RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Salus Maior]

What then is its role in history? As far as I am aware, it doesn't even believe in itself anymore. When you become the darling of the press, it isn't a sign you are an independent power center. It simply reflects who has control of the world situation since after the WW1 situation.

To be honest, I think there is some truth in what you're saying. Although the Church certainly isn't a darling of the press, outside of what they take from Pope Francis's out of context comments. Other than that it's a continuous barrage on its traditionalism and scandals.

The Church doesn't run the West like it used to, which is both a plus and a minus in my view. You're correct in saying that it does, or at least significantly powerful factions in the Church, want the Church to fit in with the Liberal world that's been ruling since WWII. However, there's also a decent movement to maintain the Church as a traditional and counter-liberal force, which will only grow as the liberals eventually die out.

[Salus Maior]

What is to say a Romanov restoration wouldn't be an improvement over the current corrupt and amoral kleptocracy that rules Russia currently?

A lot of people backing the Romanov restoration are white nationalists and glorify the infamous “Black Hundreds”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian ... l_Movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hundreds

The Romanov regime was notorious for its anti Semitism and poor treatment of ethnic minorities like Siberian Natives and Poles. And its massive expansionist claims and tendencies to invade its neighbors.

Although some of the people supporting its restoration are center right types, it is very likely they would be cooped by much more extreme types.

Also what makes you think it would be less corrupt and kleptocratic? A monarchy can be corrupt and kleptocratic just as easily.

I'm not sure how large RIM is, but they're not a legal party.

There is a legal monarchist party in Russia, and as far as I'm aware they're not based in racial supremacy.

[Cekoviu]

A lot of people backing the Romanov restoration are white nationalists and glorify the infamous “Black Hundreds”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian ... l_Movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hundreds

The Romanov regime was notorious for its anti Semitism and poor treatment of ethnic minorities like Siberian Natives and Poles. And its massive expansionist claims and tendencies to invade its neighbors.

Although some of the people supporting its restoration are center right types, it is very likely they would be cooped by much more extreme types.

Also what makes you think it would be less corrupt and kleptocratic? A monarchy can be corrupt and kleptocratic just as easily.

I'm not sure how large RIM is, but they're not a legal party.

There is a legal monarchist party in Russia, and as far as I'm aware they're not based in racial supremacy.

this much is true yes

[Salus Maior]

I'm not sure how large RIM is, but they're not a legal party.

There is a legal monarchist party in Russia, and as far as I'm aware they're not based in racial supremacy.

this much is true yes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIllc_JeCHU

I'm kind of meh about them. They're not supporting my preferred claimant.

[Novus America]

if you think it's bad now wait until putin kicks the bucket - the major movements in Russia beyond putinism are either monarchists or stalinists, so you're either going to get revamped Romanovs or Cheka on steroids

I don't think Monarchism has much of a chance in Russia. Their party is pretty small, and most people aren't for a restoration.

It would be my hope, however, that if there were a restoration it wouldn't become a racist regime (although from what little I know of the claimants, and of my particular preferred claimant, they're not). I would hope that it would be a resurgence of Eastern Orthodox traditionalism, and emphasize the cultural achievements that developed within the Empire.

Even if the particular claimant is not personally racist, if many of their supporters are it is likely to still be a racist regime.
True monarchism is fringe in Russia but a substantial portion of that fringe likes the Romanov regime for very different reasons than you probably would, such as its brutality towards minorities and violently aggressive foreign policies. Eastern Orthodoxy is interesting in Russia, although most identify with it few attend church regularly, and sometimes even use Putin and Stalin on icons, for many of not most it is more a liking of the aesthetics and associations with power rather than a genuine deep understanding of Christian theology.

The Russian Orthodox Church has major problems with corruption and being exploited as a propaganda arm for the government.

[Novus America]

A lot of people backing the Romanov restoration are white nationalists and glorify the infamous “Black Hundreds”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian ... l_Movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hundreds

The Romanov regime was notorious for its anti Semitism and poor treatment of ethnic minorities like Siberian Natives and Poles. And its massive expansionist claims and tendencies to invade its neighbors.

Although some of the people supporting its restoration are center right types, it is very likely they would be cooped by much more extreme types.

Also what makes you think it would be less corrupt and kleptocratic? A monarchy can be corrupt and kleptocratic just as easily.

I'm not sure how large RIM is, but they're not a legal party.

