Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVIII: Hyena Central Command 憶ラ

[Xuloqoia]

Hereditary monarchy or elective monarchy? I'm willing to bet that you're going to say hereditary, though.

He supports elective. I think, if there must be a state, a hereditary monarchy is better, but I prefer the idea of a spontaneous monarchy.

Wouldn't your ideal civilization be highly decentralized, to the point that calling it a "civilization" is questionable? Or have I misinterpreted you?

[Cappuccina]

Cross-posted from the Religious/Political Survey thread:

Religion: In a strictly theological sense, my beliefs are fundamentally deistic in character, with bits of Platonic and Spinozan thought sprinkled in for flavor. However, in a practical sense my beliefs are akin to a Hobbes-flavored form of statolatry. Do allow me to explain. Since I view God as a detached "watchmaker" of sorts with regard to the events that transpire in Its Creation, I've oft taken to de facto worship and exaltation of Civilization and the State(and by extension the bureaucratic and industrial institutions that comprise Civilization and the State), in that I find them to be what prevents most folks from sinking to the barbarity of a war of all against all.

Politics: My political views flow naturally from said viewpoint, in what some have called a "secular theocracy" of sorts (a label which I have wholeheartedly embraced). Others I've interacted with have described my politics as a form of technocratic "utopian socialism" akin to that espoused by pre-Marxist thinkers like Henri de Saint-Simon. If you wish to know, the closest polity currently in existence to my views is Singapore (albeit not by much) and the closest candidate to my views in the current "Race to the White House" is Andrew Yang. Another key aspect of my politics is an idiosyncratic form of either nationalism or globalism depending on who you ask, very roughly analogous to the Imperial Japanese concept of "Hakko Ichiu", in which I seek for the unification of the world under one benevolent regime.

Not bad, it has many points of similarity with my own views. Additionally, I've began moving away from nationalism into a more "world state" mindset.

[Hanafuridake]

Cross-posted from the Religious/Political Survey thread:

Religion: In a strictly theological sense, my beliefs are fundamentally deistic in character, with bits of Platonic and Spinozan thought sprinkled in for flavor. However, in a practical sense my beliefs are akin to a Hobbes-flavored form of statolatry. Do allow me to explain. Since I view God as a detached "watchmaker" of sorts with regard to the events that transpire in Its Creation, I've oft taken to de facto worship and exaltation of Civilization and the State(and by extension the bureaucratic and industrial institutions that comprise Civilization and the State), in that I find them to be what prevents most folks from sinking to the barbarity of a war of all against all.

Pretty neat, but I think there are seriously flaws with Deism like there are with any other form of Creationism.

[Xuloqoia]

Cross-posted from the Religious/Political Survey thread:

Religion: In a strictly theological sense, my beliefs are fundamentally deistic in character, with bits of Platonic and Spinozan thought sprinkled in for flavor. However, in a practical sense my beliefs are akin to a Hobbes-flavored form of statolatry. Do allow me to explain. Since I view God as a detached "watchmaker" of sorts with regard to the events that transpire in Its Creation, I've oft taken to de facto worship and exaltation of Civilization and the State(and by extension the bureaucratic and industrial institutions that comprise Civilization and the State), in that I find them to be what prevents most folks from sinking to the barbarity of a war of all against all.

Pretty neat, but I think there are seriously flaws with Deism like there are with any other form of Creationism.

I mean, I say "deism" because it's the most concise way of describing a vaguely Abrahamic/Platonist/Spinozan/Stoic thing, if you all catch my drift.

PRETTY MAJOR ADDITIONAL INFO: And in addition, I'm not one of those YEC fellows, so don't worry.

[United Muscovite Nations]

He supports elective. I think, if there must be a state, a hereditary monarchy is better, but I prefer the idea of a spontaneous monarchy.

Wouldn't your ideal civilization be highly decentralized, to the point that calling it a "civilization" is questionable? Or have I misinterpreted you?

That is correct.

[Xuloqoia]

Wouldn't your ideal civilization be highly decentralized, to the point that calling it a "civilization" is questionable? Or have I misinterpreted you?

