Honestly, if there was a place that could actually successfully overthrow a Leftist government in western Europe, it would be one of the smaller nations, like Netherlands, Portugal, or Denmark.
France could do it, but not without their traditional level of bloodshed. Spain and Italy already will, and do, revert to their Fascist history. Germany would have to be conquered by East Germans. The United Kingdom actually has the hardest fight of all with the fact that within their borders is the center of Fabian Socialism and it's political and monetary structures of power. Belgium and Ireland would be very difficult to liberate, due to the steadfast control of both countries institutions within Leftism. Scotland may be easier to liberate than Ireland. Scotland isn't advocating for it's own demographic replacement of the Scots, Ireland has.
Being that Netherlands, Portugal, & Denmark are so small, they could genuinely hold their own governments accountable, and push out moderate socialists, with die-hard nationalists, the same way some American counties and states do. Smaller governments are capable of being forced to change by the population at large. Sometimes even against the government's own wishes. This is why the dissident right in America is making progress. They seize local ground, and then hold it. The Libertarians are pulling the same stunt with New Hampshire.
The advantage that the Americans have is a free flow of movement, meaning that you can actually displace political populations. This can't be done in Europe, so change is slower, but it does mean that populist support in smaller countries has a much larger effect than it would have in far larger countries that can disperse popular support at a national scale.
A small country could then ally itself with other like-minded international political coalitions. Poland, Hungary, and Austria are all already on the same page, in the same way that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are on the same page in regards to China, and are trying to bring Vietnam, India, and Indonesia in as well.
The huge threat that a right-wing American government could pose is that each and everyone of these small nations suddenly could get a big-American happy-meal sized brother to ensure their protection. This is one of the reasons Trump had to go away. The influence of a Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Austrian coalition isn't much. But a Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Austrian, AMERICAN coalition is rather absurdly powerful.
The Fabians and Europhiles might have an iron grip on institutions, but their real power over their populations is genuinely diminishing. We are in the death-knells of the Fabian Order. Such coalitions would have been a joke 5-10 years ago, but they are getting less funny as time goes on, since there are burgeoning nationalist or anti-Leftist movements all across the world that the Fabian Order has no way of really wrangling in.
The Perennial Gale of Creative Destruction will not be denied.
The United Kingdom actually has the hardest fight of all with the fact that within their borders is the center of Fabian Socialism and it's political and monetary structures of power.
It really is pretty bad. I was listening the the Lotus Eaters break down the potential new PM's, and they were massively blackpilled over the entire situation. Mostly because their options were either obvious WEF/Fabian stooges, people who talked a big game but buckled under pressure, or various other flavors of Uniparty. And unlike in the US, they dont really have anywhere for the Dissident Right to go. So they believe they are stuck there with no cavalry riding to the rescue.
Scotland may be easier to liberate than Ireland. Scotland isn't advocating for it's own demographic replacement of the Scots,
They arent? I could have sworn that the [still ironically named] Scottish Nationalist Party were some of the most hardcore in that regard in the entire Isles?
Poland, Hungary, and Austria
Did I miss something? Granted, it was from a few years ago, but I thought I remembered Austria being even more cucked to the Globalist order than Germany was. But if they arent, great.
The Fabians and Europhiles might have an iron grip on institutions, but their real power over their populations is genuinely diminishing.
Probably doubly so because there is growing resentment for those institutions. People are becoming increasingly angered by the idea of "rule by expert" like this institutions are trying to cram down on everyone, and everyone is demanding they either be reigned in or failing that razed to the ground. And no one is really willing to listen to the old "But they are traditional!" arguments about these institutions when they went from respected places that everyone loved to the direct cause of making their lives hell. And it doesnt help that the Fabians have literally nothing to rely on except appealing to said institutions that more and more people are starting to ignore.
they were massively blackpilled over the entire situation.
Honestly, they are blackpilled because they are not being reasonable.
The United Kingdom is the home of Fabian Socialism. It has been a Democratic Socialist state from prior to WW2, all the way until Thatcher. Carl and Club don't want to admit that they live in a Socialist shithole, and they always have, even when things were better.
