Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[North German Realm]

As you yourself said, almost every country in Continental Europe is built upon ethnic nationalism. Every country after 1918 anyway. It's not "ethnic nationalism" that's got a bad reputation, it's "German Nationalism"... for reasons that should be obvious.

The Nazis and the brutal atrocities they committed.

Yes. It should be obvious.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The Nazis and the brutal atrocities they committed.

That take is hot. Next you'll be saying that water is wet.

Sometimes, I like playing Captain Obvious.

[Old Tyrannia]

You want to unite the world under the leadership of a semi-divine emperor?

> Implying that the state isn't semi-divine in of itself

Y'see, that's partially where I disagree with the Japanese thinkers on this matter. While one could present the argument that the sovereign has some form of divine backing (for lack of a better term), I'm willing to broaden it and declare that the state itself has divine backing (for lack of a better term), and that the sovereign only has such backing insofar as they are the head of state. Although, I recognize that I'm veering into statolatry here. I should probably stop.

TL;DR: The State is love, the State is life.

A sovereign is, by definition, not merely the head of state but the personification of the state. That's a key conceptual difference between a monarch and the head of state in a republic, who is simply the most senior in a hierarchy of magistrates.

I also subscribe to a concept akin to hakkō ichiu, at least in its original, peaceful interpretation; but substituting the British Crown and Anglican church for the Japanese Emperor. As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

> Implying that the state isn't semi-divine in of itself

Y'see, that's partially where I disagree with the Japanese thinkers on this matter. While one could present the argument that the sovereign has some form of divine backing (for lack of a better term), I'm willing to broaden it and declare that the state itself has divine backing (for lack of a better term), and that the sovereign only has such backing insofar as they are the head of state. Although, I recognize that I'm veering into statolatry here. I should probably stop.

TL;DR: The State is love, the State is life.

A sovereign is, by definition, not merely the head of state but the personification of the state. That's a key conceptual difference between a monarch and the head of state in a republic, who is simply the most senior in a hierarchy of magistrates.

I also subscribe to a concept akin to hakkō ichiu, at least in its original, peaceful interpretation; but substituting the British Crown and Anglican church for the Japanese Emperor. As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

> As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

Well of course; I'd argue that it's natural, healthy even.

As to the concept of "sovereign as national personification", I'm inclined to agree in that regard.

However, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to ask: "why can't the most senior magistrate in the hierarchy of a republic also be the metaphysical embodiment of their nation and its institutions?"

[Old Tyrannia]

A sovereign is, by definition, not merely the head of state but the personification of the state. That's a key conceptual difference between a monarch and the head of state in a republic, who is simply the most senior in a hierarchy of magistrates.

I also subscribe to a concept akin to hakkō ichiu, at least in its original, peaceful interpretation; but substituting the British Crown and Anglican church for the Japanese Emperor. As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

> As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

Well of course; I'd argue that it's natural, healthy even.

As to the concept of "sovereign as national personification", I'm inclined to agree in that regard.

However, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to ask: "why can't the most senior magistrate in the hierarchy of a republic also be the metaphysical embodiment of their nation and its institutions?"

Because in a republic, there is no sovereign, since sovereignty is theoretically invested in the people. When the government of a republic acts, therefore, it is acting in the name of "the people" rather than the head of state, whereas in a true monarchy all actions taken by the government are formally taken on behalf of the monarch- who is therefore legally and conceptually synonymous with the state.

[Nea Byzantia]

Tangentially related to this, what's the vibe in modern Japan as far as nationalism and the like?

It's weirdly widespread and taboo at the same time, at least from my experience. You can find a lot of Nihonjinron (Theories about Japanese people) books, a kind of crank science where writers try to establish any arbitrary reason Japanese people are different from everybody else, ranging from the unique environment of the home islands to the shape of the brain. But they tend to avoid references to imperial symbols since those are associated with the militarism of the past.

There's the Anti-Zainichi crowds, which are basically the Japanese alt-right, but most people tend to look on them as unpleasant.

Would you say Japan is still under American Occupation; or that the Japanese Government is subservient in any way to the strategic interests of Washington?

I don't know much about the situation there, so I just ask.

I have a theory that America treats some of its vassals partners in a unique way; the more strategically valuable they are, the more likely Washington is to keep them on a tighter leash (ie. intervene in their affairs). Does this apply to Japan the way it might apply to say Greece, or Turkey (prior to the botched military coup of 2016; which was arguably an attempt to remove Erdogan and replace him with a more pliant client-ruler of Turkey)?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

> As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

Well of course; I'd argue that it's natural, healthy even.

As to the concept of "sovereign as national personification", I'm inclined to agree in that regard.

However, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to ask: "why can't the most senior magistrate in the hierarchy of a republic also be the metaphysical embodiment of their nation and its institutions?"

