >>7289487 And the average Burger relies upon Third World labor assembling his goods. Does that mean America is no better than Bangladesh? Do you even consider the implications of what you write?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:13:05 2015 No.7289590 >>7289541 Yeah. You could move to Luxembourg

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:15:34 2015 No.7289599 >le small countries don't count sick of this meme, small is always better

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:18:39 2015 No.7289604 >>7289599 This. Either small communities or a constantly-expanding empire ruled by one dictator.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:18:55 2015 No.7289607 >>7289553 >misrepresenting the original point just so you can say "I'm smart and you're dumb" Let me know how far you go towards convincing people to your viewpoint when you act like an immature child

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:20:06 2015 No.7289608

>>7289577
Jesus christ shut the fuck up you boring turd, never was I promoting democracy, I think it's trash, but I object to your stupid little pet cryptolibertarian toy nation being anywhere near successful just because they can manage to be a tax haven. You say democracy is bad but you keep talking about typical democratic ideals like "freedom" and "happiness" like the typical neoreactionary /pol/esmoker. Stop posting anytime.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:21:58 2015 No.7289616

>>7289577
That's a terrible analogy.

What you're saying is much more like "See that big family over there, look at how dysfunctional they are! They're rich and important, but they're not perfect so it doesn't count! I'd much rather be that one guy in the crowd who nobody care about and never did anything important but hey, at least his house is clean."

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:24:25 2015 No.7289626

>>7289585
>implying American success couldn't exist if the third world didn't exist
>unlike a country that literally relies on reserves of thousands of foreign nationals who have no connection to it to pay for basic services

Yeah, I take the implications of what I write seriously, which is why I don't write stupid shit like you just did.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:32:37 2015 No.7289650

>>7289607
The original pint that started your autistic tantrum was
>>7285343
>Monarchism is literally a meme movement.
The reply was to point out that in Liechtenstein actual citizens increased the power of their monarchy, demonstrating that Monarchism is not just real, it has real-world impact on actual nations.
Monaco has not had a recent increase of monarchical power from the actions of citizens so it is not a relevant regardless of how well-known it is.
This was pointed out here;
>>7285501
and here
>>7289290
This isn't about any old monarchy, or we'd be talking about Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Denmark, Sweden, etc., etc. This is specifically about the impact of Monarchism on real-world politics.
Since that is the case no, Monaco is not a more relevant example.
I keep making the same point in different ways and your response is,
>b-b-but more people have heard of Monaco!
And you have the gall to call other people names.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:38:57 2015 No.7289666

>>7289608
>I don't grasp how a national plebiscite that increased the power of a reigning monarch is relevant to a discussion of Monarchism
Yeah, you keep letting us know that
>I object to your stupid little pet cryptolibertarian toy nation
>Cyryptolibertarian
>Monarchy
Pick one
>democracy is bad but you keep talking about typical democratic ideals like "freedom" and "happiness"
How do YOU define the success of national leaders? Do you think Stalin was a better leader than Churchill? Was Plutarco Elias Calles a better leader than Grand Duchess Charlotte? Can you defend your position?
>Stop posting anytime.
Says the guy with multiple posts of just whining and name calling.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:42:06 2015 No.7289673 Any political system that has me in charge is the right one tbh

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:42:14 2015 No.7289674

>>7289547
>Thus, decision making, including legislation, is based upon politicians using heuristics to attempt to predict the behavior of large, irraitonal groups of ignorant voters using their own heuristics based on emotional herding.
The problem is you are ignoring everybody else involved in decision making. In "The Organization Of Hypocrisy" the author notes that there exists other powerful groups in the system such as the administrators in Sweden. Policy is seen as a technical matter and they are responsible for implementation. They are not merely a passive body. Their power comes from the fact they can choose to submit one or multiple solutions/proposals and politicians being ignorant of the technical matters they deal with. The politicians cannot strongly go up against the administrators because the system depends on them. They cannot easily reject their proposals because they face public criticism as stuff like that is "for the experts to decide". The administrators try and keep public wishes in mind but will occasionally suggest something that may agitate the public. Said admins say something similar to "your problem, not mine" and politicians are expected to "remain in control of the situation" and the admins usually end up getting what they want. A narrow focus on the voters/legislators does not give one a full view of how democracy works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:43:35 2015 No.7289678 >>7289590 Why would I? I have more choices landscape wise in the US.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:45:27 2015 No.7289680

