- Joined
- Jul 18, 2017
I will preface this post by saying I am basically doing a deep thunk on something that has been bothering me for awhile now, and has only just started crystalizing in my head. So this post should be read not as a "definitive articulation", but more me throwing a theory out there in the bar over a beer, to see if it lands. If it does, a part of me kinda wants to actually do the full research and write a book.
PART I. Introduction and summarized history
Recently, I made a post in a the happenings thread about the recent bout of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. In it, I mused that these protests, and much of the ideology underpinning them highlights the critical flaw at the heart of Liberalism as a concept, in all forms. Not just what we would call "Liberals" in the modern sense, but Liberalism itself, from the current definition being screamed on our college campuses all the way back to Locke and Jefferson. That all men are at the fundamental state of nature "equal" in the eyes of nature or natures god, and that as such they all possess individual sovereign rights that are inalienable.
Since the moment this idea was expounded it lit a match underneath the discontent that was seething in Europe in the wake of the Protestant reformation and the massive expansion of European Colonial enterprises. Most of which it should be noted failed, or succeeded only in the sense of transplanting Europeans to new areas and basically working them like Serfs in service to the central authority. All of which were invariably monarchies buttressed by landed aristocrats. The Rise of Liberalism also coincided with the concept of Absolute Monarchs such as the Kings of France and Russia. Which it should be noted were exceptions and not the rule, but made convenient targets for Liberal revolutionaries to pillory. More importantly though, the ossified noble classes of Europe had no institutional method by which to integrate the noveau riche of the middle class who, enriched by the explosion of global trade colonialism brought, began agitating for the respect and social standing their wealth brought. Especially when their wealth soon eclipsed that of the established nobility and monarchs whose wealth was tied to their landed estates. Which was a huge disadvantage. The Duke of Anjou certainly made a killing off of wine. But just down the road from his estate was Goodman Le Pierre who was heavily invested in Sugar from Haiti and Furs from Louisiana. He was absolutely killing the Duke of Anjou year after year per capita. But was he invited to the soirees at Versailles or even the Duke of Anjou's house? Fuck no.
The common conceit of Liberalism is that it was a revolt of the "Common Man" against the evil and overbearing Kings. But this is not the entire truth. Had it simply been a revolt of the unwashed masses it would not have been an issue for the established governments that it would inevitably overthrow or subvert. Unfortunately for the old world order, what was at issue was the exploding power of the merchant class and later industrial class. In the case of the American Revolution this was the entire point. The Merchants of New England and the Landed Aristocrats of Virginia and the Carolinas were infuriated that the King of Great Britain refused to grant them royal charters for trade and patents of nobility respectively. Far from being a revolt of the common man the American Revolution was a literal rolodex of the wealthiest merchants and landowners in the 13 colonies. The common man was an afterthought that was used to justify the whole thing in a liberal framework, pushed largely by hard core revolutionaries like Jefferson and Paine. After the war there was a determined effort to try and roll things back but the cat was "out of the bag" by that point.
A mere decade later the French revolution got underway, complete with flowery speeches, proclamations and wonderful works similar to the Declaration of Independence in North America. But unlike in America, the French revolution soon descended into mass slaughter known as the Terror. The Revolutionary government murdered the royal family for no other reason then that they were the royal family. Completely defying the once flowery idea of all men being equal. Some were just more equal then others. Ultimately the revolution would be taken over by Napoleon Bonaparte, who would establish absolute rule around his own person and then eventually crown himself "Emperor" of France in a ceremony that was essentially a liberal mockery of actual royal coronations where he had the pope brought at gun point to crown him, only to snatch the crown from the popes and put it on his own head. Needless to say this was not lost on the other Kings of Europe and they fought a brutal war against Napoleon to try and put the genie back in the bottle. But they were just delaying the inevitable. Liberalism is a seductive idea. Who doesn't want to believe that they are their own special snowflake? That no matter who you are, your life is as equally valuable as anyone else's, no matter how much more productive, intelligent, influential, or any other spectrum of social value, that other person may be. By the close of World War 1, Liberalism prevailed in totality with Woodrow Wilsons plan and the establishment of a new liberal international order. One that was solidified at the close of World War 2 with the victory of the Allied Powers. Monarchs from 1945 on with few exception have been relegated to largely ceremonial positions in favor of the Liberal Democracy that at best tolerates these ancient appendages as useful tools of state power.
PART II. Where I break the conditioning.
