Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVIII: Hyena Central Command 憶ラ

[Bienenhalde]

My plan would be to remedy multiple things that are plaguing our society and causing its decline (note, not all of this is specifically related to America, but rather a set of ideal goals).

1. Remedy the issue of lost identity and transcendent purpose by enriching spiritual and traditional life in the culture (specifically, Catholic spiritual life although I would be open to others so long as its substantial).

2. Combine that renewed traditional identity with certain progressive initiatives such as racial integration, raising education standards universally, giving aid to refugees and to other nations in crisis, and spearhead sustainable environmental practice.

3. Establish a monarchy of some form which acts as the exemplar of the national culture, combining secular and spiritual culture in a figurehead (although ideally this monarch would also have political power and be able to act as a mediator and balance to the legislature). This goes hand in hand with the cultural and traditional identity issue.

4. Reform the legislature into a multiparty parliamentary system which allow a wider range of parties, create a system which promotes (if not force) party cooperation, and do away with the winner-takes-all system entirely.

5. (specifically related to America) Withdraw from certain military commitments, particularly in Europe. Shift over time the weight of military responsibility to European states. Maintain military presence in East Asia, however. Free up money to invest in national projects and reforms.

That's just a bit off the top of my head.

Not all bad, though given our culture is ant monarchical, a monarchy that exemplifies our culture is a contradiction. A monarch would be divisive, not unifying on our society.

Certainly though we need to get rid of FPTP, although some states have already done so.

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

[Salus Maior]

My plan would be to remedy multiple things that are plaguing our society and causing its decline (note, not all of this is specifically related to America, but rather a set of ideal goals).

1. Remedy the issue of lost identity and transcendent purpose by enriching spiritual and traditional life in the culture (specifically, Catholic spiritual life although I would be open to others so long as its substantial).

2. Combine that renewed traditional identity with certain progressive initiatives such as racial integration, raising education standards universally, giving aid to refugees and to other nations in crisis, and spearhead sustainable environmental practice.

3. Establish a monarchy of some form which acts as the exemplar of the national culture, combining secular and spiritual culture in a figurehead (although ideally this monarch would also have political power and be able to act as a mediator and balance to the legislature). This goes hand in hand with the cultural and traditional identity issue.

4. Reform the legislature into a multiparty parliamentary system which allow a wider range of parties, create a system which promotes (if not force) party cooperation, and do away with the winner-takes-all system entirely.

5. (specifically related to America) Withdraw from certain military commitments, particularly in Europe. Shift over time the weight of military responsibility to European states. Maintain military presence in East Asia, however. Free up money to invest in national projects and reforms.

That's just a bit off the top of my head.

Not all bad, though given our culture is ant monarchical, a monarchy that exemplifies our culture is a contradiction. A monarch would be divisive, not unifying on our society.

Certainly though we need to get rid of FPTP, although some states have already done so.

I think Americans are sometimes closet monarchists. We do seem to get obsessed whenever there's a royal wedding or royal baby.

Of course, this might be a better fit in Canada. Which does have a royal tradition (it's basically loyalist America).

[Pannerstone]

Not all bad, though given our culture is ant monarchical, a monarchy that exemplifies our culture is a contradiction. A monarch would be divisive, not unifying on our society.

Certainly though we need to get rid of FPTP, although some states have already done so.

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

Who gets crowned king?

[Bienenhalde]

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

Who gets crowned king?

Well, the Windsors would rule Canada, the House of Iturbide would rule Mexico and the southwest, but I am not quite sure about the other kingdoms.

[Novus America]

We’ll put Pat Buchanan in charge of interpreting it. Problem solved

haha.

Actually i like him somehow. he's a respectable fellow.

Some sort of Neo Roman Empire?
But if anyone picks the Bourbons...

Yes that is the idea pretty much. Well the french Bourbons have some good pretenders. So does House Bonaparte, whose pretender looks suspiciously like his (in)famous ancestor.

The French Bourbons were anti-liberal, but at the same time time completely hedonistic hypocrites who while pretending to be Catholics in public completely undermined the Catholic Church at the same time. They fought for the Protestants at abroad while murdering them at home. The worst choice for all sides.

I cannot think of a more amoral and sleazy dynasty.

Though in that case they might not be the family we need but the one we deserve...

Actually if any I would probably go with the Bonaparte’s. They actually had great domestic policies but their foreign policies brought them down.

[Novus America]

Not all bad, though given our culture is ant monarchical, a monarchy that exemplifies our culture is a contradiction. A monarch would be divisive, not unifying on our society.

Certainly though we need to get rid of FPTP, although some states have already done so.

I think Americans are sometimes closet monarchists. We do seem to get obsessed whenever there's a royal wedding or royal baby.

Of course, this might be a better fit in Canada. Which does have a royal tradition (it's basically loyalist America).

Canada is already a monarchy though, although many Canadians do not even seem to know it is.

[Pannerstone]

Who gets crowned king?

Well, the Windsors would rule Canada, the House of Iturbide would rule Mexico and the southwest, but I am not quite sure about the other kingdoms.

What about california?

Kansas?

Missouri?

[Salus Maior]

I think Americans are sometimes closet monarchists. We do seem to get obsessed whenever there's a royal wedding or royal baby.

Of course, this might be a better fit in Canada. Which does have a royal tradition (it's basically loyalist America).

Canada is already a monarchy though, although many Canadians do not even seem to know it is.

Yes, I would promote the Windsor monarchy in Canada.

[Novus America]

Not all bad, though given our culture is ant monarchical, a monarchy that exemplifies our culture is a contradiction. A monarch would be divisive, not unifying on our society.

Certainly though we need to get rid of FPTP, although some states have already done so.

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

Without the US we might as well be crowning Xi God Emperor of all mankind.

I will absolutely oppose anything that makes a weaker US, we are the only counterbalance to the Xi Reich.

[Hanafuridake]

My political beliefs are pretty straightforward. I believe in religious nationalism because countries need a transcendent center, otherwise they degrade into chaos and unbridled consumerism, and the Buddhist religion is the true and perfect religion which can unite Asia. I look at new solutions to problems when necessary, but I'm not going to throw away everything valuable in the name of neophilia.

[Novus America]

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

Who gets crowned king?

King is a wimpy title. Go Emperor or go home.
Okay how about this. The only monarchy I agree to. Appoint me Emperor and I will agree.

[Bienenhalde]

Well, the Windsors would rule Canada, the House of Iturbide would rule Mexico and the southwest, but I am not quite sure about the other kingdoms.

What about california?

Kansas?

Missouri?

California and the other southwestern states can go to Mexico. I previously suggested giving the rest of the continental US to Canada, but people have pointed out to me that Canadians might not like being outnumbered by Americans in their own country, hence why I suggested partitioning the area into smaller countries instead.

[Nakena]

haha.

Actually i like him somehow. he's a respectable fellow.



Yes that is the idea pretty much. Well the french Bourbons have some good pretenders. So does House Bonaparte, whose pretender looks suspiciously like his (in)famous ancestor.

(Image)

The French Bourbons were anti-liberal, but at the same time time completely hedonistic hypocrites who while pretending to be Catholics in public completely undermined the Catholic Church at the same time. They fought for the Protestants at abroad while murdering them at home. The worst choice for all sides.

I cannot think of a more amoral and sleazy dynasty.

Though in that case they might not be the family we need but the one we deserve...

Actually if any I would probably go with the Bonaparte’s. They actually had great domestic policies but their foreign policies brought them down.

Thats because Napoleon didn heed the advice of Tallyrand. Who was an genius diplomat and also managed to keep France intact after Napoleons downfall. It didn helped that Napoleon, once he was Emperor, started to assign various fiefdoms to often incompetent and helpless members of his family. (Some he assigned to his military followers such as Bernadotte, are still in power. )

[Pannerstone]

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

Without the US we might as well be crowning Xi God Emperor of all mankind.

I will absolutely oppose anything that makes a weaker US, we are the only counterbalance to the Xi Reich.

Welp democrats have guaranteed the deatruction of america by importing hundreds of thousands of minority migrants they know vote pro dem(they are literrally lining up in NY to get driverse licenses)

America is on the final countdown, and nothing can stop the demographic/political change that has occured.

[Bienenhalde]

Well, personally, I am not sure if there should even be a United States. Perhaps a loose confederation of North American monarchies instead?

Without the US we might as well be crowning Xi God Emperor of all mankind.

I will absolutely oppose anything that makes a weaker US, we are the only counterbalance to the Xi Reich.

I mean, I agree that we need to remain unified in terms of foreign and military policy, but I still think we need more local autonomy in terms of domestic governance.

[Fahran]

We shall take this on from two paths. The first, the multitude of problems in other systems of governance. The second, the advantages of democracy. We shall exclude, for the purposes of this argument, those systems of governance that are the result of extreme geographical conditions, such as the hyper pacifistic, egalitarian Moriori of the Chatham Islands, or those that rely on constant conquest, such as that of the Aztecs. Not all variants will be explored-I have no reason or desire to attack a diarchy, such as that of Andorra Andorra, if only due to sheer irrelevance. This leaves us with several different systems which to evaluate.
Dictatorship-Dictatorships take two general forms, ideological or kleptocratic. A contemporary example of the first being North Korea, with one of the latter being Mobutu’s Zaire. I would hope that it is self-evident why the latter is not a viable system, and thus, will concern myself with the former. We shall note several immediate problems that exist even before the question of ideology or internal organization is considered. The most obvious problem is one of accountability-the State in a dictatorship being entirely unaccountable, and largely separate from the civilian population means that the military lacks the emotional connection necessary to prevent them from massacring civilians en mass. This is exacerbated by the fact that many dictatorships are established through the military, à la Pinochet (but not always, as the Nazis show) The second problem comes from competence. We shall assume, for the sake of fairness, that all systems attract people of equal levels of competence and altruism equally. (Although perhaps it would be giving dictatorships an advantage they have historically not enjoyed). Unfortunately, dictatorships tend to have a perverse reward system, wherein competence is not necessarily of importance, but rather, closeness with the leader is. This makes it easier for incompetent or otherwise undesirable individuals to attain power.
There is, however, the claim of a good dictator, who does what needs to be done without having to deal with internal political bickering-an example of this being Fabius, of Ancient Rome. (We shall note that this is not inherently a benefit-it would’ve been much harder for Pol Pot to get enough votes to pass the “Kill all people wearing glasses” Act). The issue with such a system is that is unreliable on the long term. If we take a 50/50 split of good/bad dictators within a hypothetical society, we shall notice that such a society would be utterly wrecked. It is much easier to destroy, even inadvertently, or fail to address a problem, than it is to build. Additionally, dictatorships have the problem of succession and aging. If all power is invested in a singular figure, then any brush with death is a catastrophe for the running of the country. An example of this can be found with Mobutu’s colon cancer during the Rwandan invasion of his country-the army did not even have the requisite bullets needed to prosecute a war.
Monarchy, absolute. This has many of the same problems as a dictatorship, so I will not repeat myself on that front. We shall, however, assume that an absolute monarchy does not necessarily assume the existence of nobility and serfdom, neither of which are good economic ideals. You would be left behind in innovation extremely quickly, and handicap your economy. Monarchy suffers from an additional problem, that of legitimacy. The most obvious problem being the legitimacy of successors to the throne, who may or may not be actually the children of the reigning monarch, which never plays well with the public-as well as having possible claimants to the throne running around in public. Additionally, a monarch who dies without an heir leaves a power vacuum that will be filled-Historically, by the most powerful or savvy noble. If one does not assume an aristocracy that is present with the monarchy, this hole remains impossible to fill.
Monarchy, constitutional. No immediate problems within the system itself that will not be addressed in the “Disadvantages of democracy” portion.
Oligarchy-Trades some of the problems of dictatorship-most notably, succession of the ruler, but gains the problems of factional infighting-something which, while present in every governance system to a certain degree, is particularly pronounced here. Oligarchies tend to generate perverse rewards for legislation, tending to be always in the interest of whichever societal divisions are represented, some with mutually exclusive interests (take the Free Silver Industrial workers-farmer split. Even though both of these groups were working class, their interests were diametrically opposed to each other). However, the interests of the represented class is not necessarily shared by the population as a whole. A current example of this being telecom companies in the US, who consistently lobby to prevent the infrastructure of fiber-optic cable, a technologically superior service.
Technocracy-The most obvious problem is deciding who is qualified. The Federal Reserve, for example, is a modern-day example of a technocracy, but as one will notice, has its board members selected by the political process. This is a very good example of selection criteria creating a very narrow window of qualification. Additionally, technocracies suffer from the same socially isolated problem as dictatorships-perhaps even more, considering the tendency of more successful people to demonstrate psychopathic tendencies. They also share the same problem of corruption, since they pretty much pick their own members. For this, we find an example in the royal Korean Court before Hideyoshi’s invasion.
Theocracy-This too, has three variants. A ruling Clergy, such as Iran, a state ruled in accordance with religious principles, such as John Calvin’s Geneva, or a god-king, much like the Incas. The latter suffers from an acute problem, in that the king is not actually a god, and so, if defeated, poses an immense theological problem for the legitimacy. The Incas failed to resolve this, as seen by the paralyzation of the Empire, upon the capture of Atalhuapa, or whereas the Chinese attempted to, founding the Mandate of Heaven doctrine, which was subsequently invoked by every rebellion or backstabbing noble. Another method, a ruling clergy, runs into the acute problem of theological disputes. We saw at the councils of Nicea, as well as the two that preceded it, the Robbers’ Council and the Council of Antioch, that when the clergy can mutually excommunicate the rest of the clergy, as we saw again with the Babylonian Captivity, that nothing goes well, because whoever has legitimate power is not clearly defined. The other problem with this method is when the clergy, typically more reactionary than the rest of society, end up at odds with social changes. Iran being a prime example of this, or southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban exercised the greatest control. Additionally, as we see with Angkor, or the French Huguenots, any minority religions tend to pose a major problem for the rulers., or, as in the case of Kublai Khan, the religious class is of a different religion than the people they rule over. The last method, a state ruled in accordance with religious principles, will inevitably run into a serious problem-realpolitik. The principles espoused by each religion are often at odds with the nitty-gritty reality that is politics, particularly international ones. Christians invented a way to alleviate this, the Just War doctrine,(failing to realize that very few people fight for a war they consider unjust, one merely has to look st the absurd number of desertions in the American Civil War in the Confederate Army), which was…subsequently used much like the Chinese Mandate of Heaven, a convenient justification and an attempt to reconcile principles with actions.
There are variants on each of these things, with different solutions to the problems described here, and here, I have assuredly missed some, but they are mostly regional variations with little chance of being enacted on a large scale.
The singular problem that links most of these are lack of accountability and a structure of perverse incentives.

Democracy has problems-uneducated voters, apathetic voters (although this is more of an American problem than a democratic problem), people voting the wrong way, special interests subverting the democratic process. However, with the exception of apathetic voters, most of these are not inherent to the system in and of itself and can be remedied by the system itself. That is why Democracy is superior-it allows for the method to fix its problems.

It's pretty funny actually because you are seemingly arguing in many areas in a moral kind of sense and about the moral shit that comes into it. I thought you were beyond good and evil and shit like that. And you usually look at things in a completely objective manner while eschewing moral thinking, but it's a bit different here. And I don't understand why you would break your line of thought just to prove that democracy is a better system.

I believe the majority of his argument is more positivist and functional than ethical. He's pointing out the intrinsic properities of particular modes of governance that lead to social dysfunction, alienation of the body politic, loss of legitimacy, and political gridlock. His argunment for democracy essentially boils down to "it works best by these criteria." Beyond that, one can be a self-interested nihilist and support a particular vision of the world that benefits yourself without actually believing the argument you're making.

[Novus America]

Without the US we might as well be crowning Xi God Emperor of all mankind.

I will absolutely oppose anything that makes a weaker US, we are the only counterbalance to the Xi Reich.

Welp democrats have guaranteed the deatruction of america by importing hundreds of thousands of minority migrants they know vote pro dem(they are literrally lining up in NY to get driverse licenses)

America is on the final countdown, and nothing can stop the demographic/political change that has occured.

This doomer fatalism is not helpful.
And not true. The US certainly needs improvement but it is not doing that badly compared to most places.

[Hanafuridake]

Who gets crowned king?

King is a wimpy title. Go Emperor or go home.
Okay how about this. The only monarchy I agree to. Appoint me Emperor and I will agree.

If you support monarchy because you want to be monarch, you're doing it wrong.

[Salus Maior]

My political beliefs are pretty straightforward. I believe in religious nationalism because countries need a transcendent center, otherwise they degrade into chaos and unbridled consumerism, and the Buddhist religion is the true and perfect religion which can unite Asia. I look at new solutions to problems when necessary, but I'm not going to throw away everything valuable in the name of neophilia.

Co-Prosperity Sphere 2, Buddhist boogaloo?

[Pannerstone]

Welp democrats have guaranteed the deatruction of america by importing hundreds of thousands of minority migrants they know vote pro dem(they are literrally lining up in NY to get driverse licenses)

America is on the final countdown, and nothing can stop the demographic/political change that has occured.

This doomer fatalism is not helpful.
And not true. The US certainly needs improvement but it is not doing that badly compared to most places.

Its not doing badly because of its huge economic momentum and personal freedom

As the left say “ demographics are destiny” and they are right

Freedom of speech and the 2nd amendment will probably be destroyed in the change, but at least the nation will become religous, LGBT will get wrecked.

[Novus America]

Without the US we might as well be crowning Xi God Emperor of all mankind.

I will absolutely oppose anything that makes a weaker US, we are the only counterbalance to the Xi Reich.

I mean, I agree that we need to remain unified in terms of foreign and military policy, but I still think we need more local autonomy in terms of domestic governance.

I do agree with that, we do need to remember we were founded on subsidiarity, that the federal government should focus on foreign policy and coordinating trade and interstate infrastructure.

The best way to do this would be repeal the 17th Amendment.

[Hanafuridake]

I always find it weird how some right-wingers in the US complain about how immigration is a threat to Western civilization... when many of the immigrants are ultra-Catholics from South America. Mexican, Brazilians, Argentinians, etc. speak a European language (Spanish) follow the religion which created the West (Christianity) and seem to hold conservative opinions. One would think that the Democrats would dislike immigration more than the GOP.

[Pannerstone]

I always find it weird how some right-wingers in the US complain about how immigration is a threat to Western civilization... when many of the immigrants are ultra-Catholics from South America. Mexican, Brazilians, Argentinians, etc. speak a European language (Spanish) follow the religion which created the West (Christianity) and seem to hold conservative opinions. One would think that the Democrats would dislike immigration more than the GOP.

Democrats dislike immigration that affects there voting base

If the immigration was massivley polish/russian they would shit there pants

[Novus America]

This doomer fatalism is not helpful.
And not true. The US certainly needs improvement but it is not doing that badly compared to most places.

Its not doing badly because of its huge economic momentum and personal freedom

As the left say “ demographics are destiny” and they are right

Freedom of speech and the 2nd amendment will probably be destroyed in the change, but at least the nation will become religous, LGBT will get wrecked.

People’s views are not fixed based on their ethnicity.
Sure a right relying on white identity stuff will fail, but the right if it wants to succeed needs to broaden its appeal.

[Salus Maior]

I always find it weird how some right-wingers in the US complain about how immigration is a threat to Western civilization... when many of the immigrants are ultra-Catholics from South America. Mexican, Brazilians, Argentinians, etc. speak a European language (Spanish) follow the religion which created the West (Christianity) and seem to hold conservative opinions. One would think that the Democrats would dislike immigration more than the GOP.

I think the issue with Latin American cartels, and possible ease of access by Middle Eastern terrorists.

Although, I wouldn't say Latin American Catholics, by and large, are really....Sincerely informed.