>>7289626
Ah, the last refuge of the shallow thinker.
No more poor examples,.
No more irrelevant posts.
Just insults.
Tell you what, why don't you tell me how you think De Regno and The Liberal Illusion informed The State in the Third Millennium? Or even, what impact do you think The State in the Third Millennium has had on Commonwealth politics?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:48:49 2015 No.7289691 Every system is inherently flawed because it is limited by humans. Democracy would be great without retarded voters Monarchy would be great without a retarded monarch ect

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:51:05 2015 No.7289696

>>7289674
But not all systems have such a bureaucracy in place; the American and British bureaucracies, for example, are large, have a greta deal of economic impact, yet do not tend to vote as a separate class and their legislative impact is not nearly as critical is sometimes thought, especially in the US. This weakened influence is typical of "spoils" systems while entrenched bureaucracies tend to become their own block of ignorant, irrational voters who still herd, but just use different emotional and social cues.
And I do not know how this means that Democracies are not unstable! After all, the 'experts' can issue bad/harmful regulations and introduce such laws with the backing of the voters. We can see this in everything from nutritional guidelines to petroleum handling regulations.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 10:57:17 2015 No.7289710

>>7289696
>the American and British bureaucracies, for example, are large, have a greta deal of economic impact, yet do not tend to vote as a separate class
Are you sure about this? Those at Federal Reserve for example aren't even implicitly chosen by the public. Unelected officials like Robert Moses had a huge impact on places New York.

>And I do not know how this means that Democracies are not unstable! After all, the 'experts' can issue bad/harmful regulations and introduce such laws with the backing of the voters.
Well then we are fucked because every system, company, or organization depends strongly on experts to some degree.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:11:08 2015 No.7289744

>>7288355
It depends on what kind of monarchism you subscribe to. Britain in the 17th century had that exact argument and it ended up with the Monarchy and Parliament both holding power to destroy the other. I would actually argue that the current British constitutional arrangement has made the elected parts far too strong and the autocratic parts far too weak; it's out of alignment and the hundred years have shown the results of this as political ideology has taken the place of good government

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:13:14 2015 No.7289747 Democracy, the God that failed. A book compiled of essays written by a bunch of former communists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:14:47 2015 No.7289750 >>7281927 Also this, Plato turns back on everything in the Republic and turns it into a satire. Direct democracy is silly, other forms are down right retarded.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:18:30 2015 No.7289759

>>7289744
This can be highlighted in the fact that a British man in 1900 despite perhaps not having the franchise, was infinitely more free than a British person today, apart from being able to openly write and publish pornography and blasphemy, and even then back in the 1900s, this was more than doable and possible and could cover far more areas than one is legally allowed to write about in Britain today.

Instead of extending that Freedom to the other sex, which was all that needed to have done, those rights have been systematically stripped away and an extensive burarucaracy put in place to prevent people from acting in a manner that is seen as politically unsuitable. In the mean time, the autocratic parts of British government have been pushed further and further away from the decision making process, so much so that now the two parties that want to see them banished from the political field, leaving the democratic element in total supremacy, now are deliberately violating the constitutional conventions in order to get their way (again, political ideology versus good government) and to provoke a constitutional crisis which will force the Conservatives to tear down the crumbling structure of the Lords after successive vandalism, especially the so-called reform of Blair.

I put it to you that if the Monarchy and Lords had a freer hand in opposing the Commonsm some of the reforms that were needed may not be passed, but so too many of the useless wrecking acts.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:36:51 2015 No.7289826

>>7289744
>I would actually argue that the current British constitutional arrangement has made the elected parts far too strong and the autocratic parts far too weak;
Why?

