RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Novus America]

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.

Even at by the standards of the time it was regarded pretty poorly on the pogroms and other matters. The problem being it being so resistant to reform. But sure this would be a problem with other places too. Like Germany. The German monarchists often get coopted by racists too (who use the old Black White Red flag too) and would raise some difficult questions over the legacies of the past, even if it was not the worst at the time.

But that is missing the point. The point is that bringing back the Tsar does not fix any of the underlying problems.
The point is all the corruption and kleptocracy could continue. That even a well meaning monarch still has the problems of the ultranats and rampant corruption.

[Novus America]

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?

No, I am not. Although most my ancestors were more recent (and sometimes mistreated) immigrants. And we still have many ghosts of the past to wrestle with.

Now sure I would not say the current claimant you are referring to is responsible. I do not think they are. And they could be a good person.

But that misses the point, because what I think is not the important thing. If the RIM becomes influential then they will cause trouble.
Germany has a similar issue in that although most of the legitimate mainstream monarchists are not racist, a lot of racists have coopted and flocked to their groups and symbols.

RIM probably does not care about who the actual claimant is as long as they can exploit them. They have completely different concerns than you do, but they are still a problem to deal with.
If enough bad people flock to a originally good movement it gets corrupted.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Even at by the standards of the time it was regarded pretty poorly on the pogroms and other matters.

It was almost entirely the pogroms. The colonisation of Siberia did not attract much interest elsewhere, and why would it? It was little different to the American treatment of American Indians, or the treatment of Blacks in Africa; not to mention, incredibly far way and remote. Regarding the pogroms, I believe antisemitism is distinct from racism, if in some ways similar. It's such a tangle of race, religion, society, politics and economy; where even antisemites can't agree on whether Jews are actually inferior or not.

Essentially, stating the Russian Empire was racist says absolutely nothing. All European powers were racist. Saying it was antisemitic alludes to an important part of Russian history, one that is still felt today.

The point is that bringing back the Tsar does not fix any of the underlying problems. The point is all the corruption and kleptocracy could continue. That even a well meaning monarch still has the problems of the ultranats and rampant corruption

I agree. It's not a magical solution. But it nonetheless is an option I favour. We've discussed before that the Russian Federation lacks the affection of its people, since it was born in ignominy and the ideal of Russian democracy was strangled in its cradle by none other than Yeltsin. It has no ideological force, and just putters along at the whim of autocrats like Putin and his kleptocratic cronies. A monarchy won't get rid of them, true, but it'll provide the Russian people a clear symbol and direction, as well as a measure of stability. Governments come and go, but the Tsar/ina remains. As it stands, absolutely no one knows what'll happen after Putin, or when kleptocratic rule will end.

[Salus Maior]

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?

No, I am not. Although most my ancestors were more recent (and sometimes mistreated) immigrants. And we still have many ghosts of the past to wrestle with.

Now sure I would not say the current claimant you are referring to is responsible. I do not think they are. And they could be a good person.

But that misses the point, because what I think is not the important thing. If the RIM becomes influential then they will cause trouble.
Germany has a similar issue in that although most of the legitimate mainstream monarchists are not racist, a lot of racists have coopted and flocked to their groups and symbols.

RIM probably does not care about who the actual claimant is as long as they can exploit them. They have completely different concerns than you do, but they are still a problem to deal with.
If enough bad people flock to a originally good movement it gets corrupted.

So why would the Romanovs alive today be responsible for their ancestors?

Yeah, no kidding. Ultranats becoming influential would be bad, yes, nobody disputes that. But that's not something which is happening. And you're conflating Russian monarchism with them entirely when the Monarchist Party of Russia is not ultranat, has ties with a claimant, and actually has seats in the government and a decent following.

[Novus America]

No, I am not. Although most my ancestors were more recent (and sometimes mistreated) immigrants. And we still have many ghosts of the past to wrestle with.

Now sure I would not say the current claimant you are referring to is responsible. I do not think they are. And they could be a good person.

But that misses the point, because what I think is not the important thing. If the RIM becomes influential then they will cause trouble.
Germany has a similar issue in that although most of the legitimate mainstream monarchists are not racist, a lot of racists have coopted and flocked to their groups and symbols.

RIM probably does not care about who the actual claimant is as long as they can exploit them. They have completely different concerns than you do, but they are still a problem to deal with.
If enough bad people flock to a originally good movement it gets corrupted.

So why would the Romanovs alive today be responsible for their ancestors?

Yeah, no kidding. Ultranats becoming influential would be bad, yes, nobody disputes that. But that's not something which is happening. And you're conflating Russian monarchism with them entirely when the Monarchist Party of Russia is not ultranat, has ties with a claimant, and actually has seats in the government and a decent following.

