Because the will isn't there, and the only thing worse than a bloody revolution is a bloody revolution conducted by those without the stomach for rule. I exist between the American ruling class and the subject class. I was born and raised by the rulers, and live among the subjects. The subjects are politically disinterested and more libe…
Because the will isn't there, and the only thing worse than a bloody revolution is a bloody revolution conducted by those without the stomach for rule. I exist between the American ruling class and the subject class. I was born and raised by the rulers, and live among the subjects. The subjects are politically disinterested and more libertarian than anything else. If you want these people to rule, this is a huge cultural hurdle to overcome. Their circumstances are not yet desperate enough to make them personally interested in rule, and they find politics unmotivating and dislike discussing it. So yes, I would rather they not attempt to LARP a modern day revolution until they're either ready to rule, or we have exhausted all other options. For the moment, building inheritor institutions which stand a chance of cultural domination is actually going fairly well, and we're even winning some meaningful cultural victories within major cultural institutions. We're winning the hearts and minds of the youth who see most of the bullshit and tired cliches spouted by our ruling class, and want something real and sincere. If we can skip the civil wars and go straight to Augustus, that would be optimal in my mind. Granted, I also don't see any Augustus, but who noticed Octavian?
I did present facts by way of contrary example. All the things which are true for Sri Lanka and made it work there are not true here and will not work here. Sri Lanka is not a suitable model for the US and its present historical circumstance. If current trends continue for an extended period of time, we COULD get to the level of desperation required for popular insurrection. But that's not desirable, because the foundation of a state should be laid carefully and deliberately, and violent necessity breeds compromise. You only need to look at how the desperation of war established the shaky alliance between Northern and Southern states that eventually culminated in the Civil War and ultimately the death of state identity and autonomy, and the intense corruption of the Gilded Age. As well as economic damage that the South is still technically recovering from, never properly rebuilt due to the sort of bitterness that only a war between kin can foster. War is something we should be ready for, but it shouldn't be something we hope for. It breeds too many desperate and shitty compromises and sets us up for failure later.
Curtis is an elitist, like you'd expect from a monarchist. Obviously he has personal attachments to his class, but I think those play second fiddle to his pragmatic assessment of who will rule and who must rule. The masses do not want to rule, they want to be governed well, and unlike the rest of my class I share their sentiments. I have no personal interest in power. What I believe is important is that the elites be rotated. This happens every couple of generations until the whole ruling structure is so rotten and decayed that necessity dictates it be replaced - which is where we're at, nearing the 300 year expiration date of the average republic. My argument, which I presented in so many words, is that historical circumstances drive culture and human decision making much more than human desires do. This is why historical repetition occurs so frequently. The same animal put in similar situations behaves similarly, and when they can shape their situation, you get behavioral loops. My argument is fundamentally that we're all trapped in broader historical currents that we have almost no control over, and rather than fighting the flow we must work with it. No number of infinitely eloquent Cicero's could save the republic - then or now. Rather than pining for older and better days that cannot return, we need to work with what we have. And it is better that all parties walk away from this satisfied in order to build the foundation of a stable regime.
I apologize for nobody. I only argued that they're oligarchies, not monarchies, which is true. Keep in mind that I'm probably the only other commenter on this blog who is ambivalent (and may even support a little bit) the war in Ukraine. I can tell there are many differences between us, but what I feel is one of the primary differences between you and I is how we view our enemies. I don't need avarice to be motivated. It's a superfluous emotion. If they must be destroyed, then they must be destroyed. But destroying them is a lot of work with very uncertain results, and for that reason is an option of last resort - no matter how much they deserve to suffer.
Because the will isn't there, and the only thing worse than a bloody revolution is a bloody revolution conducted by those without the stomach for rule. I exist between the American ruling class and the subject class. I was born and raised by the rulers, and live among the subjects. The subjects are politically disinterested and more libertarian than anything else. If you want these people to rule, this is a huge cultural hurdle to overcome. Their circumstances are not yet desperate enough to make them personally interested in rule, and they find politics unmotivating and dislike discussing it. So yes, I would rather they not attempt to LARP a modern day revolution until they're either ready to rule, or we have exhausted all other options. For the moment, building inheritor institutions which stand a chance of cultural domination is actually going fairly well, and we're even winning some meaningful cultural victories within major cultural institutions. We're winning the hearts and minds of the youth who see most of the bullshit and tired cliches spouted by our ruling class, and want something real and sincere. If we can skip the civil wars and go straight to Augustus, that would be optimal in my mind. Granted, I also don't see any Augustus, but who noticed Octavian?
I did present facts by way of contrary example. All the things which are true for Sri Lanka and made it work there are not true here and will not work here. Sri Lanka is not a suitable model for the US and its present historical circumstance. If current trends continue for an extended period of time, we COULD get to the level of desperation required for popular insurrection. But that's not desirable, because the foundation of a state should be laid carefully and deliberately, and violent necessity breeds compromise. You only need to look at how the desperation of war established the shaky alliance between Northern and Southern states that eventually culminated in the Civil War and ultimately the death of state identity and autonomy, and the intense corruption of the Gilded Age. As well as economic damage that the South is still technically recovering from, never properly rebuilt due to the sort of bitterness that only a war between kin can foster. War is something we should be ready for, but it shouldn't be something we hope for. It breeds too many desperate and shitty compromises and sets us up for failure later.
Curtis is an elitist, like you'd expect from a monarchist. Obviously he has personal attachments to his class, but I think those play second fiddle to his pragmatic assessment of who will rule and who must rule. The masses do not want to rule, they want to be governed well, and unlike the rest of my class I share their sentiments. I have no personal interest in power. What I believe is important is that the elites be rotated. This happens every couple of generations until the whole ruling structure is so rotten and decayed that necessity dictates it be replaced - which is where we're at, nearing the 300 year expiration date of the average republic. My argument, which I presented in so many words, is that historical circumstances drive culture and human decision making much more than human desires do. This is why historical repetition occurs so frequently. The same animal put in similar situations behaves similarly, and when they can shape their situation, you get behavioral loops. My argument is fundamentally that we're all trapped in broader historical currents that we have almost no control over, and rather than fighting the flow we must work with it. No number of infinitely eloquent Cicero's could save the republic - then or now. Rather than pining for older and better days that cannot return, we need to work with what we have. And it is better that all parties walk away from this satisfied in order to build the foundation of a stable regime.
I apologize for nobody. I only argued that they're oligarchies, not monarchies, which is true. Keep in mind that I'm probably the only other commenter on this blog who is ambivalent (and may even support a little bit) the war in Ukraine. I can tell there are many differences between us, but what I feel is one of the primary differences between you and I is how we view our enemies. I don't need avarice to be motivated. It's a superfluous emotion. If they must be destroyed, then they must be destroyed. But destroying them is a lot of work with very uncertain results, and for that reason is an option of last resort - no matter how much they deserve to suffer.
“If we can skip the civil wars and go straight to Augustus, that would be optimal in my mind.”
😂😂😂
NO. Not even if it were possible, if it takes 100 Million 🇺🇸 deaths ☠️ would I forbear the chance to wipe the smug from the faces ...
... who aren’t fit to run anything.
Its worth dying for 😁