That is correct.

I see.

Anyway, I have to go soon. I have to get my laundry from downstairs.

[Xuloqoia]

Y'know, sometimes I think that it'd be easier to call myself an atheist, so that I don't have to give a long explanation whenever I try talking with other fellows about theology and metaphysics. But then I'm lumped in with folks like Kowani (no offense intended, m8).

It seems that there's no win scenario in this vast game that we call life; at least when engaging in philosophical discourse, that is.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Y'know, sometimes I think that it'd be easier to call myself an atheist, so that I don't have to give a long explanation whenever I try talking with other fellows about theology and metaphysics. But then I'm lumped in with folks like Kowani (no offense intended, m8).

Or folks like me.

[Salus Maior]

Hereditary monarchy or elective monarchy? I'm willing to bet that you're going to say hereditary, though.

He supports elective. I think, if there must be a state, a hereditary monarchy is better, but I prefer the idea of a spontaneous monarchy.

No, I believe in a hereditary monarchy. Well, I prefer it, I support whatever royal tradition is native to whatever culture.

[Xuloqoia]

Y'know, sometimes I think that it'd be easier to call myself an atheist, so that I don't have to give a long explanation whenever I try talking with other fellows about theology and metaphysics. But then I'm lumped in with folks like Kowani (no offense intended, m8).

Or folks like me.

You may be a dangerous libertarian subversive, but you're cool in my book.

[United Muscovite Nations]

He supports elective. I think, if there must be a state, a hereditary monarchy is better, but I prefer the idea of a spontaneous monarchy.

No, I believe in a hereditary monarchy. Well, I prefer it, I support whatever royal tradition is native to whatever culture.

My bad, I thought I remembered you supporting elective.

[Xuloqoia]

No, I believe in a hereditary monarchy. Well, I prefer it, I support whatever royal tradition is native to whatever culture.

My bad, I thought I remembered you supporting elective.

Perhaps you were thinking of me?

[United Muscovite Nations]

My bad, I thought I remembered you supporting elective.

Perhaps you were thinking of me?

Perhaps.

[Salus Maior]

No, I believe in a hereditary monarchy. Well, I prefer it, I support whatever royal tradition is native to whatever culture.

My bad, I thought I remembered you supporting elective.

I probably did at some point. Like I said, I support whatever royal tradition is native to a culture.

[Xuloqoia]

My bad, I thought I remembered you supporting elective.

I probably did at some point. Like I said, I support whatever royal tradition is native to a culture.

The problem, then, is with multi-cultural "empires" (using the term "empire" in a broad sense), or at the very least "empires" that begin as multi-cultural (before the cultures assimilate and melt into one another). Would the traditions of the "hegemon" take precedence?

Tbqh, I'm going to go with yes to that. But what do y'all think?

[Salus Maior]

Monarchy is better than republicanism when it comes to multicultural states change my mind.

I'm curious as to why you think so.

Austria-Hungary. The only thing that kept that Empire from falling apart much earlier than it did, was the monarchy and the shared history between the constituent peoples of the Dual Monarchy to the Habsburgs. It's not an exaggeration that they were incredibly loyal to the Emperor as a leader himself, and there are lots of sources (including from other nations like Britain) that make this observation in the pre-WWI empire. But even as the Empire was falling apart many of the common peoples were enthusiastic about Emperor Karl.

Britain is another example of a multicultural kingdom being forged by a monarchy in a very stable manner. Even to this day countless diverse peoples of the Commonwealth look to Queen Elizabeth as their head of state, at the very least in a symbolic sense (which I still say is powerful in and of itself).

There's also the matter that Monarchies are not as much at risk of populism, or tyranny of the majority. Allowing minorities to exist under the protection of the monarch.

[Xuloqoia]

Perhaps you were thinking of me?

Perhaps.