>as political ideology has taken the place of good government
How could you split political ideology from good government when various political ideologies spend a great deal of time setting out their vision of good government which may include not having a government at all?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:41:46 2015 No.7289847 >>7289680 Actually the last refuge of the shallow thinker is name-dropping to prove intelligence.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:51:37 2015 No.7289876

>>7289710
>Well then we are fucked because every system, company, or organization depends strongly on experts to some degree.
Indeed.
But the dynamic changes in Democracy, doesn't it?
In a Democracy *everyone* must be an expert or rely upon them. That is the problem I have been pointing out!
And this also pushes bureaucrats into voting groups and means they, too, must act beyond their own skill levels in the electorate.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 11:53:05 2015 No.7289883 File: 237 KB, 500x620, pleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7289847 >On /lit/ >Thinks referencing books to elicit discussion is bad /b/ is over there

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:06:33 2015 No.7289954

>>7289876
>But the dynamic changes in Democracy, doesn't it?
Depends on the type. Even in non democratic setting similar problems can come up. Take this example from Stalin:

>No branch ofeconomic activity can make headway without properbookkeeping. But unfortunately our accountants do notalways possess the elementary merits of the ordinaryhonest, bourgeois accountant. I have a high regard forsome of our accountants; among them are honest anddevoted workers. But the fact remains that we havealso worthless accountants capable of concocting anysort of statement and who are more dangerous thancounter-revolutionaries.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:08:49 2015 No.7289963 >people ask for books and writers >people skim over the one or two books that have proven to be the best criticizisms of democracy and instead rant autisticly about neo-reactionaries and monarchism

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:14:20 2015 No.7289988 >>7289954 But even in that synamic they are not being pushed outside their expertise due to being in a Democracy, are they? In a Democracy large expert groups, bureaucrats, etc. are, in the end, just more voters so they act like voters.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:16:25 2015 No.7290001

>>7289963
Actually, this was mentioned earlier
The State in the Third Millennium is a great book about Democracy and Monarchy written by a ruling monarch! Where Democracy: The God that Failed is excellent arguments against Democracy the State, etc., goes into more detail from the viewpoint of an actual leader.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:27:56 2015 No.7290064 >>7290001 I actually haven't read the failed god. But I constantly reccomend it. I've been a bit busy lately

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:35:09 2015 No.7290098

>>7289988
>But even in that synamic they are not being pushed outside their expertise due to being in a Democracy, are they?
That wasn't the point. The point was Stalin like the voter, legislator, or even the stockholder are pushed outside ares of their expertise and thus must rely on other experts who have a large effect on policy. The dynamic does not change if you restrict the number of "voters".

>>7290001
You forgot about the The China Model by Daniel Bell.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 12:44:15 2015 No.7290131

>>7286593
There is a sharp difference between size/functions of government (from a legal point of view) and the proceedings of government in these functions (from an administrative point of view, which Carl Schmitt also calls political technology).

You could very well have a very "libertarian" land (where the government does protect the land by police, military, courts and other legal procedures, perhaps some administrative tasks or statistics gathering, maintenance of the integrity of the territory and the physical and cultural characteristics of the people) but an autocratic or even somewhat "authoritarian" functioning inside these fields.

Case in point, old Venice, with virtually no restriction on commerce, rather low taxes, little welfare or equivalent, muh freedums overall. At the same time the state could seize almost any ship for war effort.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 13:09:47 2015 No.7290216 Well it's literally mob rule so es not HARD.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 16:03:31 2015 No.7290841 File: 165 KB, 1000x682, wew lad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7287335 >america isn't one of the most capitalist countries in the world. Mighty fucking stupid tbh.

>>	Thomas Tue Oct 27 16:13:34 2015 No.7290880 >>7287373 I am talking in actuality, not a translation of teh term. Most power is economic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 16:19:46 2015 No.7290899 >>7290841 >americans think a right wing nut job like obama is socialist politics is just one big meme shitfest there.

Anonymous Tue Oct 27 16:27:15 2015 No.7290933
File: 32 KB, 431x450, ok kid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7289650
>muh precious Liechtenstein!
>why haven't you heard of muh precious Liechtenstein!
>I am the most knowledgeable person in this debate for knowing about muh precious Liechtenstein!
>you are all idiots if you don't know about muh precious Liechtenstein!

lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 16:33:32 2015 No.7290961 >>7290933 Muhsoiginy >>7290899 I don't even know what Obama is. A half nigger as president and not 40 years ago did we almost have a heart attack over a Catholic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 16:39:19 2015 No.7290989 >>7290131 >he actually fell for venetian propaganda of muh freedoms Top fucking kek. Read any history book and you'll learn that alot of that was either myth or did not last as long or was as unchanging as you think it was