There is a legal monarchist party in Russia, and as far as I'm aware they're not based in racial supremacy.

The RIM though has connections in high places, and is likely supported by the Kremlin.
Sure not all Russian monarchists are racists but it can get hard to separate the legacy of the Romanov regime from the darker aspects of it because many people are drawn to it for the darker reasons.

The question becomes the why. Why like it? Because it was old? Like the look?
Or like it for its racism and violent expansionism?

Any monarchist movement is at risk of drawing in both types. And to gain enough support probably requires both types working together.
Which would be pretty bad. But if they do not work together they splinter the movement making it less politically viable.

It is quite different than Western Europe.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Good evening lads.

[Luminesa]

Good evening lads.

Salutations!

[Cekoviu]

Good evening lads.

oh god you're back
u gonna get mad at me again for pointing out sexism or

[Salus Maior]

I'm not sure how large RIM is, but they're not a legal party.

There is a legal monarchist party in Russia, and as far as I'm aware they're not based in racial supremacy.

The RIM though has connections in high places, and is likely supported by the Kremlin.
Sure not all Russian monarchists are racists but it can get hard to separate the legacy of the Romanov regime from the darker aspects of it because many people are drawn to it for the darker reasons.

The question becomes the why. Why like it? Because it was old? Like the look?
Or like it for its racism and violent expansionism?

Any monarchist movement is at risk of drawing in both types. And to gain enough support probably requires both types working together.
Which would be pretty bad. But if they do not work together they splinter the movement making it less politically viable.

It is quite different than Western Europe.

When I've talked to Russian monarchists it tends to be the same reasons Monarchists elsewhere prefer monarchism.

As in, the monarchy is an important cultural institution, is preferable to democracy for x reason, royal family was unjustly deposed (especially true for Tsarists), admiration for the persons themselves, anti-communism (again, especially true for Tsarists), religious traditionalism, and nostalgia goggles.

I've never heard racist reasons for monarchism. Which would be contradictory anyway considering all the royals have mixed nationalities.

It should also be noted that the Tsars did plenty of things which were not pogroms, and I wouldn't say that anti-semitism is the defining trait for the Tsars.

[Bienenhalde]

I'm not sure how large RIM is, but they're not a legal party.

There is a legal monarchist party in Russia, and as far as I'm aware they're not based in racial supremacy.

The RIM though has connections in high places, and is likely supported by the Kremlin.
Sure not all Russian monarchists are racists but it can get hard to separate the legacy of the Romanov regime from the darker aspects of it because many people are drawn to it for the darker reasons.

The question becomes the why. Why like it? Because it was old? Like the look?
Or like it for its racism and violent expansionism?

Any monarchist movement is at risk of drawing in both types. And to gain enough support probably requires both types working together.
Which would be pretty bad. But if they do not work together they splinter the movement making it less politically viable.

It is quite different than Western Europe.

And yet even if one isn't racist, one can see that the Soviet Union and Russia's current oligarchic kleptocracy have both been disasters, and that Tsarist Russia was far more traditional and religious than either.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

Good evening lads.

oh god you're back
u gonna get mad at me again for pointing out sexism or

I wasnt mad

Did anything interesting on rwdt happen in 2 wks?

[Novus America]

The RIM though has connections in high places, and is likely supported by the Kremlin.
Sure not all Russian monarchists are racists but it can get hard to separate the legacy of the Romanov regime from the darker aspects of it because many people are drawn to it for the darker reasons.

The question becomes the why. Why like it? Because it was old? Like the look?
Or like it for its racism and violent expansionism?

Any monarchist movement is at risk of drawing in both types. And to gain enough support probably requires both types working together.
Which would be pretty bad. But if they do not work together they splinter the movement making it less politically viable.

It is quite different than Western Europe.

When I've talked to Russian monarchists it tends to be the same reasons Monarchists elsewhere prefer monarchism.

As in, the monarchy is an important cultural institution, is preferable to democracy for x reason, royal family was unjustly deposed (especially true for Tsarists), admiration for the persons themselves, anti-communism (again, especially true for Tsarists), religious traditionalism, and nostalgia goggles.

I've never heard racist reasons for monarchism. Which would be contradictory anyway considering all the royals have mixed nationalities.

It should also be noted that the Tsars did plenty of things which were not pogroms, and I wouldn't say that anti-semitism is the defining trait for the Tsars.

Sure but clearly racist Tsarists exist, as despite the mixture in the royal family the regime was aggressively oppressive towards non ethnic Russian minorities and constantly invading neighbors.