Its important to now point out before I proceed that you are conditioned. You have grown up in a world where the 300 year experiment in Liberal political theory is not just considered a theory, it is considered the very nature of the Universe. You believe, without even thinking it that all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. If you don't believe that, or assume that someone doesn't believe that, then the person who "does not believe" must either be mentally defective, or adheres to one of the "bad ideologies" such as fascism or communism. Addressing the big bads of the 20th century briefly however, it must be pointed out that Fascism and Communism are also Liberal in their outlook. Communism is simply Liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. If we are all equal under Natures God, why should someone else be entitled to more food then me? Better food then me? A bigger house? Why can they own property but I must rent from them? Why must power imbalances exist at all? Liberalism has no answer to this because it CANNOT answer it. Fascism by contrast focuses instead on the Liberal State itself as an example of Virtue. A Stand in for the dead Gods and Kings, where all the people have a common purpose in mutual service to each other to build the best State possible. The State is of course always the best it can be, because it cannot be anything but. A pure example of the popular will of all the free thinking special snowflakes that make it up. All within the State, none without the State.
More importantly though, nobody has stopped to realize that even among establishment political parties in the West, ALL OF THEM, are Liberal. They all operate under a Liberal framework of doctrine. They all espouse the implementation of Liberal doctrine at the State level. The only differentiating factor between them is in how stridently they demand it and what particular facets of Liberal orthodoxy they choose to favor. Worse, there is now a kind of "stand alone complex" among all the Liberal Democracies that has been lovingly dubbed "Globo Homo". A grand international conspiracy of Liberals out to trans the kids and import a million Africans. But it is NOT a Conspiracy. Its the ideology of the State, the Liberal Ideology, being applied correctly in the States where it has gained power. If all men are created equal, then an African off the boat from Nigeria is just as valid a citizen as someone born in the country he moved too. The Liberal Democracies are simply applying the ideology as it dictates.
Critics of Liberalism as a political philosophy warned stridently that the corrupt Liberal Democracies of today, as well as Fascism and Communism would be the end result of ALL Liberal political revolutions and experiments. Most of the Liberal Revolutions, particularly in the case of the Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, were revolutions driven by resentment on the part of the middle class, as much as they were the downtrodden poor. Its no accident all the great commies of the 20th century, from Lenin to Castro, to Pol Pot were ALL born to wealthy families who could afford to give their little princelings very expensive educations. In the case of Pol Pot, he actually attended University in Paris where he joined the French Communist Party. Which it should be noted, is still a political party you can vote for in France. More importantly, this resentment of the social superiors in the hierarchy of society is something Liberalism engenders by DEFAULT. Because the idea that "all men are created equal" is a LIE. This is absolutely, not true at all. Some men are born retarded. Some men are actually born as women and have to bleed out a fucking hole once a month, or become gravid for 9 months if they don't. Some men are born into families of drunkards and abusers. Some men are born with critical genetic abnormalities that doom them to misery. So for Liberalism to work, it must seek to ameliorate all the inequalities that confound society, because if it did not it will never EVER live up to its core ethos. A never ending, ceaseless struggle to achieve utopia. An utopia that will not come, and CANNOT come. But ever is the struggle, and the search for "enemies" that must surely be standing in the way of the promised utopia becomes unceasing. The Fascists blamed the Jews. The Communists blamed the Bourgeoise, and the modern Liberals blame the Chuds/White Men. Ever is there an enemy standing in the way of progress. And the one thing Liberalism has been VERY good at, its building functional states that are very efficient at killing enemies of progress.
The established Aristocracy viewed the Noveau Riche (who were wildly into Liberalism) with deep suspicion for this very reason. Not just because they knew very well that the central conceit of Liberalism was a lie (After all, if it was true, then why were they so much better), but also because their wealth was not "of the land". It came from trade. Which meant they didn't truly have any loyalty to the country or its people. A French Banker can do business wherever he wanted too. The Duke of Anjou on the other hand could only do business IN ANJOU. If shit hit the fan, the Banker would flee, but the Duke would stay and defend his land. Defenders of the old order excoriated Liberalism's claim of "all men being equal" in large part because it implied that the wealthy Merchants were just as valid inheritors of State power as they were. The "common man" was not a consideration here as the common man was no threat. But the merchants most certainly were. As Liberalism ascended in power the last few traditionalists to cling to relevance warned that the day would come with these avaricious up starts would sell their own countries to the highest bidder, and then the "common man" would realize that all the wonderful platitudes of equality won't amount to anything. Because equality as a concept is a LIE.
