Now, there is no such thing as ‘man’ in this world. In my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on. I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare I’ve never encountered him.
―Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France
Rights and liberty are ideas that only emerge from western peoples. They are not and cannot be universal, even within the west. Liberty can only exist in a high-trust society that is already well ordered with shared values. Rights are derived from sovereign power to facilitate the uplifting and prosperity of the people. When a society is disordered and incoherent, the sovereign has a duty to ruthlessly crush subversive and corrosive elements that dissolve society.
Rights and liberty are ideas that only emerge from western peoples.
Not really, rights and liberties exist as a reaction to impositions applied by rules over the world. It is only the west that founded a philosophy on the idea and applied it universally in order to prevent generalized tyranny.
It's unfortunate that the east and south live as slaves to their rapists and killers, but I'm not prepared to accept slavery because of the threat of subversion.
When a society is disordered and incoherent, the sovereign has a duty to ruthlessly crush subversive and corrosive elements that dissolve society.
And it is the duty and moral obligation of every man to remove that sovereign by any means necessary. This is normally because the very concept of human freedom is the most subversive weapon against all authority. So, any freedom is a subversive threat to any order. In response, many sovereigns are prepared to systematically exterminate most, if not all, of their entire population with foreign armies in order to maintain an order that they impose, because allowing any dissent, of any kind, can undermine that order. They will always accept that hollowing out your lands and re-populating it with loyal foreigners is better than allowing your own subjects to reject your assertions, even if your assertions are patently insane and damaging.
The problem with most sovereigns is that they, without exception, are the most dangerous threat that any society faces at any time. The fact that any and all freedom of any kind can be seen as subversion of the order they impose, justifies unlimited atrocities. The more totalizing the sovereign's scope, the less dissent can be tolerated.
Both the American Revolution, and the English Civil War, explicitly demonstrates why Kings and Sovereigns can't be trusted. In both cases, the unflinching rejection of the King to disruption of their government's absolute authority, lead to them allying with foreigners to kill their own subjects and murder their own people. This because to every authoritarian, it is better to have most of your population die, rather than to have any one person disobey. Most importantly: at no point is the sovereign prepared to believe that he is wrong.
This is the lolbert idea of freedom that only works for a society of 120IQ white boys that reproduce without women. If you haven't noticed over the last two years, most people desperately want someone to tell them what to do, which isn't a bad thing. A vicious king can be less free than a virtuous slave, as a man has as many masters as his vices. Classical tyranny, as described in Plato's Republic, is when slaves and women are elevated to positions of power over better men. Somehow tyranny has been redefined to mean when sovereignty simply exists, which is delusional as the existence of sovereign power is inescapable.
freedom that only works for a society of 120IQ white boys that reproduce without women.
The idea that that only white people can have freedom, when it is white people who are the primary source of the destruction of that freedom with Leftist shows this is nonsensical.
most people desperately want someone to tell them what to do, which isn't a bad thing
Yes, the political Left cultivated a culture of slaves for nearly a century. That's actually a bad thing.
A vicious king can be less free than a virtuous slave, as a man has as many masters as his vices.
Cool, cool, so you've never read a single history book in your life then?
History is literally filled to the brim with not only viscous kings, but in some cases, literal psychopaths who are kings, queens, lords, duchy's, dukes, etc. They normally survive all possible challenges, because no one can hold them to account before opposition murders them.
I would honestly expect better from you, since you've at least read the history of gender.
Classical tyranny, as described in Plato's Republic, is when slaves and women are elevated to positions of power over better men.
Literally not where the word tyrant comes from. Tyrants, and their tyranny, is simply when someone (typically some kind of gang or factional leader) takes over a city state.
Plato's Republic, in and of itself, was a tyranny by the fact that his Philosopher Kings would have unchecked power, and are effectively a good description of the environment we have at this very second, with self-anointed intellectualists declaring themselves the unchangeable arbiters of the world.
It is the self-anointed "Better Men" that we should seek to uncompromisingly remove from society, given their utterly unaccountable nature, and the fact that no human suffering can dissuade them from their arrogance.
Your Whig history is silly and cringe. Most people never felt any effect on their lives from the king. Crazy kings mostly terrorized their court, while good kings uplifted the nation.
This is a good demonstration that lolberts and socialists are practically indistinguishable. Both are seeking to liberate the individual from any responsibilities, which is characterized as oppression. Both are progressive diseases that tear at the fabric of society. Go read Hoppe to find some non-cringe libertarianism that bridges to monarchy.
Spez: Here is some Mosca.