The Romanovs today are not responsible. I did not make myself clear, my fault. I have no problems with the current Romanovs.

And sure the ultranats are not in power today (although the government throws them some bones) but that is the weird thing about Russia. It is an awkward and fragile construction.
I do not like the current system but I recognize a sudden change would be problematic.

I am not against a Russian monarchy on principle if that is what the people want. I am simply pointing out that I think it would be very difficult to get past these issues.

[Novus America]

Even at by the standards of the time it was regarded pretty poorly on the pogroms and other matters.

It was almost entirely the pogroms. The colonisation of Siberia did not attract much interest elsewhere, and why would it? It was little different to the American treatment of American Indians, or the treatment of Blacks in Africa; not to mention, incredibly far way and remote. Regarding the pogroms, I believe antisemitism is distinct from racism, if in some ways similar. It's such a tangle of race, religion, society, politics and economy; where even antisemites can't agree on whether Jews are actually inferior or not.

Essentially, stating the Russian Empire was racist says absolutely nothing. All European powers were racist. Saying it was antisemitic alludes to an important part of Russian history, one that is still felt today.

The point is that bringing back the Tsar does not fix any of the underlying problems. The point is all the corruption and kleptocracy could continue. That even a well meaning monarch still has the problems of the ultranats and rampant corruption

I agree. It's not a magical solution. But it nonetheless is an option I favour. We've discussed before that the Russian Federation lacks the affection of its people, since it was born in ignominy and the ideal of Russian democracy was strangled in its cradle by none other than Yeltsin. It has no ideological force, and just putters along at the whim of autocrats like Putin and his kleptocratic cronies. A monarchy won't get rid of them, true, but it'll provide the Russian people a clear symbol and direction, as well as a measure of stability. Governments come and go, but the Tsar/ina remains. As it stands, absolutely no one knows what'll happen after Putin, or when kleptocratic rule will end.

Fair points. I think you are quite reasonable. I do not disagree.

And I am at fault for not making myself clear. I am perfectly fine with a restored Russian monarchy something like Spain. I mean if the Japanese monarchy (which did FAR worse things) could mostly redeem itself then Russia could too

Like you said the current construction is a cobbled together mess held together by Putin’s personal rule.
Like you said what happens when he is gone? Will it survive?

A monarch can provide a sense of stability and symbols. And if that is what the Russian people want fine with me.
My point was simply that there are major issues. That could be overcome but not easily.
You would have to do it in such a way to avoid the ultranats corrupting it, deal with the Sovietists, and all the other underlying issues (structurally unsound economy, rampant corruption, etc.)

If you could do it, and fix those issues within a monarchy awesome. I would fully support it.
Although he was an ass I actually go with Deng on this “it does not matter if the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice”.

I am not against monarchy in places it seems to work. I support the monarchy of Jordan for example. Because in that society it works okay. Which is what matters to me.

[Hanafuridake]

Let's not get caught up in the details, but if Bokassa doesn't suit, how about Yuan Shikai? Or Boris Skossyreff, would-be king of Andorra?

I'm discussing the idea of self-made monarchs. I'm somewhat sympathetic. It's time we get some new blood into the game.

TBH all these peasant monarchs might be fine for orientals, but in the west we should set a high standard of noble blood.

This is a bit ironic considering the Davidic line descended from a shepherd.

[Northern Davincia]

TBH all these peasant monarchs might be fine for orientals, but in the west we should set a high standard of noble blood.

This is a bit ironic considering the Davidic line descended from a shepherd.

Well, technically that is true, but David also married into Saul's family.

[Novus America]

TBH all these peasant monarchs might be fine for orientals, but in the west we should set a high standard of noble blood.

This is a bit ironic considering the Davidic line descended from a shepherd.

The thing is except when you get into more esoteric cases (like certain claims of literal descent from a god) all start as a peasant or poor at some point.

[Novus America]

This is a bit ironic considering the Davidic line descended from a shepherd.

Well, technically that is true, but David also married into Saul's family.

Saul’s father, although apparently not poor, was not a king or someone of apparently great importance either.
So what is the wealth cut off?

[Kowani]

Well, technically that is true, but David also married into Saul's family.

Saul’s father, although apparently not poor, was not a king or someone of apparently great importance either.
So what is the wealth cut off?

Whoever can afford the most spears.

[Northern Davincia]

Saul’s father, although apparently not poor, was not a king or someone of apparently great importance either.
So what is the wealth cut off?