Because in a republic, there is no sovereign, since sovereignty is theoretically invested in the people. When the government of a republic acts, therefore, it is acting in the name of "the people" rather than the head of state, whereas in a true monarchy all actions taken by the government are formally taken on behalf of the monarch- who is therefore legally and conceptually synonymous with the state.

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however? I ask of course, not just for ideological purposes of which I'm sure you're already aware, but also because my country lacks any properly suitable candidates for a royal family.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

It's weirdly widespread and taboo at the same time, at least from my experience. You can find a lot of Nihonjinron (Theories about Japanese people) books, a kind of crank science where writers try to establish any arbitrary reason Japanese people are different from everybody else, ranging from the unique environment of the home islands to the shape of the brain. But they tend to avoid references to imperial symbols since those are associated with the militarism of the past.

There's the Anti-Zainichi crowds, which are basically the Japanese alt-right, but most people tend to look on them as unpleasant.

Would you say Japan is still under American Occupation; or that the Japanese Government is subservient in any way to the strategic interests of Washington? -snip-

Heh, I freaking wish that was the case, mate. I believe I've already made that clear, however, what with the "annex the world" thing I've got going.

[Old Tyrannia]

Because in a republic, there is no sovereign, since sovereignty is theoretically invested in the people. When the government of a republic acts, therefore, it is acting in the name of "the people" rather than the head of state, whereas in a true monarchy all actions taken by the government are formally taken on behalf of the monarch- who is therefore legally and conceptually synonymous with the state.

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however? I ask of course, not just for ideological purposes of which I'm sure you're already aware, but also because my country lacks any properly suitable candidates for a royal family.

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. The Hongwu Emperor was a peasant before establishing the Ming dynasty, but by traditional Chinese standards he was an entirely legitimate sovereign. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

There is one- and only one- suitable candidate for the throne of the United States; Elizabeth II, as the legitimate successor of George III, America's last ruling monarch.

[Nea Byzantia]

Because in a republic, there is no sovereign, since sovereignty is theoretically invested in the people. When the government of a republic acts, therefore, it is acting in the name of "the people" rather than the head of state, whereas in a true monarchy all actions taken by the government are formally taken on behalf of the monarch- who is therefore legally and conceptually synonymous with the state.

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however?

Not necessarily. The Roman Imperium (I phrase it that way to differentiate it from the Roman Monarchy prior to the Republic), for example, was theoretically a Populist Autocracy (that is to say a Dictatorship on behalf of the Roman People) and was not de jure hereditary. There are several cases during the long history of the Imperial Regime (27 BC - 1453 AD) where the Imperial Throne was passed to a non-relative in a peaceful manner. For instance, Emperor Nerva (96 AD - 98 AD) passed the Throne to Trajan (ruled: 98 AD - 117 AD), or when Emperor Anastasius I (ruled: 491 AD - 518 AD) passed it to Justin I (ruled: 518 AD - 527 AD), who was prior to being Emperor, Captain of the Palace Guard; or when Isaac I Komnenos (ruled: 1057 AD - 1059 AD) chose his longtime friend and comrade-at-arms, Constantine X Doukas (ruled: 1059 AD - 1067 AD) to succeed him as Emperor.

[Washington Resistance Army]

>actually wanting to be a snitch

bruh, are you sure you're a libertarian lol

I'm not the only right-libertarian who has reported things to the mods. Also, yes, I'm sure. I don't know why I'm only being condemned for it now.

Because nobody likes snitches lol, that's also very un-libertarian behavior more often than not.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however? I ask of course, not just for ideological purposes of which I'm sure you're already aware, but also because my country lacks any properly suitable candidates for a royal family.

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. The Hongwu Emperor was a peasant before establishing the Ming dynasty, but by traditional Chinese standards he was an entirely legitimate sovereign. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

There is one- and only one- suitable candidate for the throne of the United States; Elizabeth II, as the legitimate successor of George III, America's last ruling monarch.

That, of course, requires integration with the Commonwealth, would it not?

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however?

Not necessarily. The Roman Imperium (I phrase it that way to differentiate it from the Roman Monarchy prior to the Republic), for example, was theoretically a Populist Autocracy (that is to say a Dictatorship on behalf of the Roman People) and was not de jure hereditary. There are several cases during the long history of the Imperial Regime (27 BC - 1453 AD) where the Imperial Throne was passed to a non-relative in a peaceful manner. For instance, Emperor Nerva (96 AD - 98 AD) passed the Throne to Trajan (ruled: 98 AD - 117 AD), or when Emperor Anastasius I (ruled: 491 AD - 518 AD) to Justin I (ruled: 518 AD - 527 AD), who was prior to being Emperor, Captain of the Palace Guard; or when Isaac I Komnenos (ruled: 1057 AD - 1059 AD) chose his longtime friend and comrade-at-arms, Constantine X Doukas (ruled: 1059 AD - 1067 AD) to succeed him.