Obviously you do not run in the RIM/Black Hundred revivalist circles but they exist, have power and would be a risk of cooptimg the movement or at least influencing it.

Getting a Tsar back would not fix the underlying issues.

I would not necessarily say it was a defining trait of the Tsars but certainly was a part. This is the issue of looking too much into the past, the past is ugly.

Russia needs to move forward, and maybe it could under a Monarchist regime, maybe it could pull a Japan. But trying to move ahead while looking back is not easy.

[Salus Maior]

I would not necessarily say it was a defining trait of the Tsars but certainly was a part.

You mean like America and racism?

Hell, I'd say America is more historically defined by racism than Russia is.

[Novus America]

The RIM though has connections in high places, and is likely supported by the Kremlin.
Sure not all Russian monarchists are racists but it can get hard to separate the legacy of the Romanov regime from the darker aspects of it because many people are drawn to it for the darker reasons.

The question becomes the why. Why like it? Because it was old? Like the look?
Or like it for its racism and violent expansionism?

Any monarchist movement is at risk of drawing in both types. And to gain enough support probably requires both types working together.
Which would be pretty bad. But if they do not work together they splinter the movement making it less politically viable.

It is quite different than Western Europe.

And yet even if one isn't racist, one can see that the Soviet Union and Russia's current oligarchic kleptocracy have both been disasters, and that Tsarist Russia was far more traditional and religious than either.

But just appointing a Tsar would not get rid of the oligarchic kleptocracy, they would maybe just give noble titles to the kleptocrats.
Obviously I am not a big fan of the current regime, but I do not think the answer is in the past.
The Russian Empire was pretty shitty too.

Maybe it could do something like Japan, and move forward under an monarch (although Japan still has issues with the ghosts of the past and racism and crazy ultranationalist groups) but that is not a guarantee.

I have mentioned this before. There are good governments with a monarch, and bad ones. There are good titular republics and bad ones. The monarch v republic is rarely the determining factor.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

You mean like America and racism?

Hell, I'd say America is more historically defined by racism than Russia is.

It certainly is, no question. Russia is no different to any other European Empire in that regard. Russia has a larger history of anti-semitism than racism.

[Lucja]

if you think it's bad now wait until putin kicks the bucket - the major movements in Russia beyond putinism are either monarchists or stalinists, so you're either going to get revamped Romanovs or Cheka on steroids

What is to say a Romanov restoration wouldn't be an improvement over the current corrupt and amoral kleptocracy that rules Russia currently?

Because the Romanov's were just kleptocrats with a crown on their head.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Because the Romanov's were just kleptocrats with a crown on their head.

That's wrong, and I think a typically modern and cynical view of the past. The Romanov Tsars completely believed in their responsibilities to Russia and its people. They were almost all god-fearing, family men. There are of course exceptions, but as a rule, I believe most monarchs were not cynical tricksters but really believed in their role. I can't say the same for the people that surrounded them though, although there were great Russian reformists of the 19th century, utterly committed to improving Russia. One of the tragedies of Nicholas' reign was ignoring them.

[Novus America]

I would not necessarily say it was a defining trait of the Tsars but certainly was a part.

You mean like America and racism?

Hell, I'd say America is more historically defined by racism than Russia is.

But we are not trying to recreate our government of the 1800s either.
Or many of our traditions from the time.

There are many similarities to be sure. But that is the issue, the answers are not in the past.
I mean if I had say “make America like it was in the 1800s” thing I am sure it would also draw in plenty of racists.

Maybe Russia can move forward under a monarch, some places have. But we cannot pretend the past was better than it was.
It is easier though when you never lost the monarchy in the first place. It is very hard to argue we should bring back the CSA for example. If the Japanese monarchy had been disbanded bringing it back would raise a lot of questions (well even keeping it did) but they did not have to, they could say they were fixing it. And it still has a lot of issues continuing over from it.

It could be done, but it is not easy and there are going to be a lot of issues to account for.

[Salus Maior]

You mean like America and racism?

Hell, I'd say America is more historically defined by racism than Russia is.

But we are not trying to recreate our government of the 1800s either.
Or many of our traditions from the time.

There are many similarities to be sure. But that is the issue, the answers are not in the past.
I mean if I had say “make America like it was in the 1800s” thing I am sure it would also draw in plenty of racists.

