You keep saying these people are great even on Tucker Carlson. One example you gave is they eat good food or some other nonsense. By their actions, this class that you hail from is filled with power hungry monsters, now concentrated in NYC, SF, LA, and DC.
They deserve neither respect nor admiration. These monsters have been around since fdr and look at their fellow citizens with contempt, nothing more than cattle to be directed by manipulation. They look at the world as their fiefdom to be bullied and harassed to fly the rainbow flag. Regardless of their defensive position, they should be stripped of power forever by any means necessary. Then maybe they will indulge some idiotic Ethiopian restaurant since they apparently eat the "best food."
I completely get your point. I just feel that I'd be more satisfied with Marius. They deserve Marius, they've earned Marius and I wouldn't feel right with grilling and not thinking about politics until they got Marius.
Perhaps there can't be a Caesar without first getting a Marius?
You make it sound like it is important not to take revenge on the oligarchy and the aristocrats. Would you at least support the form of revenge “jailing felons“? Because they have done a lot of quite clearly criminal things while oppressing us.
Where are all these really wonderful people, these amazing extremely talented folks? What have they produced of genuine and lasting value which attests to their innate nobility of character? Buildings? Lol. Art? Lmfao. Peace amongst the peoples over whom they viciously and contemptuously rule? Roflmfao.
It’s a rotten slough and you lack the courage to characterize it properly, not sure why. Does political theory not offer a handy solution to the problem of a thoroughly morally filthy and yet overwhelmingly powerful oligarchy where no replacement exists and where the populace that constitutes the only possible source of power to elevate a decent Caesar is also pretty damn flabby and corrupt? Sincere question.
Maybe you refer to the millions of blue souls who are not necessarily directly oligarchs themselves but just need to place the yard signs wherever they effing go in order to stifle dissent and sow their ridiculous cheap garbage ideology into every neighborhood and association before a word can be freely spoken between citizens. I don’t know.
I found this article quite interesting and a little troubling.
The problem as I see it is that religious people are currently, and are likely to increasingly become, hostile to Blue State treatment of children. Blue State reckless abandon of any mores, sexual or otherwise, increasingly seems to have begun encompassing even basic decency.
Blue Stater's pathological need to infect young folks with their ideas stems from the sterility of their ideas and worldview. The Left should be a self-solving problem, and it would be, if it weren't for activist educators and sexual abusers/groomers. (Please forgive my use of the demotic term.) As a responsible parent, I could not simply allow the problem of intergenerational grooming to continue as it eventually would impact a child of mine or someone I know.
Perhaps there are structural things you have in mind for a new Monarchy that would address this problem.
There are just some types people and ideas that are absolutely intolerable and must be actively protected at all times in order to survive publicly.
A suggestion... read the f***ing Constitution and Federalist papers. I’ve had a hard time understanding your position on monarchy as the solution to our current state of affairs. Actually I've found it silly and unsophisticated given the history of monarchy, for example the Plantagenet's of England and the Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman empire. Until, that is, the recent piece in Vanity Fair. If I am correct , you advocate simply for a strong Presidency. Per the Constitution ours is a Federation not a nation, a Republic not a democracy. It started falling apart with the advent of the progressive era in the late 1800's when they realized that it is easier to influence the 500 people in the congress and nationalize everything than the 50,000 in the several state legislators.
It is obvious that our ship of state is dead in the water because it needs its hull scraped to remove the barnacles, rust, and rot. I submit that the basic structure (the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written) is sound. It is arguably the finest work of political science devised since humans learned to walk (see also 'A Very Short Introduction to the Magna Carta' https://www.veryshortintroductions.com/). I have no confidence that we can improve it. It has suffered injury almost from day one from judicial misconduct of the Supreme Court . Plessey Vs Ferguson is but one example from the early Progressive era. The 1927 decision in Buck vs Bell on forced sterilization neatly sums up the lawerly thinking that has started corroding the hull and attracted barnacles. To quote Justice Oliver Wendel Holms “...The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes.”