PART III. The Traditionalist and Monarchist position.
All men are not created equal. They are endowed by their creator to serve the purpose to which the creator has ordained. For some, the Creator has ordained that they rule. For others that they serve. And for those misbegotten it is to suffer. But this is by no means a claim to predestination or fatalism, because none may know the creators will. And so a Prince born to be King may instead be thrown from a window to his death in favor of something else. Or an orphan born on the street may be discovered to have keen intellect and through proper education that manifests their born ability may rise in social standing. Likewise some may find their purpose to be the alleviation of suffering on the part of the misbegotten.
The Role of the State in this paradigm is not to establish equality. Its not preserve rights such as speech, guns, voting, etc, it is to preserve the natural order of God's plan. As such, the leaders of the State must focus on their Charge. Which is the State itself, and all the people who live upon it. Those "born of the land" as subjects to the State are the sole concern of he or she who rules over them, because God himself has delivered those people into their care. They must preserve them in their health, see too it that they are not deprived of their property, not rendered incapable of productive work through injurious taxation or policing, to keep the foreign barbarians from despoiling their lands, and most important of all, to be held in the safety and capability of creating the next generation of subjects.
I have up to this point studiously avoided saying "King or Queen" in this description of a pre-(or is it post) Liberal State. But I am at pains to consider a viable alternative. Voting is by nature anarchic, and the Monarchists (correctly) warned that "the people" if given free reign would vote to enrich themselves at the expense of the State. One need just look at what the Federal Government of the United States (or any Liberal Democracy really) are spending their entire GDP and then more so in the form of debt, upon. Is it wars of national defense? Exploring Space? No. Its providing benefits. Largely to fulfill the principle liberal conceit that if all men are not equal yet, then the State isn't trying hard enough to bring about this universal truth. This is not to say that the Monarchies and Traditional societies are not prone of profligate spending either. One look at Versailles disabuses this notion. Greed is sadly the common state of man. However, the big difference between a modern liberal state and the Traditional one has been that when a traditional state runs out of money, it RUNS OUT OF MONEY. The Army stops getting paid. Government contracts stop getting paid, and the King in short order finds himself sitting very uncomfortably on the throne. If not just getting turfed out entirely. When Liberal States run out of money, they simply change the definition of money, make everyone in the State poorer and then proceed as if nothing has happened. An incredibly powerful tool to be sure, but one that breaks down if done too much and too often. Which it most certainly now is. They can do this because, again, all men are created equal and all men are within the State as the manifestation of the collective will. So if the State suffers, All must suffer. If a King runs out of Money, only HE must suffer. And oh does he. History is full of Kings who wasted their wealth and ran into misfortune. For the random John Q. Peasant, this situation was neither a concern or even noticed most of the time.
A King or Queen, at the fundamental is "of the land". Their wealth comes from the land, and the people that live upon it. Liberal economists have agonized for years over the concept of the "Tragedy of the Commons", ignoring the fact that this "tragedy" was solved centuries ago when a King decided that a particularly nice patch of forest was his exclusive hunting reserve and ordered the unwashed peasants to kindly stop murdering all the deer. Which in a round about way preserved these animals to the present day. This idea of a King being "of the land" also means that despite the tendency towards despotism that is the nature of all humans, there is a "self interested" desire on the part of a King to not be overly abusive to the land and its people, since they are what provides his wealth and status. This is NOT the case with the leaders of a liberal State. A Liberal State is not bound to the land, it is bound to the ideas that underpin it, and these ideas are universal in nature. The people of their country are merely incidental tools in the grand vision. Be it the United States acting against its own self interest to "spread democracy", the Soviet Union establishing the Communist International to spread the global revolution, or the simple banality of formerly militant Irish Nationalist parties importing a hundred thousand Africans into the Irish countryside in order to fulfill the operating doctrine at the heart of their central conceit. That all men are created equal. A King would never do such a thing if put in his proper place, because a King understands that All Men are NOT equal. The men who support his throne are far more important then some random bunch of boat people coming in from Nigeria. It is also why without exception Liberal States will trend towards murderousness and despotism. This is being shown to be a universal truth, and the only difference between them is in how fast they go down the primrose path to hell.
Because at the end of the day a Liberal State cares little for the individuals it claims to uplift. When all men are equal, some it would seem, become more equal then others. If only to provide enough State power to make everyone say the lie out loud. All men are created equal.