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 19:22:19 2015 No.7291681 >>7290933 >Asked for example of where monarchy works. >Get given one. >"I AIN'T HURD OF DAT PLACE" >Get called an idiot. >"FUCK OFF WITH YER BOOK SMARTS" Kay.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 19:24:09 2015 No.7291687 File: 25 KB, 300x314, Evola Knew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7281915 >are there any writers who make serious arguments against democracy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 20:00:46 2015 No.7291827 File: 177 KB, 400x600, evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7291687 I thought Evola wasn't well liked here.right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 20:22:34 2015 No.7291929 Will it possible in the near, or even far future, to replace Democracy with something more potent, like a.... Memeocracy?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 27 23:25:24 2015 No.7292662 >>7290841 Capitalism is a Liberal concept by definition

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 02:34:02 2015 No.7293280

>>7291929
fascism is basically memeocracy with its use of symbols and slogans to rile up the masses. In our case a vanguard of 4channers would seize government riding on a wave of popular support created through a constant bombardment of memes on the populace

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 08:05:36 2015 No.7293829

>>7293280
The real problem with Fascism is that since about 1940 it really means "any political outlook or system I don't like".
I mean, look at what is typically thrown into the Fascism hopper
-Actual Italian Fascism [corporatist, nationalist, focused on tradition and history, sexually conservative with a focus on large families, anti-monarchy, anti-Socialist, modernist (especially in art), and atheistic (while making concessions to the Catholic Church out of necessity)]
-National Socialism [Socialist, racialist, contemptuous of tradition, sexually open with no qualms about single mothers, multiple partners, etc., anti-Modernist (especially in art), atheist, etc.]
-Falangism [Syndicalist, no opposition to race mixing, pro-Monarchy, pro-religion (pro-Catholic), very conservative in family, sexuality, etc.]
.
A fair number of these positions are mutually exclusive, yet they are typically lumped together as 'being similar' and, when pushed, usually defenders of this grouping will say 'they were all totalitarians' which means we need to ask: does that make Stalin a Fascist?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 08:29:00 2015 No.7293881

>>7293829
The Nazis weren't socialists m8. The Strasserists were kicked out, remember? And Fascist Italy had their own share of 'socialist' fascists as well. See: Bombacci

The reason why their lumped up together isn't necessarily because of what they believed in the concrete (the far-right is infamous for not being ideologically continuous), but because they were all part of a broader political movement with a bare-bones set of shared values - ultranationalism, traditionalism, populist elitism, collectivism, etc.

If you just look at the unlike the fascists, Stalinists, or at least Stalin's followers, (Stalinism is usually just used a slur) don't advocate for totalitarianism. Communism, and Stalinism, is distinct both as a cohesive doctrine and as a cohesive movement, both with their own histories and social-economic basis independent, and also distinct, from Fascism. Fascism isn't ideological cohesive, but, in a broader sense, despite differentiation in beliefs far-right sub-ideologies have much more cohesion as a movement as you might think. Contradistinct this with Communists, who split at the slightest sign of ideological difference.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 08:32:24 2015 No.7293886 >>7293881 *in the concrete sense

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 08:33:05 2015 No.7293887 >>7283860 All one has to do to see what Marx is talking about is the lobbying 'industry', and I'm not even a marxist

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 08:48:19 2015 No.7293909

>>7293881
>The Nazis weren't socialists m8
After Hitler became Chancellor before the Night of Long Knives Rohm famously said 'The National part is done, now for the Socialist part'.
Hitler described his party as 'Taking from Marxist dogma living, creative Socialism'.
When denounced by the DNVP for being Socialists Goebbels said 'we are Socialists and proud to be Socialists, champions of the workers, and the antidote to Capitalism'.
In 1940 Hitler said 'National Socialism is true Socialism, rejecting class conflict for the greater efficiency of Socialism'.
>Fascism isn't ideological cohesive
No, Fascism is very cohesive; it is just National Socialism, Falangism, Francoism, etc. *aren't* fascist. Which is my point.
>(the far-right is infamous for not being ideologically continuous
No; the problem is you are trying to lump Fascism (a Centre-lleft position), Nazism (A Left position) and Falangism (a Right position) together as "Far Right".