The only way that your Monarchist ideas could work is to follow the constitution - a very limited central government and internally autonomous states. Progressives could rule their states and conservatives rule theirs with the Federal government playing referee in interstate disputes and conducting foreign affairs. No national police (FBI), no national bank (The Fed), with the 10th amendment tattooed on the forehead of all federal employees and officials. As other commentators have pointed out the proclivities of the progressives among us make that un-likely.
The poast says over and over what's wrong with its conclusion. The blues cannot function if they arent in domination mode. If they aren't in domination mode they bleed their *non*-fragile talent over to the reds. So it wouldnt be much of a "jewel in the crown." They'd be mad; scheming constantly.
The China example is interesting when you consider a lot of their current leadership including xi lived through the cultural Revolution (xi got sent to do labor in the country side and his sister killed herself). This is explains why absolute order and stability have been their priority. While I wouldn’t personally want to live there I recognize that the stability of the regime ever since deng has made life for most people better, I don’t think an American monarch would have to be as heavy handed or controlling as the Chinese though as Americans and Chinese have different cultural values around order and conformity. Americans value a more libertarian streak on the personal level which I don’t think has to be antithetical to strong rule at the top
All I know is: I exist within a national and global madhouse and Senor Yarvin draws clever regime sketches with pencil. Am not sure what any of this is about anymore.
"Here is a question for red minds. Are you content with keeping X from applying to children of red parents? Or do you also want to impose your values on blue parents, preventing them by government power from “mutilating” their children in this way?
You should know that winning the second victory is much harder than the first."
No it isn't.
For nearly everyone, the relevant question is whether child mutilation is good or evil. Only disaffected liberals could see it as a matter of moral indifference capable of a stable live-and-let-live solution.
I would agree with the sentiment that any CW related legislation should be presented in as mundane a matter as possible. Especially at the national level there's no value in making other people mad. Owning the libs is a self own even if you have total control.
The problem is that it's very hard to present a regime as neutral that effectively involves depriving one side of huge amounts of power and the other of hardly any power a all (since they have hardly any to take).
If you have a war where one side is advancing rapidly and taking one town after another, the other in rapid retreat, having a powerful third party force a peace or even a truce is going to be rightly perceived as siding with the weaker party. The act of arresting that kind of cultural momentum rather than concealing it or slowing it down (the current realistic political options) is blood red even if the regime doesn't present it as such.
Our own current regime gets conniptions about when foreign states operate outside of their own cultural control. These states are illegitimate, sovereignty notwistanding. The language of rights doesn't concern itself with what side of a fence a person falls on and doesn't regard itself as co-equal or subordinate to any other set of norms or circumstances. In the context of operation X, Children have the right to express their gender and gender affirmative care and what state they live in or what their parents.
But my disagreement is mostly rhetorical. I don't see what's being proposed as a deviation from 'victory before peace', the only difference is that progressives cannot be relied upon to ever* be satisfied with a particular state of affairs, progress is viewed as a continuous process and so victory (and thus peace) is never achieved.
On Vitalism
An Islamist, insofar as they might participate in a culture war, have views that are not relative to progressives but relative to the Koran. Islamism, if it was imposed on a western population beyond ethnic enclaves would be seen as more anti-progressive than anti-traditional. Similarly I imagine vitalism in the modern day being seen as ultra-far-right, as in the hitler variety. They might abandon this hyper inferiority complex when out of power but I'm unsure.
Remember the Catholic vs Protestant wars during the 1500s and 1600s? Monarchies were not "purple" (neutral) in those wars. Neither would an American caesar be neutral. The way to avoid scaring the hell out of the blue states and inspiring them to fight back is to split the USA in half. Let them have their territory so we don't waste blood and treasure ruling them, and so that they are willing to accept the partition of the USA in the first place.
You keep saying these people are great even on Tucker Carlson. One example you gave is they eat good food or some other nonsense. By their actions, this class that you hail from is filled with power hungry monsters, now concentrated in NYC, SF, LA, and DC.