PART I. Introduction and summarized history
Recently, I made a post in a the happenings thread about the recent bout of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. In it, I mused that these protests, and much of the ideology underpinning them highlights the critical flaw at the heart of Liberalism as a concept, in all forms. Not just what we would call "Liberals" in the modern sense, but Liberalism itself, from the current definition being screamed on our college campuses all the way back to Locke and Jefferson. That all men are at the fundamental state of nature "equal" in the eyes of nature or natures god, and that as such they all possess individual sovereign rights that are inalienable.
Since the moment this idea was expounded it lit a match underneath the discontent that was seething in Europe in the wake of the Protestant reformation and the massive expansion of European Colonial enterprises. Most of which it should be noted failed, or succeeded only in the sense of transplanting Europeans to new areas and basically working them like Serfs in service to the central authority. All of which were invariably monarchies buttressed by landed aristocrats. The Rise of Liberalism also coincided with the concept of Absolute Monarchs such as the Kings of France and Russia. Which it should be noted were exceptions and not the rule, but made convenient targets for Liberal revolutionaries to pillory. More importantly though, the ossified noble classes of Europe had no institutional method by which to integrate the noveau riche of the middle class who, enriched by the explosion of global trade colonialism brought, began agitating for the respect and social standing their wealth brought. Especially when their wealth soon eclipsed that of the established nobility and monarchs whose wealth was tied to their landed estates. Which was a huge disadvantage. The Duke of Anjou certainly made a killing off of wine. But just down the road from his estate was Goodman Le Pierre who was heavily invested in Sugar from Haiti and Furs from Louisiana. He was absolutely killing the Duke of Anjou year after year per capita. But was he invited to the soirees at Versailles or even the Duke of Anjou's house? Fuck no.
The common conceit of Liberalism is that it was a revolt of the "Common Man" against the evil and overbearing Kings. But this is not the entire truth. Had it simply been a revolt of the unwashed masses it would not have been an issue for the established governments that it would inevitably overthrow or subvert. Unfortunately for the old world order, what was at issue was the exploding power of the merchant class and later industrial class. In the case of the American Revolution this was the entire point. The Merchants of New England and the Landed Aristocrats of Virginia and the Carolinas were infuriated that the King of Great Britain refused to grant them royal charters for trade and patents of nobility respectively. Far from being a revolt of the common man the American Revolution was a literal rolodex of the wealthiest merchants and landowners in the 13 colonies. The common man was an afterthought that was used to justify the whole thing in a liberal framework, pushed largely by hard core revolutionaries like Jefferson and Paine. After the war there was a determined effort to try and roll things back but the cat was "out of the bag" by that point.
A mere decade later the French revolution got underway, complete with flowery speeches, proclamations and wonderful works similar to the Declaration of Independence in North America. But unlike in America, the French revolution soon descended into mass slaughter known as the Terror. The Revolutionary government murdered the royal family for no other reason then that they were the royal family. Completely defying the once flowery idea of all men being equal. Some were just more equal then others. Ultimately the revolution would be taken over by Napoleon Bonaparte, who would establish absolute rule around his own person and then eventually crown himself "Emperor" of France in a ceremony that was essentially a liberal mockery of actual royal coronations where he had the pope brought at gun point to crown him, only to snatch the crown from the popes and put it on his own head. Needless to say this was not lost on the other Kings of Europe and they fought a brutal war against Napoleon to try and put the genie back in the bottle. But they were just delaying the inevitable. Liberalism is a seductive idea. Who doesn't want to believe that they are their own special snowflake? That no matter who you are, your life is as equally valuable as anyone else's, no matter how much more productive, intelligent, influential, or any other spectrum of social value, that other person may be. By the close of World War 1, Liberalism prevailed in totality with Woodrow Wilsons plan and the establishment of a new liberal international order. One that was solidified at the close of World War 2 with the victory of the Allied Powers. Monarchs from 1945 on with few exception have been relegated to largely ceremonial positions in favor of the Liberal Democracy that at best tolerates these ancient appendages as useful tools of state power.
PART II. Where I break the conditioning.
