Free Software Foundation pushes back

There was no motivation for women’s libs except that women always try to walk the extra inch. Before women’s libs the elite weren’t yet degenerate traitors so they always told them what you ought to tell them, “shut the fuck up”, but eventually they became degenerate traitors and started to use women’s libs to plunder and destroy their fellow men like they use niggers, Climate Change and Coronavirus and whatever excuse they can come up with that becomes the flavor of the day these days, that increasingly makes the bureaucracy stronger and richer and everyone else weaker and poorer.

Notice that there’s little time difference between women’s libs and the founding of the Federal Reserve and a few years after you get the Great Depression, signifying the process of further plundering. It all goes hand on hand, the whole thing is the bureaucracy/priesthood/Cathedral toppling apple carts and plundering society, piece by piece.

but then the question is why the elites became degenerate traitors?

Degenerate state religion (Holiness spiraled Puritanism). Although it can be argued that Republics by their very nature always trend toward decadence and degeneracy of the elite over a long enough time scale.

@suones

Accelerationism is not jim’s position though, but sure, whatever your preference is. But you’re definitely not a representative of most humans, who in fact seem to believe or are made to believe that society is not decaying but rather “progressing”, at least in the west. I have no idea what your people say on the streets.

@Pooch

You can say the exact same about anything else, it’s not a valid argument considering you can’t find a single instance of a political system and an elite that haven’t decayed over a long enough time scale.

Republics are far more stable forms of government considering their record, compared to monarchies. It is difficult to build a virtuous elite but it’s also more stable, while monarchies constantly flip flop between complete fucking disasters and mediocre kings, with the somewhat rare good monarch. But it’s also true that when there’s a good monarch he provides a more effective leadership than a good virtuous elite in a Republic.

@jim

I disagree, I don’t think they were correct at all. As a matter of fact, the two most remarkable civilizations the west has built in terms of scale and success were born as republics, Rome and America. And what about very successful free cities like in ancient Greece and Italian Renaissance? After the fall of Rome, there’s also a big difference between the late absolute monarchs and the early monarchs who worked and needed the explicit support of the nobility. In what historical context has a monarchy proven more stable than a republic? Perhaps you’re talking about China, I don’t really know its history. Rome was a lot more stable as a republic, and the farther away from a republic and the closer to the necessity of a monarch the more restless and bloody. And then after Augustus you don’t really get that stability, instead you get degenerates like Caligula and Nero. The problem is that well, after all the republic did fall and a monarchy was indeed needed, but the monarchy didn’t do so well and soon fell as well.

Republics seem scarce, finding a virtuous elite seems a sort of fortuitous encounter born out of specific circumstances, but once they are established the virtue of the elite is more stable and durable than the ticking bomb of the lion begetting the jackass, consistently, repeatedly.

@The Cominator

Republic’s are stable IF they are small and have a virtuous elite.

That is what it seems, but you don’t have better examples in monarchies when talking about stability. You do have better leadership and imperial efficiency in very specific monarchs while they were alive, but you also have some who spread absolute death and misery all the same, so you have cases where the grandfather creates the first empire where the sun never sets (Fernando I de Aragón) and luckily the grandson (Carlos I de España) continues his labor faithfully, but you get like a 100 years and afterwards not stable and rarely again successful in the same manner. How about England? How long a record?

Also, I’m not sure that size is necessarily all that dooming for a republic, it’s just that a regional power requires time to grow into something more and this time is long enough for the virtuous elite to decay. Using the same example, it’d seem that while Spain was “smaller” it was doing better, but in the end it all boiled down to the monarchs, not really the size.

@Pseudo

Republic as in aristocratic republic, democracy is insanity.

Nicholas II of Russia is probably the very worst monarch in history being personally responsible for WW1 the greatest disaster in the history of western civilzation. Phillip II of Spain is close. Charles the bewitched since he couldn’t function was less worse than those two.

Austria had to do something state backed terrorists assassinating the imperial heir was intolerable.

One event during the July Crisis highlights how inexcusably stupid Nicholas II was to me…

He could have gone to the Archduke’s funeral and talked personally with Wilhelm and Franz Joseph (who both attended) and tried to work out a solution without the government war factions getting in the way… he did not.

@jim

You are mixing up cause and effect.

Republics happen when you have a virtuous elite, Rome being the classic and extreme example. Need a virtuous elite to have a great civilization.

When you don’t have a virtuous elite, need a King.

I don’t see how anything I’ve said is different or contradicting with this. I simply point out that when you do have a virtuous elite, it’s far more stable in the sense that the republic will be overall better throughout a longer period of time, while with kings you’ll get instability in the sense that throughout the same period of time the regime will be more variable and wave between good, stagnant/mediocre and bad.

@monarchist

Which imaginary fantasy-novel monarchies do you have in mind, here? Because it certainly isn’t the English or French monarchies, nor from my limited knowledge does it fit the Spanish.