They deserve neither respect nor admiration. These monsters have been around since fdr and look at their fellow citizens with contempt, nothing more than cattle to be directed by manipulation. They look at the world as their fiefdom to be bullied and harassed to fly the rainbow flag. Regardless of their defensive position, they should be stripped of power forever by any means necessary. Then maybe they will indulge some idiotic Ethiopian restaurant since they apparently eat the "best food."
I completely get your point. I just feel that I'd be more satisfied with Marius. They deserve Marius, they've earned Marius and I wouldn't feel right with grilling and not thinking about politics until they got Marius.
Perhaps there can't be a Caesar without first getting a Marius?
You make it sound like it is important not to take revenge on the oligarchy and the aristocrats. Would you at least support the form of revenge “jailing felons“? Because they have done a lot of quite clearly criminal things while oppressing us.
Loud echo of above sentiment from Fghj.
Where are all these really wonderful people, these amazing extremely talented folks? What have they produced of genuine and lasting value which attests to their innate nobility of character? Buildings? Lol. Art? Lmfao. Peace amongst the peoples over whom they viciously and contemptuously rule? Roflmfao.
It’s a rotten slough and you lack the courage to characterize it properly, not sure why. Does political theory not offer a handy solution to the problem of a thoroughly morally filthy and yet overwhelmingly powerful oligarchy where no replacement exists and where the populace that constitutes the only possible source of power to elevate a decent Caesar is also pretty damn flabby and corrupt? Sincere question.
Maybe you refer to the millions of blue souls who are not necessarily directly oligarchs themselves but just need to place the yard signs wherever they effing go in order to stifle dissent and sow their ridiculous cheap garbage ideology into every neighborhood and association before a word can be freely spoken between citizens. I don’t know.
I found this article quite interesting and a little troubling.
The problem as I see it is that religious people are currently, and are likely to increasingly become, hostile to Blue State treatment of children. Blue State reckless abandon of any mores, sexual or otherwise, increasingly seems to have begun encompassing even basic decency.
Blue Stater's pathological need to infect young folks with their ideas stems from the sterility of their ideas and worldview. The Left should be a self-solving problem, and it would be, if it weren't for activist educators and sexual abusers/groomers. (Please forgive my use of the demotic term.) As a responsible parent, I could not simply allow the problem of intergenerational grooming to continue as it eventually would impact a child of mine or someone I know.
Perhaps there are structural things you have in mind for a new Monarchy that would address this problem.
There are just some types people and ideas that are absolutely intolerable and must be actively protected at all times in order to survive publicly.
A suggestion... read the f***ing Constitution and Federalist papers. I’ve had a hard time understanding your position on monarchy as the solution to our current state of affairs. Actually I've found it silly and unsophisticated given the history of monarchy, for example the Plantagenet's of England and the Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman empire. Until, that is, the recent piece in Vanity Fair. If I am correct , you advocate simply for a strong Presidency. Per the Constitution ours is a Federation not a nation, a Republic not a democracy. It started falling apart with the advent of the progressive era in the late 1800's when they realized that it is easier to influence the 500 people in the congress and nationalize everything than the 50,000 in the several state legislators.
It is obvious that our ship of state is dead in the water because it needs its hull scraped to remove the barnacles, rust, and rot. I submit that the basic structure (the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written) is sound. It is arguably the finest work of political science devised since humans learned to walk (see also 'A Very Short Introduction to the Magna Carta' https://www.veryshortintroductions.com/). I have no confidence that we can improve it. It has suffered injury almost from day one from judicial misconduct of the Supreme Court . Plessey Vs Ferguson is but one example from the early Progressive era. The 1927 decision in Buck vs Bell on forced sterilization neatly sums up the lawerly thinking that has started corroding the hull and attracted barnacles. To quote Justice Oliver Wendel Holms “...The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes.”