I mean, I still support the gradual transition of the United States into a system of elective monarchy, with an intermediate stage of "popular autocracy" before time grants right and proper legitimacy to the reforms. I mean, I vaguely remember a saying that "a monarchy is just an autocracy with pomp, pageantry, and prestige" and I'm actually inclined to agree to a point. Do you all get the gist of what I'm saying?

I suppose that my point is that all traditions were new at some point, y'know? I at the very least make some sense, right?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Perhaps.

I mean, I still support the gradual transition of the United States into a system of elective monarchy, with an intermediate stage of "popular autocracy" before time grants right and proper legitimacy to the reforms. I mean, I vaguely remember a saying that "a monarchy is just an autocracy with pomp, pageantry, and prestige" and I'm actually inclined to agree to a point. Do you all get the gist of what I'm saying?

I suppose that my point is that all traditions were new at some point, y'know? I at the very least make some sense, right?

It would depend to what point. A monarchy gains a great deal of its legitimacy from the time it has existed, as all governments do. It's hard for any other type of autocracy to do that. Moreover, not all monarchies have been autocracies.

[Xuloqoia]

I mean, I still support the gradual transition of the United States into a system of elective monarchy, with an intermediate stage of "popular autocracy" before time grants right and proper legitimacy to the reforms. I mean, I vaguely remember a saying that "a monarchy is just an autocracy with pomp, pageantry, and prestige" and I'm actually inclined to agree to a point. Do you all get the gist of what I'm saying?

I suppose that my point is that all traditions were new at some point, y'know? I at the very least make some sense, right?

It would depend to what point. A monarchy gains a great deal of its legitimacy from the time it has existed, as all governments do. It's hard for any other type of autocracy to do that. Moreover, not all monarchies have been autocracies.

Well this just raises a question that has been raised here quite a few times before, with no definite consensus: what is a monarchy?

And to be honest, I'll try to abstain from this. I'm not interested in figuratively "running around in circles" again. I hope that y'all understand.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It would depend to what point. A monarchy gains a great deal of its legitimacy from the time it has existed, as all governments do. It's hard for any other type of autocracy to do that. Moreover, not all monarchies have been autocracies.

Well this just raises a question that has been raised here quite a few times before, with no definite consensus: what is a monarchy?

And to be honest, I'll try to abstain from this. I'm not interested in figuratively "running around in circles" again. I hope that y'all understand.

I would say a monarchy is rule tied to an individual with the justification of precedent and legal right.

[Hanafuridake]

Apparently there's a borderline schism in the Thai sangha which has been going on for nearly a century because the Supreme Patriarch wrote a book in the thirties where he said that Nirvana was the true self.

[Salus Maior]

Apparently there's a borderline schism in the Thai sangha which has been going on for nearly a century because the Supreme Patriarch wrote a book in the thirties where he said that Nirvana was the true self.

Oh snap.

[The Noviaskiet]

v a p o r w a v e: m u s i c o r m e m e ?

[Hanafuridake]

Apparently there's a borderline schism in the Thai sangha which has been going on for nearly a century because the Supreme Patriarch wrote a book in the thirties where he said that Nirvana was the true self.

Oh snap.

It's pretty silly since the argument is nominal at best. I think it has more to do with identity over substance. Anatta is seen as what makes Buddhism (and by extension, Thailand) unique.

[Xuloqoia]

Well this just raises a question that has been raised here quite a few times before, with no definite consensus: what is a monarchy?

And to be honest, I'll try to abstain from this. I'm not interested in figuratively "running around in circles" again. I hope that y'all understand.

I would say a monarchy is rule tied to an individual with the justification of precedent and legal right.

Okay, I'll join. Willpower isn't my strong suit, I must admit. That is a decent definition, at least from my perspective.

I prefer to categorize monarchies as such, with both modern and historical examples (according to my knowledge of things, at least):

	Elective	Hereditary
Ceremonial	Why? Just... why? Who hurt you?	Commonwealth Realms
Constitutional	Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth	Morocco
Absolute	Roman Empire (in theory, anyway)	Saudi Arabia, maybe North Korea

My system would thus be both "elective" and "constitutional", adapted to my ideals and to the peculiarities of my country's character.