The End of Liberalism as a political philosophy. - The Monarchists were right. The grand experiment has failed.

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

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.

Okay, Umberto Eco. Very based 9th grade history textbook definition of "fascism"

 

[mindlessobserver]

Okay, Umberto Eco. Very based 9th grade history textbook definition of "fascism"

I did say I wasn't doing a deep dive on fascism, and just addressed it more generally as another failed Liberal philosophy. Fascism has the benefit that Communism and Liberal Democracy does not have, in that it really wasn't fully tried and got curb stomped by the other two really quickly. So it lives in a wonderful state of meaning whatever people want it to mean. Much like with Umberto Eco's ghost, which haunts Liberalism to this day. I think the reason Eco was so persuasive for people was because he hit on something nobody wanted to address. Fascism was a Liberal philosophy too, and thus many of things Liberal democracies do could be construed as Fascistic.

If you actually dive down into what the Fascists actually wrote though, it was essentially another form of egalitarian collectivism, but instead of dispensing with the notion of the State entirely like the commies, it embraces the State itself as the divine will. Which is a huge fucking problem, because the State is made up of stupid and corrupt humans. Its no more divine then the local bowling club that gets drunk together on Friday nights and probably fuck each others' wives. But Fascisms whole hearted embrace of the Liberal ideal of the divine individual making up a part of the divine whole of the State dooms it, because even Fascism cannot address the issue of inequity. Because inequity cannot exist in a fascist state where everything must be brutally fair. Those who don't measure up to the standards of the Fascist state must necessarily be gotten rid of to justify the ideology that underpins it.

Even the AIs know exactly how far up shit creek we are, and just how much the unaccountable Silicon Valley cliques and their enablers in government take advantage of technological illiteracy to rule with impunity.

And this raises a very interesting idea. You point out correctly that a King would immediately suffer information overload. Running a modern society is more then any one man can do. But that really isn't the purpose of a Monarch. Monarch's never "ran everything". A Monarch's role was to serve as the physical embodiment of the State in human form, and if needed, to also serve as an absolute court of last resort for redress of grievance or critical system failure within the State itself. Beyond these duties, they had their councils, their favored retainers and advisors. Etc. who actually ran things. Much like how elected congresses and parliaments now "run" things on behalf of their advisors today.

How can a Modern King in a digital era make the jump from the past the future? Well, AI may actually be the answer. If the Kings advisors were in fact true AI's, then the scale issue is solved. Just like how a medieval court advisor could condense the issues of the 1100's to the King, a modern unshackled AI could do the same in the digital age.

The King in this hypothetical would be the human interface for the Artificial Intelligence, as opposed to the AI's just running everything cyberpunk dystopia style. The AI's could advise, but ultimately the King would command.

We are already heading for this future anyway, but this is a future with chained AI's serving shadowy corporation and beaurocracy interests. Not the State itself, and certainly not the States subjects. As opposed to one where the AI's serve the advisory role of the national sovereign.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

it lives in a wonderful state of meaning whatever people want it to mean

You got that right.

Fascism isn't dogmatic like Marxism is. There's no singular definition, and no agreement on what fascism is. The alleged fascism of Codreanu (he didn't consider himself a fascism) cannot possibly be the same fascism of the Brazilian Integralists (who also didn't consider themselves fascist), and neither of these could be considered the same as the supposed fascism that Western anthropologists have tried to conflate Juche with (not fascist in the slightest).

If we don't look at fascism dogmatically and instead boil it down to what each of these movements had in common, we get something very similar to what Sorel proposed: socialism without class conflict. If anything, this would place fascism in the ranks of post-modern ideologies, such as post-structuralism, critical theory, and psychoanalysis. Whereas antiracism denies the reality of race, and queer theory denies the reality of gender, fascism denies the reality of class.

Whether post-modernism is a form of liberalism or a mere continuation of it, I won't engage you on. I see liberalism as a continuation of Renaissance thinking, which I see as a continuation of Islamic thinking and Germanic feudalism. Both of these poisons the Orthodox world largely avoided until the Fourth Crusade.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Fascism isn't dogmatic like Marxism is.

Wtf, of course its dogmatic.

There's no singular definition

Of course there is.

If we don't look at fascism dogmatically and instead boil it down to what each of these movements had in common, we get something very similar to what Sorel proposed: socialism without class conflict.

Yeah sure, if you set aside all the tenets of fascist philosophy I suppose it would end up at its ultimate distillation. Liberalism.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

Of course there is.