The only way that your Monarchist ideas could work is to follow the constitution - a very limited central government and internally autonomous states. Progressives could rule their states and conservatives rule theirs with the Federal government playing referee in interstate disputes and conducting foreign affairs. No national police (FBI), no national bank (The Fed), with the 10th amendment tattooed on the forehead of all federal employees and officials. As other commentators have pointed out the proclivities of the progressives among us make that un-likely.
The poast says over and over what's wrong with its conclusion. The blues cannot function if they arent in domination mode. If they aren't in domination mode they bleed their *non*-fragile talent over to the reds. So it wouldnt be much of a "jewel in the crown." They'd be mad; scheming constantly.
Just one question - how do we prevent Hitler, or Caligula, becoming “king”? Quis custodiet and all that
The China example is interesting when you consider a lot of their current leadership including xi lived through the cultural Revolution (xi got sent to do labor in the country side and his sister killed herself). This is explains why absolute order and stability have been their priority. While I wouldn’t personally want to live there I recognize that the stability of the regime ever since deng has made life for most people better, I don’t think an American monarch would have to be as heavy handed or controlling as the Chinese though as Americans and Chinese have different cultural values around order and conformity. Americans value a more libertarian streak on the personal level which I don’t think has to be antithetical to strong rule at the top
All I know is: I exist within a national and global madhouse and Senor Yarvin draws clever regime sketches with pencil. Am not sure what any of this is about anymore.
Whoa whoa whoa, what's with the driveby on gamers?
"Here is a question for red minds. Are you content with keeping X from applying to children of red parents? Or do you also want to impose your values on blue parents, preventing them by government power from “mutilating” their children in this way?
You should know that winning the second victory is much harder than the first."
No it isn't.
For nearly everyone, the relevant question is whether child mutilation is good or evil. Only disaffected liberals could see it as a matter of moral indifference capable of a stable live-and-let-live solution.
I would agree with the sentiment that any CW related legislation should be presented in as mundane a matter as possible. Especially at the national level there's no value in making other people mad. Owning the libs is a self own even if you have total control.
The problem is that it's very hard to present a regime as neutral that effectively involves depriving one side of huge amounts of power and the other of hardly any power a all (since they have hardly any to take).
If you have a war where one side is advancing rapidly and taking one town after another, the other in rapid retreat, having a powerful third party force a peace or even a truce is going to be rightly perceived as siding with the weaker party. The act of arresting that kind of cultural momentum rather than concealing it or slowing it down (the current realistic political options) is blood red even if the regime doesn't present it as such.
Our own current regime gets conniptions about when foreign states operate outside of their own cultural control. These states are illegitimate, sovereignty notwistanding. The language of rights doesn't concern itself with what side of a fence a person falls on and doesn't regard itself as co-equal or subordinate to any other set of norms or circumstances. In the context of operation X, Children have the right to express their gender and gender affirmative care and what state they live in or what their parents.
But my disagreement is mostly rhetorical. I don't see what's being proposed as a deviation from 'victory before peace', the only difference is that progressives cannot be relied upon to ever* be satisfied with a particular state of affairs, progress is viewed as a continuous process and so victory (and thus peace) is never achieved.
On Vitalism
An Islamist, insofar as they might participate in a culture war, have views that are not relative to progressives but relative to the Koran. Islamism, if it was imposed on a western population beyond ethnic enclaves would be seen as more anti-progressive than anti-traditional. Similarly I imagine vitalism in the modern day being seen as ultra-far-right, as in the hitler variety. They might abandon this hyper inferiority complex when out of power but I'm unsure.
Interesting. Heard of you for the first time a few days ago via James Pogue’s recent article. Paid subscriber 👏
Remember the Catholic vs Protestant wars during the 1500s and 1600s? Monarchies were not "purple" (neutral) in those wars. Neither would an American caesar be neutral. The way to avoid scaring the hell out of the blue states and inspiring them to fight back is to split the USA in half. Let them have their territory so we don't waste blood and treasure ruling them, and so that they are willing to accept the partition of the USA in the first place.
Or we could just do Switzerland instead. They do different tribes in what is probably the most democratic democracy ever.