Its important to now point out before I proceed that you are conditioned. You have grown up in a world where the 300 year experiment in Liberal political theory is not just considered a theory, it is considered the very nature of the Universe. You believe, without even thinking it that all men are created equal and endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. If you don't believe that, or assume that someone doesn't believe that, then the person who "does not believe" must either be mentally defective, or adheres to one of the "bad ideologies" such as fascism or communism. Addressing the big bads of the 20th century briefly however, it must be pointed out that Fascism and Communism are also Liberal in their outlook. Communism is simply Liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. If we are all equal under Natures God, why should someone else be entitled to more food then me? Better food then me? A bigger house? Why can they own property but I must rent from them? Why must power imbalances exist at all? Liberalism has no answer to this because it CANNOT answer it. Fascism by contrast focuses instead on the Liberal State itself as an example of Virtue. A Stand in for the dead Gods and Kings, where all the people have a common purpose in mutual service to each other to build the best State possible. The State is of course always the best it can be, because it cannot be anything but. A pure example of the popular will of all the free thinking special snowflakes that make it up. All within the State, none without the State.
More importantly though, nobody has stopped to realize that even among establishment political parties in the West, ALL OF THEM, are Liberal. They all operate under a Liberal framework of doctrine. They all espouse the implementation of Liberal doctrine at the State level. The only differentiating factor between them is in how stridently they demand it and what particular facets of Liberal orthodoxy they choose to favor. Worse, there is now a kind of "stand alone complex" among all the Liberal Democracies that has been lovingly dubbed "Globo Homo". A grand international conspiracy of Liberals out to trans the kids and import a million Africans. But it is NOT a Conspiracy. Its the ideology of the State, the Liberal Ideology, being applied correctly in the States where it has gained power. If all men are created equal, then an African off the boat from Nigeria is just as valid a citizen as someone born in the country he moved too. The Liberal Democracies are simply applying the ideology as it dictates.
Critics of Liberalism as a political philosophy warned stridently that the corrupt Liberal Democracies of today, as well as Fascism and Communism would be the end result of ALL Liberal political revolutions and experiments. Most of the Liberal Revolutions, particularly in the case of the Russian, French and Chinese revolutions, were revolutions driven by resentment on the part of the middle class, as much as they were the downtrodden poor. Its no accident all the great commies of the 20th century, from Lenin to Castro, to Pol Pot were ALL born to wealthy families who could afford to give their little princelings very expensive educations. In the case of Pol Pot, he actually attended University in Paris where he joined the French Communist Party. Which it should be noted, is still a political party you can vote for in France. More importantly, this resentment of the social superiors in the hierarchy of society is something Liberalism engenders by DEFAULT. Because the idea that "all men are created equal" is a LIE. This is absolutely, not true at all. Some men are born retarded. Some men are actually born as women and have to bleed out a fucking hole once a month, or become gravid for 9 months if they don't. Some men are born into families of drunkards and abusers. Some men are born with critical genetic abnormalities that doom them to misery. So for Liberalism to work, it must seek to ameliorate all the inequalities that confound society, because if it did not it will never EVER live up to its core ethos. A never ending, ceaseless struggle to achieve utopia. An utopia that will not come, and CANNOT come. But ever is the struggle, and the search for "enemies" that must surely be standing in the way of the promised utopia becomes unceasing. The Fascists blamed the Jews. The Communists blamed the Bourgeoise, and the modern Liberals blame the Chuds/White Men. Ever is there an enemy standing in the way of progress. And the one thing Liberalism has been VERY good at, its building functional states that are very efficient at killing enemies of progress.
The established Aristocracy viewed the Noveau Riche (who were wildly into Liberalism) with deep suspicion for this very reason. Not just because they knew very well that the central conceit of Liberalism was a lie (After all, if it was true, then why were they so much better), but also because their wealth was not "of the land". It came from trade. Which meant they didn't truly have any loyalty to the country or its people. A French Banker can do business wherever he wanted too. The Duke of Anjou on the other hand could only do business IN ANJOU. If shit hit the fan, the Banker would flee, but the Duke would stay and defend his land. Defenders of the old order excoriated Liberalism's claim of "all men being equal" in large part because it implied that the wealthy Merchants were just as valid inheritors of State power as they were. The "common man" was not a consideration here as the common man was no threat. But the merchants most certainly were. As Liberalism ascended in power the last few traditionalists to cling to relevance warned that the day would come with these avaricious up starts would sell their own countries to the highest bidder, and then the "common man" would realize that all the wonderful platitudes of equality won't amount to anything. Because equality as a concept is a LIE.
PART III. The Traditionalist and Monarchist position.