> Populist Autocracy

Thank you, by the way, for introducing me to such a term.

[Old Tyrannia]

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. The Hongwu Emperor was a peasant before establishing the Ming dynasty, but by traditional Chinese standards he was an entirely legitimate sovereign. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

There is one- and only one- suitable candidate for the throne of the United States; Elizabeth II, as the legitimate successor of George III, America's last ruling monarch.

That, of course, requires integration with the Commonwealth, would it not?

Arguably not; there's no precedent for a realm having Elizabeth II as its head of state without also being a commonwealth member, but it's not technically impossible. Though integration into the Commonwealth isn't something to fear. It's essentially a cultural association for countries with some historic tie to the UK.

[Nea Byzantia]

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however? I ask of course, not just for ideological purposes of which I'm sure you're already aware, but also because my country lacks any properly suitable candidates for a royal family.

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

As a fellow Monarchist; I could not agree more.

That being said, I think that at this point, having America re-accept the British Monarch is ridiculous. The best hope for a Monarchy in America is one which follows the example of Augustus in his dismantling of the Roman Republican system, and his erecting of the Imperium; that is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

As a fellow Monarchist; I could not agree more.

That being said, I think that at this point, having America re-accept the British Monarch is ridiculous. The best hope for a Monarchy in America is one which follows the example of Augustus in his dismantling of the Roman Republican system, and his erecting of the Imperium; that is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

> That is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

So the establishment of a Populist Autocracy, as you put it? Ngl, I was actually thinking of something similar. I would take an image of my notes on the topic, but tbh my penmanship is shit and I refuse to transcribe them. So... erm... I guess y'all will have to take my word for it?

[Nea Byzantia]

As a fellow Monarchist; I could not agree more.

That being said, I think that at this point, having America re-accept the British Monarch is ridiculous. The best hope for a Monarchy in America is one which follows the example of Augustus in his dismantling of the Roman Republican system, and his erecting of the Imperium; that is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

> That is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

So the establishment of a Populist Autocracy, as you put it? Ngl, I was actually thinking of something similar. I would take an image of my notes on the topic, but tbh my penmanship is shit and I refuse to transcribe them. So... erm... I guess y'all will have to take my word for it?

Sure. I'm fine with taking your word on it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The Nazis and the brutal atrocities they committed.

Yes. It should be obvious.

I would still argue that ethnic nationalism is not viewed favorably in other parts of Europe today, even when those nations were originally founded to house one ethnic group, especially with the pro-immigration politicians being elected, though that seems to be changing with the rise of nationalist populism.

[Old Tyrannia]

As a fellow Monarchist; I could not agree more.

That being said, I think that at this point, having America re-accept the British Monarch is ridiculous. The best hope for a Monarchy in America is one which follows the example of Augustus in his dismantling of the Roman Republican system, and his erecting of the Imperium; that is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

> That is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

So the establishment of a Populist Autocracy, as you put it? Ngl, I was actually thinking of something similar. I would take an image of my notes on the topic, but tbh my penmanship is shit and I refuse to transcribe them. So... erm... I guess y'all will have to take my word for it?

Being both an unashamed elitist and a staunch believer in government by institutions, I am fond of neither populism nor autocracy. In fact, I much prefer the governing system of the late Roman Republic to that of the principate, for those reasons. A monarchy is distinguished from a dictatorship, as I see it, by the observance of rule of law. A monarch rises to their position legitimately, in a particular way determined by the constitution- however primitive- of their society. A dictator acquires power via the subversion of the formal constitutional arrangements and is unrestrained by either law or custom. The early Roman emperors were more dictators than monarchs in the above sense.

[Nea Byzantia]

> That is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress).

So the establishment of a Populist Autocracy, as you put it? Ngl, I was actually thinking of something similar. I would take an image of my notes on the topic, but tbh my penmanship is shit and I refuse to transcribe them. So... erm... I guess y'all will have to take my word for it?

Being both an unashamed elitist and a staunch believer in government by institutions, I am fond of neither populism nor autocracy. In fact, I much prefer the governing system of the late Roman Republic to that of the principate, for those reasons. A monarchy is distinguished from a dictatorship, as I see it, by the observance of rule of law. A monarch rises to their position legitimately, in a particular way determined by the constitution- however primitive- of their society. A dictator acquires power via the subversion of the formal constitutional arrangements and is unrestrained by either law or custom. The early Roman emperors were more dictators than monarchs in the above sense.