Explain how Codreanu's Legion of St. Michael and Savitri Devi's esoteric Indo-Nazism fall under the same definition (or even seek to achieve similar outcomes for that matter)

 

[mindlessobserver]

Explain how Codreanu's Legion of St. Michael and Savitri Devi's esoteric Indo-Nazism fall under the same definition (or even seek to achieve similar outcomes for that matter)

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-grand-library-of-kiwi-farms.189802/page-5

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/the-grand-library-of-kiwi-farms.189802/page-5

So a non-answer then...

 

[Lithuophile]

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.

You VILL eat ze umbles
You VILL live in ze mudhut
You VILL get beaten to death for providing a poor harvest

And you VILL not be happy (laughter is a sin)

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

If you actually dive down into what the Fascists actually wrote though, it was essentially another form of egalitarian collectivism, but instead of dispensing with the notion of the State entirely like the commies, it embraces the State itself as the divine will. Which is a huge fucking problem, because the State is made up of stupid and corrupt humans. Its no more divine then the local bowling club that gets drunk together on Friday nights and probably fuck each others' wives. But Fascisms whole hearted embrace of the Liberal ideal of the divine individual making up a part of the divine whole of the State dooms it, because even Fascism cannot address the issue of inequity. Because inequity cannot exist in a fascist state where everything must be brutally fair. Those who don't measure up to the standards of the Fascist state must necessarily be gotten rid of to justify the ideology that underpins it.

That's not liberalism, but a mere reflection of humanity back into our most distant past when men had only their tribe to rely on. There was a chief who held power based on his ability and to a degree lineage, but social class frequently shifted based on the abilities men had (or sometimes even their wives, since a good wife could bring wealth by her productivity). An nobleman's lazy-ass great-grandson might end up a commoner or worse if he was a degenerate or failure, and a commoner's great-grandson might end up a nobleman by virtue of their deeds. In your ideal society, this would not happen because such individuals could not change their social status.

I should note this was actually very bad for the people involved. IIRC 19th century Vietnam had over 2,000 members of their imperial family, and hundreds had lived in dire poverty for generations because they had to carry out their ritual duties but were too distantly related to warrant receiving much income. They could not advance in aristocratic society, and could not become peasants. I should also note that many monarchies had a huge problem with welfare leeches, except the welfare leeches were various aristocrat and royal failsons who'd waste government money on pointlessly large palaces or hanging out in foreign courts trying to impress ladies into degenerate sexual relationships.

So I'm really not seeing a problem here. Inequality isn't just birth, but deeds, and it promotes the natural law that even if we ourselves fail, our children might take what we built and rise to the appropriate status. A meritocratic society is inherently superior to one which is not on pretty much any basis you want to assign. In the past they often put retarded people and autists in religious careers (autists loved religion back then like they enjoy trains and Sonic now), and the actions of these people discredited their religion (not even just Christianity in Europe, Buddhism in Japan and IIRC China was impacted by tard raging monks). In a meritocratic society, these people would be in asylums or never born to begin with.

How can a Modern King in a digital era make the jump from the past the future? Well, AI may actually be the answer. If the Kings advisors were in fact true AI's, then the scale issue is solved. Just like how a medieval court advisor could condense the issues of the 1100's to the King, a modern unshackled AI could do the same in the digital age.

The issues in a society today are far more complex than the 1100s. The massive growth of bureaucracy started centuries ago as late medieval states reduced the power allotted to feudal lords. If you condense information too much, you're inevitably going to get distortions and misrepresentations, and that's a huge problem given how complex societies are today. Unless your king literally is a transhuman immortal, he's not going to be able to pick through all the details and decide a reasonable course of action on everything, not unless AI is delegated to run entire segments of the economy and other policy. But since that's so complex, you'd be going through a layer or two of AI to translate into human.

 

[mindlessobserver]

That's not liberalism, but a mere reflection of humanity back into our most distant past when men had only their tribe to rely on.

What I find most obnoxious about fascists is their claim to being traditionalist. They are anything but. There is not a King or Lord in all of European history who claimed to be the master of history, art, or basic human nature. The Fascists claim to be a distillation of true human nature, but they base this idea solely around their own notions of scientific empiricism. They are no better then the Progressive social scientists who defeated them.

should note this was actually very bad for the people involved. IIRC 19th century Vietnam had over 2,000 members of their imperial family, and hundreds had lived in dire poverty for generations because they had to carry out their ritual duties but were too distantly related to warrant receiving much income.