Whoever can afford the most spears.

[Salus Maior]

This is a bit ironic considering the Davidic line descended from a shepherd.

The thing is except when you get into more esoteric cases (like certain claims of literal descent from a god) all start as a peasant or poor at some point.

While that's largely true, that doesn't mean that just anyone can, or should, be a monarch.

Established lines are preferable because of precedent, and the fact that they already have well-entrenched traditions and experience being monarchs.

[Novus America]

The thing is except when you get into more esoteric cases (like certain claims of literal descent from a god) all start as a peasant or poor at some point.

While that's largely true, that doesn't mean that just anyone can, or should, be a monarch.

Established lines are preferable because of precedent, and the fact that they already have well-entrenched traditions and experience being monarchs.

All precedents and traditions have to start somewhere, what is new today is a tradition in a few centuries. Which is why tradition or precedent are not sufficient unless people believe in them enough. That is really what matters. What people will support. An unpopular monarch is pointless, counterproductive.

[Hanafuridake]

This is a bit ironic considering the Davidic line descended from a shepherd.

The thing is except when you get into more esoteric cases (like certain claims of literal descent from a god) all start as a peasant or poor at some point.

From a purely naturalistic perspective, most monarchies were probably descended from landowners and tribal chiefs who conquered the others. The ones who were peasants usually arose from revolts against foreign powers.

[Aureumterra]

Let's not get caught up in the details, but if Bokassa doesn't suit, how about Yuan Shikai? Or Boris Skossyreff, would-be king of Andorra?

I'm discussing the idea of self-made monarchs. I'm somewhat sympathetic. It's time we get some new blood into the game.

TBH all these peasant monarchs might be fine for orientals, but in the west we should set a high standard of noble blood.

The West always had a concept of nobility which, while existing to a degree, wasn’t the same in the Far East mainly due to the "Mandate of Heaven." Which is why anyone could declare themselves Emperor if they had enough support and the ruling dynasty was perceived to have fallen out of favor with Heaven. The Ming Dynasty was founded this way, you can also look up Li Zicheng’s rebellion and attempt at creating the Shun Dynasty, which lost to the invading Manchu

[Novus America]

The thing is except when you get into more esoteric cases (like certain claims of literal descent from a god) all start as a peasant or poor at some point.

From a purely naturalistic perspective, most monarchies were probably descended from landowners and tribal chiefs who conquered the others. The ones who were peasants usually arose from revolts against foreign powers.

Most do not go back that far as tribal chiefs. Land owners got the land at some point, chiefs at some point.
But the point remains, it is really who can take power. It is not esoteric Evola stuff, it is all about legitimacy coming purely from the ability to convince people you are legitimate. By force, appeal to tradition, appeal to religion, whatever.
Nothing more.

Legitimacy is nothing more than what you can get people to believe. If you start poor and can convince people you are more legitimate your are more legitimate.

It all comes down to that.

[Kowani]

Whoever can afford the most spears.

Could you not find an ancap ball that looked like it came out of an early PS2 game?

[Bear Stearns]

No, I am not. Although most my ancestors were more recent (and sometimes mistreated) immigrants. And we still have many ghosts of the past to wrestle with.

Now sure I would not say the current claimant you are referring to is responsible. I do not think they are. And they could be a good person.

But that misses the point, because what I think is not the important thing. If the RIM becomes influential then they will cause trouble.
Germany has a similar issue in that although most of the legitimate mainstream monarchists are not racist, a lot of racists have coopted and flocked to their groups and symbols.

RIM probably does not care about who the actual claimant is as long as they can exploit them. They have completely different concerns than you do, but they are still a problem to deal with.
If enough bad people flock to a originally good movement it gets corrupted.

So why would the Romanovs alive today be responsible for their ancestors?

Yeah, no kidding. Ultranats becoming influential would be bad, yes, nobody disputes that. But that's not something which is happening. And you're conflating Russian monarchism with them entirely when the Monarchist Party of Russia is not ultranat, has ties with a claimant, and actually has seats in the government and a decent following.

There are five main political factions in Russia:
-Normie conservatives (basically Putin supporters)
-Liberals (somewhat anti-Putin, but mostly economic-focused)
-Soviet nostalgics (basically old boomers and pensioners, have been corralled into going along with Putin)
-Anti-Russians (pro-American fifth column, hate Putin)
-Ultranationalists (hate Putin for different reasons)

Tsarist nostalgia and monarchism are unlikely to become viable, and even the ultranats don't really like them

[Salus Maior]

There are five main political factions in Russia:
-Normie conservatives (basically Putin supporters)
-Liberals (somewhat anti-Putin, but mostly economic-focused)
-Soviet nostalgics (basically old boomers and pensioners, have been corralled into going along with Putin)
-Anti-Russians (pro-American fifth column, hate Putin)
-Ultranationalists (hate Putin for different reasons)

Tsarist nostalgia and monarchism are unlikely to become viable, and even the ultranats don't really like them

Yes, I know. I actually said as much earlier.