Maybe Russia can move forward under a monarch, some places have. But we cannot pretend the past was better than it was.
It is easier though when you never lost the monarchy in the first place. It is very hard to argue we should bring back the CSA for example. If the Japanese monarchy had been disbanded bringing it back would raise a lot of questions (well even keeping it did) but they did not have to, they could say they were fixing it. And it still has a lot of issues continuing over from it.

It could be done, but it is not easy and there are going to be a lot of issues to account for.

Nobody wants to make the Russia of the 1800s. Nobody can make the Russia of the 1800's because the 1800's are over. The circumstances which created it are no longer relevant.

[Novus America]

Because the Romanov's were just kleptocrats with a crown on their head.

That's wrong, and I think a typically modern and cynical view of the past. The Romanov Tsars completely believed in their responsibilities to Russia and its people. They were almost all god-fearing, family men. There are of course exceptions, but as a rule, I believe most monarchs were not cynical tricksters but really believed in their role. I can't say the same for the people that surrounded them though, although there were great Russian reformists of the 19th century, utterly committed to improving Russia. One of the tragedies of Nicholas' reign was ignoring them.

That is the issue. Many meant well. Nicholas II meant well.
I would not call him a kleptocrat but his government has rampant corruption and racism regardless.

The thing is for all their power in theory Russia is very difficult to manage.
True the real problem was ignoring the reformists who wanted to make the Russian Empire better, modernize and improve it over keeping it in place. Had it reformed and modernized (and not done the third partition of Poland) it might have survived.
But it did not.

[Novus America]

But we are not trying to recreate our government of the 1800s either.
Or many of our traditions from the time.

There are many similarities to be sure. But that is the issue, the answers are not in the past.
I mean if I had say “make America like it was in the 1800s” thing I am sure it would also draw in plenty of racists.

Maybe Russia can move forward under a monarch, some places have. But we cannot pretend the past was better than it was.
It is easier though when you never lost the monarchy in the first place. It is very hard to argue we should bring back the CSA for example. If the Japanese monarchy had been disbanded bringing it back would raise a lot of questions (well even keeping it did) but they did not have to, they could say they were fixing it. And it still has a lot of issues continuing over from it.

It could be done, but it is not easy and there are going to be a lot of issues to account for.

Nobody wants to make the Russia of the 1800s. Nobody can make the Russia of the 1800's because the 1800's are over. The circumstances which created it are no longer relevant.

True, but the question is still taking the government of the time and refusing to make it work in the contemporary world. It could be done possibly, something like Spain or Cambodia but it would not be easy and raise countless questions. Who should be the monarch? What powers do they have? How do we deal with the darker parts of the legacy?

And if we cannot answer the questions in a way to please all the different groups then you have the problem of the groups splintering. Like in France when the had a monarchist majority under the beginning of the third republic but the monarchists could not agree with each other on these questions.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I would not call him a kleptocrat but his government has rampant corruption and racism regardless.

Continually focusing on the racism of the Russian Empire is more than a little obnoxious. As I've said before, it was no different than any other European Empire. Racism was very much a part of the 19th century and European colonial mindset. It seems like a calculated denigration of the Russian Empire by using a modern boogeyman.

[Novus America]

You mean like America and racism?

Hell, I'd say America is more historically defined by racism than Russia is.

It certainly is, no question. Russia is no different to any other European Empire in that regard. Russia has a larger history of anti-semitism than racism.

Anti Semitism can be regarded as racism, and the way the Russian Empire treated native Siberian’s was similar to they way it the US treated Native Americans.

Admittedly in Russia it was often more about culture than race in the poor treatment of minorities as most looked “white”, it never had a large African population of course.

[Salus Maior]

Nobody wants to make the Russia of the 1800s. Nobody can make the Russia of the 1800's because the 1800's are over. The circumstances which created it are no longer relevant.

True, but the question is still taking the government of the time and refusing to make it work in the contemporary world. It could be done possibly, something like Spain or Cambodia but it would not be easy and raise countless questions. Who should be the monarch? What powers do they have? [u]How do we deal with the darker parts of the legacy?
[/u]
And if we cannot answer the questions in a way to please all the different groups then you have the problem of the groups splintering. Like in France when the had a monarchist majority under the beginning of the third republic but the monarchists could not agree with each other on these questions.

The legitimate monarchist party in Russia has already chosen their claimant. RIM as far as I can tell has no claimant.

Are you, as an American, responsible for the racism of your ancestors?