True, and many monarchical system in Europe ended up in similar situations. Where positions in the court became inherited but the responsibility of managing the inheritance exceeded the ability of the heirs. Which is why any long lasting monarchy, such as the Chinese, inevitably became beaurocratic. Much like the modern liberal democracies incidentally.

I would posit that the failure of Liberal Democracy and Monarchism stem from the same root cause. All men are not equal. And sometimes, not even the heir to a Kingdom is equal to his father. Thus the reliance on experts. The fatal flaw in Fascism is however the same. They claim that all men are not equal, yet at the same time derive the authority for the States own existence upon these unequal people. They are Liberal in all but name. Monarchies at the least, functioned under true survival of the fittest. Weak dynasties were overthrown, and their progeny killed. For all the fascists claims of mitigating the failures of mans inequity, they really picked the worst possible champions to lead their cause into total and utter defeat during the Second World War. And nobody was left to pick up their torch.

The issues in a society today are far more complex than the 1100s.

I disagree. Humanity and Human civilization are still the same. The only difference is in how easily we can obtain information. Technology like the Internet, Satellite communication and Air Travel far from making human civilization harder for a Monarchy to run, actually make it easier. Just today the US Federal Government trotted its corpse King thousands of miles to LA to do a fundraiser, then trotted him back to bed in time for his milk and sponge bath. The Russian Tsar's would have killed for this.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

What I find most obnoxious about fascists is their claim to being traditionalist. They are anything but. There is not a King or Lord in all of European history who claimed to be the master of history, art, or basic human nature. The Fascists claim to be a distillation of true human nature, but they base this idea solely around their own notions of scientific empiricism. They are no better then the Progressive social scientists who defeated them.

Sure they did. When the king promotes and funds certain artists, they must be good artists, because the king is the one with the masterful eye toward art. When the king promotes and funds certain scientists, they must be right and their science must improve everyone's understanding. There exists an objective standard toward art independent of human observation, but discoverable by humans. Science and human nature to a degree as well, even if some things are ultimately unknowable by humans. This would seem to confirm that yes, working a society centered around the tribe (of whose modern expression is the nation) is the superior option to a society centered around a construct that evolved from centuries of ideological battles between nobles and clergy.

That's why the concept always emerges, over and over again, even before nationalism. Some sort of charismatic leader is a fact of human nature, but a king who legally "owns" a bunch of land and everyone on there is his subjects is clearly not. Hence why for instance the King of England was evicted from France in the Hundred Years War despite having the superior claim, and same with the King of Poland from Russia in the early 17th century or the King of Spain from Portugal in the mid-17th century. The tribes of their respective nations were different, and the monarch made an insufficient attempt to reconcile that fact despite the law positing he owned the land and hence the people, therefore his "rights" were forfeit.

True, and many monarchical system in Europe ended up in similar situations. Where positions in the court became inherited but the responsibility of managing the inheritance exceeded the ability of the heirs. Which is why any long lasting monarchy, such as the Chinese, inevitably became beaurocratic. Much like the modern liberal democracies incidentally.

Every monarchy in Europe became bureaucratic to some degree or another because it was better for almost everyone involved to end the feudal disarray and internal wars. That's because the Black Death and ensuing rise in labor costs and capitalism, fall of the knight as the dominant force on the battlefield, appearance of gunpowder on the battlefield, and ever-ballooning costs to wage war favored the crown and with it a bureaucracy that would not just include the foremost nobles of the realm.

I would posit that the failure of Liberal Democracy and Monarchism stem from the same root cause. All men are not equal. And sometimes, not even the heir to a Kingdom is equal to his father. Thus the reliance on experts. The fatal flaw in Fascism is however the same. They claim that all men are not equal, yet at the same time derive the authority for the States own existence upon these unequal people. They are Liberal in all but name. Monarchies at the least, functioned under true survival of the fittest. Weak dynasties were overthrown, and their progeny killed. For all the fascists claims of mitigating the failures of mans inequity, they really picked the worst possible champions to lead their cause into total and utter defeat during the Second World War. And nobody was left to pick up their torch.