But if you are going to classify Russian monarchists as something, you might as well choose the most popular party. That being the Monarchist Party of Russia, who actually has some seats in some local governments as I understand.

[Bear Stearns]

There are five main political factions in Russia:
-Normie conservatives (basically Putin supporters)
-Liberals (somewhat anti-Putin, but mostly economic-focused)
-Soviet nostalgics (basically old boomers and pensioners, have been corralled into going along with Putin)
-Anti-Russians (pro-American fifth column, hate Putin)
-Ultranationalists (hate Putin for different reasons)

Tsarist nostalgia and monarchism are unlikely to become viable, and even the ultranats don't really like them

Yes, I know. I actually said as much earlier.

But if you are going to classify Russian monarchists as something, you might as well choose the most popular party. That being the Monarchist Party of Russia, who actually has some seats in some local governments as I understand.

I also disagree with an ultranationalist Russia really being that big of deal. But I'm of the opinion that American global hegemony is evil and the world should be multipolar.

[Novus America]

Yes, I know. I actually said as much earlier.

But if you are going to classify Russian monarchists as something, you might as well choose the most popular party. That being the Monarchist Party of Russia, who actually has some seats in some local governments as I understand.

I also disagree with an ultranationalist Russia really being that big of deal. But I'm of the opinion that American global hegemony is evil and the world should be multipolar.

Even from that perspective the ultranats are a threat, they do not want a reasonable balance of power, they have delusions of grandeur and crazy Manichean ideas of world war and such.
And would almost certainly start major wars in power, before going down in flames.

We already have a bipolar world anyways. Russia is not going to be one of the superpowers though, not with its small population and laughable economy.

[South Odreria 2]

I also disagree with an ultranationalist Russia really being that big of deal. But I'm of the opinion that American global hegemony is evil and the world should be multipolar.

Even from that perspective the ultranats are a threat, they do not want a reasonable balance of power, they have delusions of grandeur and crazy Manichean ideas of world war and such.
And would almost certainly start major wars in power, before going down in flames.

We already have a bipolar world anyways. Russia is not going to be one of the superpowers though, not with its small population and laughable economy.

I assume you mean China is the other pole? If so I would generally agree, but the US and China will have much less influence over smaller powers than US and USSR did.

[Novus America]

Even from that perspective the ultranats are a threat, they do not want a reasonable balance of power, they have delusions of grandeur and crazy Manichean ideas of world war and such.
And would almost certainly start major wars in power, before going down in flames.

We already have a bipolar world anyways. Russia is not going to be one of the superpowers though, not with its small population and laughable economy.

I assume you mean China is the other pole? If so I would generally agree, but the US and China will have much less influence over smaller powers than US and USSR did.

Of course the PRC is the other pole.

On that last part it depends, the power of the US and USSR was not absolute at all, there were other smaller powers at the time as well not controlled by the superpowers.
Iran for example was not aligned with either after 79.

So I bipolar world simply means two powers fat ahead of the rest, not that lesser powers will not exist, although often dependent to varying degrees on the big two. But some might try to strike their own course in their own areas, although with varying success.

At first it seemed the EU might be a possible third superpower but the loss of the UK and its inability to form a single coherent military and foreign policy very much limit it (the EU “Common Foreign Policy” is largely non functional as any member can veto it).

India could maybe but has a long way to go, its economy is still relatively small.

[Bear Stearns]

I also disagree with an ultranationalist Russia really being that big of deal. But I'm of the opinion that American global hegemony is evil and the world should be multipolar.

Even from that perspective the ultranats are a threat, they do not want a reasonable balance of power,

Are they actually serious about Russia conquering Europe all the way to Portugal? Not even the Nazis envisioned conquering the entirety of Europe.

they have delusions of grandeur and crazy Manichean ideas of world war and such.

You are thinking of American neocons

And would almost certainly start major wars in power, before going down in flames.

I advocate for a non-interventionist America, and I certainly would not start World War III over Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan (I'm assuming that's who they'd mostly likely target).

We already have a bipolar world anyways. Russia is not going to be one of the superpowers though, not with its small population and laughable economy.

Not quite yet. Global economic activity is still overwhelmingly dominated by the United States, especially the settling of transactions.