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 09:11:15 2015 No.7293951
File: 168 KB, 808x579, nazi privatization.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7293909
The Nazis didn't believe in the abolishment of private property with social ownership as its replacement. The 'socialist' aspect of the Nazi ideology was nothing but opportunism. It was just demagoguery taken from the Social-Democratic and Communist mass parties used to appeal to the working classes, of which socialism was popular among at the time and had a long history and was associated with radical popular mass movements. To Hitler, and consequentially the Hitlerite Nazis, all 'Socialism' meant was totalitarian white nationalism.

Just because that Fascism in Italy had a cohesive intellectual movement meant that Fascism, as a movement was ideologically cohesive. Mussolini, for instance, is well known for flip-flopping . Bombacci has already been mentioned.

By cohesion in movements, I meant cohesion in organization and practical activity, with a slight overlap in ideological principles. For instance, it's well known that upper-middle class traditionalists who fancy themselves aristocrats associate themselves with vulgar lower-class Nazi boneheads. In fact, if it wasn't for this obscene connection, I doubt the far-right would be as influential in Europe today, among other reasons. While a lot of the softer 'classical' fascists take offense at being put alongside Nazis, we all know that they collaborate with each other. Another example would be people like Stepan Bandera, members of the far-right who apparently don't make much of a distinction between Hitler or Mussolini when he translated both of their works and allied himself with them.

I agree with you that Fascism has become for many just a slur (especially from the Left), that fascism operated differently depending upon social context, and that classical fascism is different then contemporary, but as term to signify a broad tendency among the far-right, it shouldn't be abandoned.

As an aside, I'm a bit curious how you could honestly think that that Nazism is a "Left" position.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 09:24:48 2015 No.7293992

>>7293951
>The 'socialist' aspect of the Nazi ideology was nothing but opportunism
Ah, yes, this tired, failed argument that always goes the same way:
>'Sure, the theorists behind the Nazis were Socialists, the major figures of the party were Socialists, the leadership all espoused Socialism well into the 1940's, the party platform was openly Socialist, the economic reforms the party enacted once in power were overall Socialist, *but none of them really meant it*'
Hitler told his economics head, Wagener, 'We must fix the error of Marx; rather than divide people by class, we must unite them in the Volk. The Volk will adopt Socialism not by us killing of the individualists, the Capitalists, and the owners, but by accomplishing what Marx and Lenin failed to do, convert an entire people to Socialism through unity.'
You are, in effect, demanding that I (and everyone else) ignore the facts, stated goals and motivations, and impact of National Socialists and say 'none of that is true because they allowed private ownership of some property', which ALSO requires us to ignore that this was a stated strategy to lead to a 'vibrant National Socialism'.
>To Hitler, and consequentially the Hitlerite Nazis, all 'Socialism' meant was totalitarian white nationalism.
That contradicts not just his public statements and writings, but his private ones, too.

>As an aside, I'm a bit curious how you could honestly think that that Nazism is a "Left" position.
The blunt answer is - I'm actually formally educated in politics and history.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 09:39:30 2015 No.7294034

>>7281915

Democracy would work if they limited the franchise to persons holding a certain amount of land. Allowing poor people with no true stake in the country the opportunity to vote results in detrimental 'gibsmedat'- it's all well and good to say the government should stand for all, but in practice we end up with states wracked with debt and decline as a result of what can only be described as parasites. Fairness is not subsitute for sound governance.

Also the age at which people can vote should be increased, as at 18 what teenager could make a good call on matters of government.

Tbh fam aristocracy ftw

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 09:56:55 2015 No.7294083

>>7293992
To Hitler, as you just said, and I have just said, perceived Socialism as being totalitarian unity through white ultranationalism, not as being just Socialism - as either Social-Democracy or Communism - are distinct movements, with cohesive doctrines that are visibly separate, advocating completely different social programs, having completely different views of the world, from Nazism. Your argument is self-refuting if you state that Socialism is a far-left movement bent on abolishing private property through class struggle (Communism), the perceived social basis of capitalism, because the statement from Hitler you just quoted outright says that he'll not "adopt Socialism not by us killing of the individualists, the Capitalists, and the owners." For Social-Democracy, as I've just shown, the Nazis went against the then Keynesian norm of state-intervention. Unless you just redefine 'Socialism' as being 'totalitarianism', I don't see how there is a connection. Saying that Nazism is "Left" because "I know because I know" is an empty tautology, not an answer.