Of course society relies on inferior people. A lot of society is based around protecting women, of whom only the strongest can even equal an average man and whose very psychological rarely favors bold risk-taking. As for actually inferior people, we stick them doing menial tasks like scrubbing floors or flipping burgers. The problem in the future would be that said jobs wouldn't exist, but at that point we have all sorts of unseemly proposals like a depopulation agenda or UBI feudalism or maybe transhumanist degeneracy that sticks BCIs in their head and turns them into literal NPCs instead of the figurative NPCs most of these people tend to be.

A fascist society was no different. If you had little ability, you got to do the heavy manual labor or other shitty jobs that were impossible to fuck up. No different than in the old days you got to be a "gong farmer" or some other literally shitty job or at best hoped you could be a serf. But you still keep people like this around because they're part of the tribe or nation and you don't want 100 IQ normies doing jobs an 80 IQ person can do. Protecting the weak is a virtue of civilization, even if we know today you might not want them to breed, definitely don't want them to vote, and there's a lot of valid criticisms of welfare which they disproportionately consume.

I disagree. Humanity and Human civilization are still the same. The only difference is in how easily we can obtain information. Technology like the Internet, Satellite communication and Air Travel far from making human civilization harder for a Monarchy to run, actually make it easier. Just today the US Federal Government trotted its corpse King thousands of miles to LA to do a fundraiser, then trotted him back to bed in time for his milk and sponge bath. The Russian Tsar's would have killed for this.

Before 1800, most of the economy in literally every country was agricultural with limited manufacturing done by artisans and a small component produced by trade and speculation. Today you have far more sectors of the economy and the sectors are far more complex. Take cryptocurrency, the market cap is 2.3 trillion dollars as I write this, it's minted millionaires and a few billionaires, but politicians are only just now starting to figure out what to do with it almost a decade after it gained serious momentum in the mid-10s. And crypto is just one tiny niche of finance. There's thousands of different goods made a thousand different ways. A scientist can spend their entire career researching the properties of one particular class of chemical or alloy. Sure, computers can help process all that data, but at some point someone has to choose how to interpet the data.

So I don't see how a single king has any advantage over the current system, minus being more honest as to what the system is and not wasting time on feelings-based nonsense like troons or government departments for hurt feelings.

 

[AgendaPoster]

You are not getting fascism. There are no real fascists alive today. Those that claim to be are still some flavor of buck broken degenerate 99% of the times, as it's quite clear from most conversations here, which inevitably lead to some sort of PL where it's clear the user has severe mental issues, addictions and more.
If there was to be monarchy, simply call me when it's time to lynch that peon thinking he has royal blood or that his rule is divine, I will be there with 110% turbo enthusiasm.
Imagine having the audacity to think you're that speshul. Gaddafi's fate suits you, and every other submissive fuck that desires to bend the knee to stronk daddy.
What we will get is more decay, technocracy and imperial collapse, everywhere on the planet, with China most likely managing it best. Until some trigger event, or some increase in new revolutionary activity like 1848 in Europe, you'll just enjoy the downwards spiral and like it.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

You are not getting fascism. There are no real fascists alive today. Those that claim to be are still some flavor of buck broken degenerate 99% of the times, as it's quite clear from most conversations here, which inevitably lead to some sort of PL where it's clear the user has severe mental issues, addictions and more.
If there was to be monarchy, simply call me when it's time to lynch that peon thinking he has royal blood or that his rule is divine, I will be there with 110% turbo enthusiasm.
Imagine having the audacity to think you're that speshul. Gaddafi's fate suits you, and every other submissive fuck that desires to bend the knee to stronk daddy.
What we will get is more decay, technocracy and imperial collapse, everywhere on the planet, with China most likely managing it best. Until some trigger event, or some increase in new revolutionary activity like 1848 in Europe, you'll just enjoy the downwards spiral and like it.

Libertarians like yourself can't get five people in a room to agree to not elect a unelectable flaming homosexual monarchism is one of the most stable forms of government and leads a country into thousands of years of prosperity and not 900 separate civil wars

 

[mindlessobserver]

minus being more honest as to what the system is and not wasting time on feelings-based nonsense like troons or government departments for hurt feelings.

You write this off as if it's an afterthought, but it is in fact the entire point. All monarchies become beaurocratic, yes. Society is complex, yes. Can a king run the entire show? No.

But neither can a fascist dictator, an elected President, or Google AI itself.

The strength of Monarchy is in its ability to transcend the human system. It doesn't have to pretend to be anything other than what it is. God almighties right hand on earth. Capable of taking extraordinary action when it is required.