True; but I see nothing wrong with Augustus' takeover. The Elites (the Optimates) of the Republic had become parasitic leaches on the Roman People, and needed to be expunged; or if nothing else, put in their proper place. The Optimates had so rigged the system and had such dominance of the institutions, that there was no legal means to halt their rapaciousness and greed; other than a total revolution, as attempted by Caesar and finished by Augustus.

Thus, they caused their own downfall, by refusing demands for systemic reform, and removing those who attempted it (often in a violent and illegal manner). Populist Autocracy is the solution to rampant Oligarchy - which has a tendency to fester in Republics; crowned or otherwise.

[Hanafuridake]

I also subscribe to a concept akin to hakkō ichiu, at least in its original, peaceful interpretation; but substituting the British Crown and Anglican church for the Japanese Emperor. As Dostoevsky puts it, no great nation can ever be satisfied with a secondary role in the world; every great nation will always strive to be first in the world, and to establish its particular god as supreme.

That's similar to my reasoning for supporting the concept, although unlike Tanaka (who was a Nichirenist) I see the Shingon school as the foundation of the emperor and nation. Japan can only strive to be first in the world if it recognizes its particular god as the cosmic buddha of the Mahāvairocana Sutra.

[Nea Byzantia]

Are you a drinker/drug user?

If you aren't at this point, how the fuck does one make it through life?

Especially if you're Irish...

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

If you aren't at this point, how the fuck does one make it through life?

Especially if you're Irish...

Can I get an F for our boy Nea Byzantia? Because apparently we're not allowed to make such jokes here.

[Novus America]

Need the criteria for monarchical succession (is that the right phrase) be by bloodline, however? I ask of course, not just for ideological purposes of which I'm sure you're already aware, but also because my country lacks any properly suitable candidates for a royal family.

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. The Hongwu Emperor was a peasant before establishing the Ming dynasty, but by traditional Chinese standards he was an entirely legitimate sovereign. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

There is one- and only one- suitable candidate for the throne of the United States; Elizabeth II, as the legitimate successor of George III, America's last ruling monarch.

These two points are contradictory.
Elizabeth II has no basis to rule the US based on the “the customs, laws and traditions” of the US, which are quite different than those of the UK.

Also the US has a bigger population and economy than all other Commonwealth Realms COMBINED.
And as you said a great country will not be satisfied with secondary status, logically a US monarch, if there was one should be an American living in and ruling from the US, not from a distant capital in a country we have long since surpassed economically and demographically.

[Nea Byzantia]

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. The Hongwu Emperor was a peasant before establishing the Ming dynasty, but by traditional Chinese standards he was an entirely legitimate sovereign. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

There is one- and only one- suitable candidate for the throne of the United States; Elizabeth II, as the legitimate successor of George III, America's last ruling monarch.

These two points are contradictory.
Elizabeth II has no basis to rule the US based on the “the customs, laws and traditions” of the US, which are quite different than those of the UK.

Also the US has a bigger population and economy than all other Commonwealth Realms COMBINED.
And as you said a great country will not be satisfied with secondary status, logically a US monarch, if there was one should be an American living in and ruling from the US, not from a distant capital in a country we have long since surpassed economically and demographically.

See below:

"That being said, I think that at this point, having America re-accept the British Monarch is ridiculous. The best hope for a Monarchy in America is one which follows the example of Augustus in his dismantling of the Roman Republican system, and his erecting of the Imperium; that is to say, the gradual phasing out of things like term-limits, and checks on the power of the Executive (ie. the President), as well as the expansion of the Executive's prerogatives and powers; but at the same time, being very careful to maintain some of the trappings of the Republic (ie. the Senate and Congress)."

Does this seem more feasible to you?

[Old Tyrannia]

A monarch doesn't necessarily have to inherit the throne by virtue of their bloodline. The Hongwu Emperor was a peasant before establishing the Ming dynasty, but by traditional Chinese standards he was an entirely legitimate sovereign. I judge legitimacy on the customs, laws and traditions of the realm in question- in the case of the United Kingdom, legitimacy is based partially, though not entirely, on bloodline.

There is one- and only one- suitable candidate for the throne of the United States; Elizabeth II, as the legitimate successor of George III, America's last ruling monarch.

These two points are contradictory.
Elizabeth II has no basis to rule the US based on the “the customs, laws and traditions” of the US, which are quite different than those of the UK.

Also the US has a bigger population and economy than all other Commonwealth Realms COMBINED.
And as you said a great country will not be satisfied with secondary status, logically a US monarch, if there was one should be an American living in and ruling from the US, not from a distant capital in a country we have long since surpassed economically and demographically.

It's not contradictory because the US is an illegitimate nation created through an act of rebellion against the authority instated over it by God.

America, as it presently exists, ought to be utterly abolished and destroyed.