But this argument isn't whether or not the Nazis were "Left" (They're not). The Left/Right dichotomy is a metaphysics that changes upon political circumstance, and exists as a term (like Fascism) to signify a set of beliefs in a given society. It's undeniable the political collaboration, the definite overlap in political organization, with a common set of beliefs, between Nazis and other Fascist types among the far-right. This is the basis of my argument, and you haven't refuted it.

Excuse me if I'm, but I'm taking you as a Classical Fascist (they tend to be the most vocal about what 'Fascism' means), am I correct? As another aside, I'm curious how you think Falangism is right-wing contra Nazism and 'Fascism'.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 10:25:52 2015 No.7294149

>>7294083
>The Left/Right dichotomy is a metaphysics that changes upon political circumstance
This is simply false, and laughably so.
The Left-Right divide is about Liberalism (the Left) and Monarchism/Natural Law (Right).
Liberalism which is 'an ideological and political dedication to liberty and equality' is is two very broad groups: those focused primarily on equality (Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists, etc.) and those focused on Liberty (Libertarians, Anarchists, etc.).
But they are all on the Left.
That is why Falangism is to the Right - it is explicitly Monarchist and based upon Natural Law.
Fascism, National Socialism, and Francoism all called themselves Third Ways because they wished to avoid the label of Leftist but that does not eliminate their dedication to core Liberal concepts. It is like Linbertarians - they are distinctly open about being Liberal socially but wish to call themselves Conservatives (Right) because they are laissez-faire Capitalists while being unaware that Capitalism is a Liberal position *by definition*.
Similarly with National Socialism; their party platform is explicitly Liberal/Leftist.
Any examination of the Twenty-Five Points of National Socialism demonstrates that they were certainly Leftists; to deny this is to attempt to re-define what Left means so that it becomes incoherent.
.
Back to the main question of the OP: it is obvious that Democracy is an inherently Liberal/left position, as well.
.
>Excuse me if I'm, but I'm taking you as a Classical Fascist (they tend to be the most vocal about what 'Fascism' means), am I correct?
No. I am a Monarchist.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 10:38:45 2015 No.7294164
File: 20 KB, 200x215, 4608010_t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7294149
>mfw I realized I was debating with an autist

Like many words, how we determine what "Left" or "Right" means is determined socially, depending upon the society in which we associate what "Left" or "Right" is. I called the Left/Right divide a 'metaphysics' because it ultimately relies on conceptualization of a politics where principles are perceived as universal within a given moment. When you dumb principles down to rigid definitions instead of observing how the movements they're associated with operate and evolve within society, you dumb down politics into a metaphysics, which you just demonstrated.

If you define the "Left" as this or that, and the "Right" as this or that, irregardless of how they are actually used, you can end up calling things "Left" or "Right" even when their association with "Left" or "Right" makes no sense in practical politics.

Thank you for wasting my time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 10:57:37 2015 No.7294205 File: 295 KB, 500x462, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7284231

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 12:43:51 2015 No.7294468 >>7281982 >Ludovici Got my copy of Who is to be Master of the World? today! Has anyone on /lit/ read it?

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 15:58:00 2015 No.7295080

>>7294164
>Like many words, how we determine what "Left" or "Right" means is determined socially,
Ah.
You're a nominalist.
Of course. I should have realized from your misuse of the word 'metaphysics'.
This
>“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
Was satire, not instruction.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:32:45 2015 No.7295230

>>7293280
No... it has no inherent definition.
Depending on how you paint the definition "fascism" would mean "for the good and well being of the nation"; those being FIRST.
Scondarily you can say fascism is based on Capability of a society.
Util kinda way.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:40:43 2015 No.7295245

>>7293951
You are describing marxist socialism.
I don't know how your comparison is relevant.

The social system they promoted was class cooperation, not war. There is no reason to fight between arbitrary classes when there is group pride and racial unity.
>we do not say rich Germans give your money to poor Germans Yada Yada but the german people help themselves!
>>7294083
I'm glad you pointed out that National Socialism is not adherent to the left right dichotomy but a third position.
>>7294164
He is actually somewhat correct, on classical left right up down graphs, we call these silly thing 2d political spectrums, Nazis were economically liberal by placing restrictions on companies from serving international interests and coerced or heavily promoted them to only work in the interest of the German people.
He also nationalized the bank, drained the marshes, and built the Autobahn.
His movement unified Germany and Germans more than ever before; really amazing stuff.