All men are not created equal. They are endowed by their creator to serve the purpose to which the creator has ordained. For some, the Creator has ordained that they rule. For others that they serve. And for those misbegotten it is to suffer. But this is by no means a claim to predestination or fatalism, because none may know the creators will. And so a Prince born to be King may instead be thrown from a window to his death in favor of something else. Or an orphan born on the street may be discovered to have keen intellect and through proper education that manifests their born ability may rise in social standing. Likewise some may find their purpose to be the alleviation of suffering on the part of the misbegotten.
The Role of the State in this paradigm is not to establish equality. Its not preserve rights such as speech, guns, voting, etc, it is to preserve the natural order of God's plan. As such, the leaders of the State must focus on their Charge. Which is the State itself, and all the people who live upon it. Those "born of the land" as subjects to the State are the sole concern of he or she who rules over them, because God himself has delivered those people into their care. They must preserve them in their health, see too it that they are not deprived of their property, not rendered incapable of productive work through injurious taxation or policing, to keep the foreign barbarians from despoiling their lands, and most important of all, to be held in the safety and capability of creating the next generation of subjects.
I have up to this point studiously avoided saying "King or Queen" in this description of a pre-(or is it post) Liberal State. But I am at pains to consider a viable alternative. Voting is by nature anarchic, and the Monarchists (correctly) warned that "the people" if given free reign would vote to enrich themselves at the expense of the State. One need just look at what the Federal Government of the United States (or any Liberal Democracy really) are spending their entire GDP and then more so in the form of debt, upon. Is it wars of national defense? Exploring Space? No. Its providing benefits. Largely to fulfill the principle liberal conceit that if all men are not equal yet, then the State isn't trying hard enough to bring about this universal truth. This is not to say that the Monarchies and Traditional societies are not prone of profligate spending either. One look at Versailles disabuses this notion. Greed is sadly the common state of man. However, the big difference between a modern liberal state and the Traditional one has been that when a traditional state runs out of money, it RUNS OUT OF MONEY. The Army stops getting paid. Government contracts stop getting paid, and the King in short order finds himself sitting very uncomfortably on the throne. If not just getting turfed out entirely. When Liberal States run out of money, they simply change the definition of money, make everyone in the State poorer and then proceed as if nothing has happened. An incredibly powerful tool to be sure, but one that breaks down if done too much and too often. Which it most certainly now is. They can do this because, again, all men are created equal and all men are within the State as the manifestation of the collective will. So if the State suffers, All must suffer. If a King runs out of Money, only HE must suffer. And oh does he. History is full of Kings who wasted their wealth and ran into misfortune. For the random John Q. Peasant, this situation was neither a concern or even noticed most of the time.
A King or Queen, at the fundamental is "of the land". Their wealth comes from the land, and the people that live upon it. Liberal economists have agonized for years over the concept of the "Tragedy of the Commons", ignoring the fact that this "tragedy" was solved centuries ago when a King decided that a particularly nice patch of forest was his exclusive hunting reserve and ordered the unwashed peasants to kindly stop murdering all the deer. Which in a round about way preserved these animals to the present day. This idea of a King being "of the land" also means that despite the tendency towards despotism that is the nature of all humans, there is a "self interested" desire on the part of a King to not be overly abusive to the land and its people, since they are what provides his wealth and status. This is NOT the case with the leaders of a liberal State. A Liberal State is not bound to the land, it is bound to the ideas that underpin it, and these ideas are universal in nature. The people of their country are merely incidental tools in the grand vision. Be it the United States acting against its own self interest to "spread democracy", the Soviet Union establishing the Communist International to spread the global revolution, or the simple banality of formerly militant Irish Nationalist parties importing a hundred thousand Africans into the Irish countryside in order to fulfill the operating doctrine at the heart of their central conceit. That all men are created equal. A King would never do such a thing if put in his proper place, because a King understands that All Men are NOT equal. The men who support his throne are far more important then some random bunch of boat people coming in from Nigeria. It is also why without exception Liberal States will trend towards murderousness and despotism. This is being shown to be a universal truth, and the only difference between them is in how fast they go down the primrose path to hell.
Because at the end of the day a Liberal State cares little for the individuals it claims to uplift. When all men are equal, some it would seem, become more equal then others. If only to provide enough State power to make everyone say the lie out loud. All men are created equal.
Last edited:
Only thing they do is shoot elefants during holidays, break their hips or marry news reporters. Before, it could be argued they were much more cultured than the common folk and were actually fit to lead; now I highly doubt that is the case at all. Hard pass.