In societies of feudal type the individual members of the ruling class are generally sprinkled about among their followers. They live in constant contact with them and have to be, in a sense, their natural leaders. It may seem surprising that in the Middle Ages, when the baron stood alone in the midst of his vassals and dealt with them harshly, they did not take advantage of their numerical superiority to break free. But actually that could not always have been an easy matter. Superior as they may have been in energy and in familiarity with arms to the rest of the subject elements, the vassals were more or less bound to the lot of their lords. But, independently of that, another consideration of very great importance must not be overlooked. The baron knew his vassals personally. He thought and felt as they did. He had the same superstitions, the same habits, the same language. He was their master, harsh sometimes and arbitrary. For all of that, he was a man whom they understood perfectly, in whose conversation they could share, at whose table, be it in a humbler station, they often sat, and with whom they sometimes got drunk. It requires utter ignorance of the psychology of the lower classes not to see at once how many things this real familiarity, based on an identical education, or lack of education if one prefer, enables an inferior to endure and forgive.
―Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France
Rights and liberty are ideas that only emerge from western peoples. They are not and cannot be universal, even within the west. Liberty can only exist in a high-trust society that is already well ordered with shared values. Rights are derived from sovereign power to facilitate the uplifting and prosperity of the people. When a society is disordered and incoherent, the sovereign has a duty to ruthlessly crush subversive and corrosive elements that dissolve society.
Not really, rights and liberties exist as a reaction to impositions applied by rules over the world. It is only the west that founded a philosophy on the idea and applied it universally in order to prevent generalized tyranny.
It's unfortunate that the east and south live as slaves to their rapists and killers, but I'm not prepared to accept slavery because of the threat of subversion.
And it is the duty and moral obligation of every man to remove that sovereign by any means necessary. This is normally because the very concept of human freedom is the most subversive weapon against all authority. So, any freedom is a subversive threat to any order. In response, many sovereigns are prepared to systematically exterminate most, if not all, of their entire population with foreign armies in order to maintain an order that they impose, because allowing any dissent, of any kind, can undermine that order. They will always accept that hollowing out your lands and re-populating it with loyal foreigners is better than allowing your own subjects to reject your assertions, even if your assertions are patently insane and damaging.
The problem with most sovereigns is that they, without exception, are the most dangerous threat that any society faces at any time. The fact that any and all freedom of any kind can be seen as subversion of the order they impose, justifies unlimited atrocities. The more totalizing the sovereign's scope, the less dissent can be tolerated.
Both the American Revolution, and the English Civil War, explicitly demonstrates why Kings and Sovereigns can't be trusted. In both cases, the unflinching rejection of the King to disruption of their government's absolute authority, lead to them allying with foreigners to kill their own subjects and murder their own people. This because to every authoritarian, it is better to have most of your population die, rather than to have any one person disobey. Most importantly: at no point is the sovereign prepared to believe that he is wrong.
This is the lolbert idea of freedom that only works for a society of 120IQ white boys that reproduce without women. If you haven't noticed over the last two years, most people desperately want someone to tell them what to do, which isn't a bad thing. A vicious king can be less free than a virtuous slave, as a man has as many masters as his vices. Classical tyranny, as described in Plato's Republic, is when slaves and women are elevated to positions of power over better men. Somehow tyranny has been redefined to mean when sovereignty simply exists, which is delusional as the existence of sovereign power is inescapable.
Classical liberty comes from order.
???
Meaning that it can't exist. Women destroy the utopian conceptions of libertarianism by their very nature.
Order is an emergent property of Chaos.
Chaos is an emergent property of Order.
The idea that that only white people can have freedom, when it is white people who are the primary source of the destruction of that freedom with Leftist shows this is nonsensical.
Yes, the political Left cultivated a culture of slaves for nearly a century. That's actually a bad thing.
Cool, cool, so you've never read a single history book in your life then?
History is literally filled to the brim with not only viscous kings, but in some cases, literal psychopaths who are kings, queens, lords, duchy's, dukes, etc. They normally survive all possible challenges, because no one can hold them to account before opposition murders them.
I would honestly expect better from you, since you've at least read the history of gender.
Literally not where the word tyrant comes from. Tyrants, and their tyranny, is simply when someone (typically some kind of gang or factional leader) takes over a city state.
Plato's Republic, in and of itself, was a tyranny by the fact that his Philosopher Kings would have unchecked power, and are effectively a good description of the environment we have at this very second, with self-anointed intellectualists declaring themselves the unchangeable arbiters of the world.
It is the self-anointed "Better Men" that we should seek to uncompromisingly remove from society, given their utterly unaccountable nature, and the fact that no human suffering can dissuade them from their arrogance.
Your Whig history is silly and cringe. Most people never felt any effect on their lives from the king. Crazy kings mostly terrorized their court, while good kings uplifted the nation.
This is a good demonstration that lolberts and socialists are practically indistinguishable. Both are seeking to liberate the individual from any responsibilities, which is characterized as oppression. Both are progressive diseases that tear at the fabric of society. Go read Hoppe to find some non-cringe libertarianism that bridges to monarchy.
Spez: Here is some Mosca.
-The Ruling Class