Sure, "National Socialism" is leftist economically in a sense. But only because it opposes the international aspects of Capitalism.
I can expound more on how their policies fucked the Globalists and retained 99% of their wealth from trading and why they rocketed out of the great depression.
I also have Jungs writings on Hitler if you want those.
Pretty interesting read.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 16:43:42 2015 No.7295262 >>7295245 Expanding a bit. He was the first Government to start an anti-smoking campaign, was mostly a vegetarian (not really by choice), and increased the reproduction rate of Germans to 3.2. Rather than the abysmal ~1.7? Today.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 17:45:42 2015 No.7295503 >>7293829 you make good points, scholars recognize all of these problems that you mention so you should look into the literature on fascism try this annotated bibliography http://pastebin.com/Eu1bZAWy

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 17:49:37 2015 No.7295512 >>7293951 >white nationalism >nordic aryan nationalism ftfy, it was different from the white nationalism of the new right today

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 17:55:57 2015 No.7295535 File: 110 KB, 759x397, p1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7293951 but far-right =/= fascist=/=conservative authoritarianism pics related (more incoming)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 17:57:00 2015 No.7295537 File: 180 KB, 751x567, p2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7295535

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 17:58:30 2015 No.7295542 File: 230 KB, 764x635, p3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7295537

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 18:01:30 2015 No.7295557 File: 165 KB, 735x494, p4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7295542

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 18:18:10 2015 No.7295608 >>7295535 >>7295537 >>7295542 >>7295557 Be careful, he is using a rhetoric and image developed from /<--pol/ (^: I hate to see it when our discussions get put on 8/2chan. Just passing by to say so.

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 18:59:48 2015 No.7295792

>>7295608
i'm the guy you're responding to, but I don't think that guy is /pol/-mongering. I think he's right in saying that Hitler and other figures believed that they were doing real "socialism" and had socialist type slogans, but in reality their socialist/marxist message was a heavily revised version influenced by sorellianism, syndicalism and maybe even corporatism and then further filtered through nationalism, occultism/mysticism, volkisch thought (popular german cultural ideals) and german statism (in the nazi case). It was maybe socialist in the sense that it believed in heavy state intervention in the economy to correct problems in the capitalist system

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 20:04:25 2015 No.7296072 Mods, mods plz

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 20:32:26 2015 No.7296174

>>7295792
I know what he was implying, but the issue with discussing socialism in the National Socialist sense is that it is its own definition.
>as socialists we are the enemies of the jews in capitalism
But they are also
>enemies of the marxist socialist way of thinking.
I don't know the term for it, but basically Hitler harnessed the economic power of the market for the Nation, and soley the nation by means of amazing economic policy. Every economist said his policies would fail; and when they didn't they were flabbergasted.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 20:33:31 2015 No.7296182 >>7295792 >>7296174 I would also like to take the position of Jung in saying that German policy is not "made", it is revealed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 28 20:42:29 2015 No.7296210 >>7296072 Janitors are encouraged not to purge threads that have already taken off

Anonymous Wed Oct 28 23:19:36 2015 No.7296734

>>7296174
in natsoc, jews were the living embodiment of both capitalism and marxism though, so that's probably why hitler said what he did about revising marx (jew) and fighting bolshevism (which happened to have many jewish leaders)

>I don't know the term for it, but basically Hitler harnessed the economic power of the market for the Nation
some sort of national syndicalism or statism

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:17:37 2015 No.7296882

>>7296734
National syncialism doesn't seem to gully describe it because the policies went above and beyond such.
Hitler was able to soft legislate the morality of the German people by promoting the traditional German ways and built the world's most scientifically advanced country of that era; from a time change stand point.
>Jews and stuff
I understand each of those points but it's not the greatest idea to talk about that on /lit/. Suprisingly the /pol/tards, with their infantesimal amount of shitposting, get quite a few things right. Now it's almost unsalvagable it seems. Recently there is one very indignant Canadian (actually an Italian) asserting that everyone is a nordacist on 4chan. It's pretty hilarious to watch.