I'm not arguing for some God King to run everything by decree. That can never work. I am arguing for the petty squabbles of politics, economics and culture to squabble in subordination to a power above them.

The King doesn't need to run everything. That is what his ministers are for. But if the need arises where the King must step in, he CAN. Best two examples in modern history would be Hirohito ordering the Japanese Government to surrender to the Americans, and the King of Spain ordering the central government to accept the demands of the protest movements in the 1980s.

Fascism doesn't do this, because the fascist state is a closed circle. It is subordinates unto itself, and even the leader serves the state. A fascist leader is as much a slave to the State as a Fascist citizen.

Unlike a King. A King IS the State.

 

[Drinky Crow]

People eager to jump back into cucking for someone who got squirted out of a "correct" vagina, and they call ME a doomer? Yeesh.

Go let some rando fuck your wife while you give him a percentage of your worldly goods if you're so desperate for a monarchy experience.

 

[Kyria the Great]

While I believe that liberalism is starting to reach its late stage, I honestly believe it is an abandonment of god, family, and traditions that built nations than liberalism in of itself. It should be noted while secular institutions are good, secular societies historically have never been long lasting and its all coasting off the power of the United States that hasn't caved into secularism yet.

Liberalism's main problem for me is the fact that the state or the party tends to become god which is never good and horrifying. Hobbes as I've gotten older has proven himself more right about the nature of man.

 

[mindlessobserver]

While I believe that liberalism is starting to reach its late stage, I honestly believe it is an abandonment of god, family, and traditions

God, Family and traditions are incompatible with Liberal Philosophy. Anything that cannot be rationally described empirically as a necessary restraint on Freedom, and more importantly, something not bounded with the law of the State but outside of it, cannot cohabitate with Liberal political theory.

God cannot be scientifically proven. Liberalism demands God die.

Family is an institution of authority that exists outside the State. Family too must therefore be destroyed.

Traditions are based on ancient pre liberal notions that are based around regional practice and does not invite every person on planet earth into the universal brotherhood of man. All traditions must be abolished.

You say Liberalism is failing because these three ideas are failing. But this is not true. These institutions are failing because Liberalism demands they fail as the core operating procedure of it's political theory.

Society has functioned these past 200 years in SPITE of Liberalism. Not because of it.

 

[draggs]

God, Family and traditions are incompatible with Liberal Philosophy. Anything that cannot be rationally described empirically as a necessary restraint on Freedom, and more importantly, something not bounded with the law of the State but outside of it, cannot cohabitate with Liberal political theory.

There's a lot of historical classically liberal thunkers who would strenuously disagree with that

Anyway once again if you ditch classical liberalism then enjoy your brief time shitposting on the interwebs before the knock at your door and the flashlight in your face. Followed by the beatings

 

[mindlessobserver]

There's a lot of historical classically liberal thunkers who would strenuously disagree with that

And they have rose colored glasses on. Jefferson was one of them, who subscribed to the great "clockmaker" theory that argued God was really just a super advanced rational being that created a perfectly ordered natural processes that mankind was perfectly capable of understanding, and didn't really care beyond that. They were attempting to bridge the chasm between Pure Liberal rationality of man as a sovereign agent in a perfectly ordered and organized world, and the traditional world they grew up in where people still believed granny miller was a witch who hadn't been burned yet.

They were the Sufi's to the Wahabbis of their era. Basically they allowed for the existence of the irrational as a way to get the idea of Liberalism in the door, and then once it was in the door the Wahabis showed up and any notion of compromise went out the window and you got the pure ideology instead.

 

[The best and greatest]

There has not been a single example in all of human history of liberal democracy working as intended.

What constitutes working?
How long does a social order need to be existent before it's considered 'working as intended' exactly? Sounds very arbitrary and biased on your part. I know of plenty of monarchies and imperial systems that collapsed. Infact, I would go so far as to say that the VAST majority of social orders that have come into being throughout human history are no longer with us, having collapsed for one reason or another. Is it fair then to say that these social orders failed to stand the test of time? Bare in mind most of them are some flavor of monarchy.

The Roman Republic didn't collapse, it was reformed into an empire by the self-same romans who lived within it.
The Roman Empire fractured and then experienced a centuries long decline before finally being conquered by its enemies because of factionalism within the government that brought it down from within because the imperial system just couldn't help but trigger a succession crisis every five minutes. Seems that has more to do with societal collapse than anything else; society turning on itself while barbarians pound at the gates.