I agree your knowledge is limited when it comes to Spain, the amount of terrible and traitor kings we’ve had far outnumber the good ones, I’ve never met a Spaniard who didn’t agree, from all walks of life and all political leanings.

I’ve never been too interested in the general long history details of English and French monarchies so I’ll not argue with you in this point, I’m not interested in pulling out history and arguing about technicalities and details and start counting kings one by one. But simple logic indicates you must be wrong, since we have the hindsight and we can point out the lack of results. Good kings become world famous because they are very rare and when they do exist the results are extremely remarkable, and I’m talking world changing remarkable.

And bad kings are so incredibly destructive they are responsible for human disasters like the French Revolution. This is possibly the worst calamity Christendom has ever suffered and a French monarch is the one responsible for it. The Cominator has his own list apparently, but WWI would’t have ever happened without the French Revolution initiating the obliteration of Christian social technology to begin with.

If King Louis XVI had held memetic sovereignty…

This is an extremely big demand. Warriors generally lack memetic sovereignty, which is a Brahmin trait. Kings possessing memetic sovereignty are the ones who establish Empire and Religion. Samrat Ashoka the Great and Tsar Peter the Great come to mind, but they were really exceptional Kings. A “good” King merely keeps the system put in place by his fathers and maintains it. Louis XV and XVI were both “good” Kings, but they simply didn’t have what was needed.

PS: Paladins can come from warrior or priestly classes. Eg: the longest surviving Hindu Empire was led by Peshwas who were literally Brahmins who took up the sword.

@jim

How do you get a reasonably high level of elite virtue?

Historically, the answer has always been a reasonably sane, but rather intrusive, state Church under a virtuous monarch.

Historically I don’t think the state Church is necessarily involved in the development of the elite virtue, but rather the elite virtue develops on the image of the virtuous monarch, his actions, his behavior and the guidelines he is setting up for the organization that prove successful. And from there, the state Church forms and is a feedback.

Virtuous monarchs are, of course, no sure thing, and sane state Churches are no sure thing, but a King with a son has incentive to worry about the future, and the power to do something about that future, so virtue is more likely than in other forms of governance. If you have one man responsible, you have at least a chance he will actually be responsible. If many men responsible, no one responsible. So a Republic is likely to lose the virtue that made it possible. (And Kings with short life expectancy and little prospect of their sons following them are worse.)

Republics always have leading figures, precisely because if many men responsible, no one responsible. There is always a de facto opinion leader and among the virtuous elite someone always take the initiative, it’s the way of the world. Republics lose their virtue and Kings lose their kingdoms, I don’t understand where this argument is leading. If Kings were infallible and clear cut better than Republics, which it seems to be the point your ultimately trying to make, the world wouldn’t be the way it is today, the lineage of Kings would be eternal.

Louis XV and XVI were not bad, merely too weak for the task at hand.

An ineffective leader is a bad leader, this is also the way of the world: the leader is the greatest figure and takes the greatest credit and holds the greatest power, but he must also bear the disgrace, suffer the wort of the consequences and be condemned the most. The monarch is responsible for whatever happens in his kingdom, if there is a problem it’s his duty to fix it, no excuses.

Republics cannot solve the problem of holiness spiraling. If King Louis XVI had held memetic sovereignty, would have crushed the holiness spiral. If no King, no solution.

Agreed.

@alf

I lean towards monarchy over republic, since a monarch can fight civilisational entropy better than a republic. At the same time, plenty of impressive republics; golden century Netherlands got its start as a republic.

If this were true the two most famous western revolutions wouldn’t have happened under the watch of monarchs, and the two most successful western empires wouldn’t have been born from republics. If monarchs alone could fight civilizational entropy, today you’d be under a king.

Have you ever known anything in this world that was permanent? Nothing is forever, social decay is inevitable, just like your car breaking down is inevitable, everything is subject to entropy, nothing is perfect in this world. We should adjust what we do to what is needed to solve the issues as they happen, today we need a King, tomorrow a Republic might be better.

Jim always says that man is a fallen creature living in an imperfect world, so why insist that a perfect political system exists? Well, history proves that this is obviously untrue.

I reason this the other way around: the king is responsible for stopping leftist singularities such as the French revolution. Only when he was gotten rid of did the French terror get into full swing.

Of course, that’s why it’s his fault, you said so yourself, its his responsibility.

No one sane would make excuses for the engineer that builds a bad bridge that collapses and in the process kills many people. Why make excuses for the king? This thinking and this line of argument doesn’t persuade towards monarchy, it sounds tyrannical and destructive. Kings have to pay for their failures with redemption or death, if redemption remembered as redeemed, if dead as a failure.

Who supports bailing out bankers and businessmen when they fuck up? No one, and they don’t deserve to, they have to pay for the consequences of their actions or their inaction, this is both the privilege and the duty that comes with position, and its the way of the world. That’s why the market economy works, the failures are cropped. That’s why all successful societies were patriarchal, the rest were failures and were cropped.