Anyway, syndicalism now that I think about it in no ways really describes the economic policies of Germany at the time.
There was no focus on owning the direct means of production...
UNLESS
THE CURRENCY ITSELF WAS TRANSFORMED TO A MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
Hmm.
>for each German Mark to be produced, one mark of labour must be conducted.
It makes me warm and fuzzy inside how he utterly destroyed the international community by simply refusing his country to be exploited by their new age trade practice.
Basically, he invented an internal fiat currency; and an external quasi bartering system with smaller more repressed nations... launching them all out of the depression into a working era.
I'm rambling a bit. But there is much more to this than just Economics.
It also involves essentials like a man with an overpowering will, and a voice like Animus.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:23:14 2015 No.7296899 File: 155 KB, 743x473, natsyn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296882 I just said that based on the following excerpts tbh

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:26:14 2015 No.7296914
File: 133 KB, 748x339, natsyn2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7296899
the proletarian nation being that some nations are treated like the "proletariat" in the international arena, sort of how like Germany was treated like shit after WWI, but these excerpts are describing the Italian rise of fascism

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:29:59 2015 No.7296922
File: 304 KB, 1132x2552, pol__guide_to_economics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7296899
Hmm.
I would need to see a more expansive definition of national syndicalism.
However it is probably the closest thing we can use to describe National Socialism.

Pic related is how funnily close they come.
It's like watching hundreds of toddlers topple a bunch of blocks with letters on them.
Half of the blocks say nigger, a fourth say faggot, another fourth say Jew, another fourth is just random jibberish, and the last are these rare instances of "closer to truth than what's out there".
That being said; probably bad for your health to visit.

Have you read Jungs writings on Hitler and the German peoples/Occultism?

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:31:25 2015 No.7296923
File: 258 KB, 974x982, 2_7_comet_v2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7296899
>>7296914
I am wondering how you feel about the anti-cathedralism that is rising from multiple positions in the public structure?
Or about the new alt right and places like IronMarch?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:33:07 2015 No.7296929 File: 158 KB, 928x319, occult.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296922 no I saw you recommended that though, I'll check it out if you think its worth reading. youll like this excerpt though

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:35:39 2015 No.7296936 >>7296923 I don't know about those movements you bring up sadly. I've developed an interest in far-right lately though and I'm only now starting to read about its different movements past and present

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:37:16 2015 No.7296943 File: 93 KB, 909x193, occult 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296929

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:39:50 2015 No.7296948 File: 71 KB, 510x226, occult 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296943

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:41:49 2015 No.7296956 File: 119 KB, 710x320, occult 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296948 oops wrong pic

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:43:45 2015 No.7296963 File: 116 KB, 881x277, occult 4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296956

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:45:17 2015 No.7296969 File: 75 KB, 894x164, occult 5.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296963

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:47:13 2015 No.7296971 File: 33 KB, 712x70, sauce.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7296969

Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:51:53 2015 No.7296978 [SPOILER]

File: 225 KB, 1082x497, 1446094313098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7296929
Well the Jung writings on Hitler are pretty hard to find.
I can pastebin it for you easily.
>>7296936
Apperently anti-cathedralism is the idea that absolutly everything is rigged against you from the establishment of the left and right (big money, media, everything).

It's a neo-reactionaries term.
People reccomend to start with these.

https://archive.is/KkEoJ
https://archive.is/7elea

And Iron March is neo-fascist movement started online and has expanded to global chapters.

If you're interested in National Socialism in America George Lincoln Rockwell is an excellent start and almost all of his criticisms are relevant today.
Funnily enough I'm going as Douglas MacArthur to all hallows eve.

Another note is the idea of the third position, or the alternative right.
For these, a lot is based around Evola.
But Evola is so difficult to grasp in context of the alt-right because of his traditionalist mindset.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 00:57:17 2015 No.7296994 >>7296943 >>7296948 >>7296956 >>7296963 >>7296969 But Ayrianism is a trumped up meme againts national socialism. It was simply German Racialism for the German nation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 02:08:31 2015 No.7297184 >>7296994 arianism is german racialism though

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 29 02:09:33 2015 No.7297186 >>7296978 cool, i'll look into it

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature