The people that want functioning heirarchies advocate for forms of heirarchy historically proven to work. I am shocked. She is a typical marxist that thinks jargon makes demonstrations of ignorance a profound insight.
There is a difference between an existing monarchy with traditions and grafting it onto a place that has no (recent) history of it. For example, monarchism was correct in 1870s France, but to import the pathetic, bleating sheep of the Bourbon line of Spain would be madness.
Regime change is rare, but history is full of it. Aristotle posits that the order of regimes is monarchy into oligarchy into anarachy into monarchy, although this is obviously wrong as shown by Ceasar, Cromwell, etc.
The US does have a history of monarchs, which could also be characterized as constitutional executives, with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. It's about time for another one, but any post-liberal regime will definitionally have to be more radical than any of the previous monarchically established iterations.
The irony of course is that modern society is integralism but with secular humanism and there's an aristocracy but it's unofficial. Democracies are mostly a sham and societies are run by oligarchs.
The right's fantasies are already a reality just not in the manner the right wants and the left fails to see reality.
Eh, I think monarchy could stand to make a return in some European countries, and they would be better off. But no I doubt anyone thinks it's realistic. There isn't anyone on the right advocating for it except in Eastern Europe and Russia, and as already pointed out the elites and the oligarchy already have their power.
Here's the fundamental psychological difference between whether people want to join a liberal part or a conservative party.
Conservatives don't like change. Their aggressive narratives always head towards a "return the the past" ideology. The will destroy a good present to replace it with a worse "how things used to be" system.
Liberals are the opposite and love change in a way you might call an addiction. They'll repaint the house 5 times while the groceries melt in the car just to entertain themselves. Their narratives require changing things all the time to the point that when they run out of a good direction to go in - they'll replace a decently working system with a worse shittier system just to feel like they changed things.
When has any anglosphere conservative party ever moved backwards? They only adopt yesterday's progressive position and pretend it was always their values. It won't be long before conservatives are shouting that they have always been the party of pedophillia but forcing dogs to fuck children is too far.
Optimistically we're at least starting to see right-wingers become a real movement again. (I'm not even conservative, but I consider it a healthy part of the social fabric.)
The right in the US had basically been coopted by neocons and Koch Bros types for decades, but everyone having woken up to fake news has finally given people a chance to organize on the Internet and undo the brainwashing of the liberal education system.
Birth control is bad, abstinence only (used to be how it was)
Reducing or getting rid of medicare and social security (there didn't use to be these things, paul ryan)
I'm not commenting on whether they're good or bad, just that there's a consistent theme if you look for it of popularized conservative themes being some sort of "it didn't use to be this way let's go back".
Liberal themes are always about change, including taking a decently working system and replacing it with something much worse just to see change happen.
They only adopt yesterday's progressive position and pretend it was always their values.
The people that want functioning heirarchies advocate for forms of heirarchy historically proven to work. I am shocked. She is a typical marxist that thinks jargon makes demonstrations of ignorance a profound insight.
There is a difference between an existing monarchy with traditions and grafting it onto a place that has no (recent) history of it. For example, monarchism was correct in 1870s France, but to import the pathetic, bleating sheep of the Bourbon line of Spain would be madness.
Regime change is rare, but history is full of it. Aristotle posits that the order of regimes is monarchy into oligarchy into anarachy into monarchy, although this is obviously wrong as shown by Ceasar, Cromwell, etc.
The US does have a history of monarchs, which could also be characterized as constitutional executives, with Washington, Lincoln, and FDR. It's about time for another one, but any post-liberal regime will definitionally have to be more radical than any of the previous monarchically established iterations.
The irony of course is that modern society is integralism but with secular humanism and there's an aristocracy but it's unofficial. Democracies are mostly a sham and societies are run by oligarchs.
The right's fantasies are already a reality just not in the manner the right wants and the left fails to see reality.
Eh, I think monarchy could stand to make a return in some European countries, and they would be better off. But no I doubt anyone thinks it's realistic. There isn't anyone on the right advocating for it except in Eastern Europe and Russia, and as already pointed out the elites and the oligarchy already have their power.
How is Russia not functionally a monarchy at this point?
Lack of a succession plan.
Here's the fundamental psychological difference between whether people want to join a liberal part or a conservative party.
Conservatives don't like change. Their aggressive narratives always head towards a "return the the past" ideology. The will destroy a good present to replace it with a worse "how things used to be" system.
Liberals are the opposite and love change in a way you might call an addiction. They'll repaint the house 5 times while the groceries melt in the car just to entertain themselves. Their narratives require changing things all the time to the point that when they run out of a good direction to go in - they'll replace a decently working system with a worse shittier system just to feel like they changed things.
When has any anglosphere conservative party ever moved backwards? They only adopt yesterday's progressive position and pretend it was always their values. It won't be long before conservatives are shouting that they have always been the party of pedophillia but forcing dogs to fuck children is too far.
Optimistically we're at least starting to see right-wingers become a real movement again. (I'm not even conservative, but I consider it a healthy part of the social fabric.)
The right in the US had basically been coopted by neocons and Koch Bros types for decades, but everyone having woken up to fake news has finally given people a chance to organize on the Internet and undo the brainwashing of the liberal education system.
Look through conservative political themes.
I'm not commenting on whether they're good or bad, just that there's a consistent theme if you look for it of popularized conservative themes being some sort of "it didn't use to be this way let's go back".
Liberal themes are always about change, including taking a decently working system and replacing it with something much worse just to see change happen.
Right, yesterdays progressive position.
"I'm for whatever we were doing before".