Thatcher wasn't a capitalist or even a free marketeer. She was barely even Chicago School All she managed to do was construct the equivalent of Free Economic Zones in Britain, allow some market corrections, reduce the extreme power of unions, and privatize some businesses. She basically liberalized the economy to something a little bit more free than modern china. I don't even know that she went as far as Hong Kong.
From that point on, the UK has been fighting to restore the socialist order it has maintained for decades under Blair. Blair was Thatcher's success in that the Socialists returned to their Fabian ways, rather than keep hitting their revolutionary efforts. Even now, the Fabian Society is calling for the Left to abandon IdPol because they know it's a bad long-term strategy.
"Oh but the conservatives!" No. The conservatives were socialists, that's what the Post War Consensus was. A consensus for socialism, and the torries supported it. It shouldn't be a surprise. Thatcher still had to fight to make progress on her moderate liberalization.
They are black pilled, because they thought they lived in a free country.
I see the same thing with Americans who don't understand their history. The US was a Democratic Socialist country under FDR, and has been very slowly liberalizing since JFK. From Theodore Roosevelt (and arguably before), the US was moving into a Social Democracy, and hadn't been a proper republic since prior to the Civil War.
People forget that Cruikshank didn't just invent gun control, but declared that the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states. In 1873, SCOTUS declared you didn't have a right to protest the government. The modern understanding of Free Speech was the result of Leftists attempting to rationalize why it was a good idea to let them dissent, when speech had long since been criminalized for decades prior.
People are looking at the US now and remembering what they thought the world was like in the 90's. The Left's wedge issues have gone in any number of directions, but the US is finally slowly liberalizing back to where it was in the 30's. We've got a long way to go, and we've actually made progress.
They arent? I could have sworn that the [still ironically named] Scottish Nationalist Party were some of the most hardcore in that regard in the entire Isles?
The Scotts aren't. The SNP is being coy about it, but the Scotts aren't. The same can't be said for Ireland. The Irish government are starting to suggest without too much resistance, that 45% of Ireland being immigrant is a good thing.
And no one is really willing to listen to the old "But they are traditional!" arguments about these institutions when they went from respected places that everyone loved to the direct cause of making their lives hell.
This is why American Liberalism is better than British Liberalism. We're not going to be choked to death by procedure. If someone wants to hold the institution hostage... we can always destroy the institution and build a new one. British Conservatism doesn't allow for that because it's not "proper", but that's the point. Propriety relies on good faith efforts that are based on the premise of the agreement in the first place, if you don't have that, you don't have a contract, and it's proper to stop co-operating with it.
Again, the revolution shows the basis of the problem here.
When the colonials asserted that they had English Rights, they were told that it wasn't proper for them to believe they were English because they lived "over there". When the colonials asserted that it was improper for Parliament for nullify their English rights and their sovereign governments, they were told it was improper for them to disagree because Parliament was sovereign, and they must be punished. When the colonials asserted that it was improper for their property be seized, weapons to be seized, placed under military rule, and have the right to protest and assemble rescinded, they were told that objecting to the punishment was also improper, so further punishment and violence was warranted.
Eventually, the colonials lost their shit, flipped the fucking table, and screamed "FUCK YOUR GOD DAMNED PROPRIETY YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! YOU WON'T FUCKING TREAT ME LIKE THIS OR I'LL FUCKING SHOOT YOU"
"Then it is proper... to treat you as an enemy... and kill you."
"LIBERTY OR DEATH YOU FUCKING PUSSY!"
eagle screams
..
At some point, institution and propriety need to be hurled out the window, because it's being used as a weapon by someone who wishes to subjugate you the way they did with the Irish: by starving you into submission.
If someone wants to hold the institution hostage... we can always destroy the institution and build a new one.
To the point I have even heard someone I know say "Kill the hostage" in relation to institutional capture. And yea, I have noticed it is a very American attitude, especially over the last few years.
I was thinking about it today listening to the Lotus Eaters podcast, where Carl was yet again going on one of his anti-republican rants. Where, in relation to the US, he said that he opposes republics because they are (direct quote) "inherently unstable and prone to corruption", and was once again saying how constitutional monarchy is the superior government. Yet I distinctly remember him and his cohorts bitching and moaning that Elizabeth is fine-ish, but the rest of the Royal Family are a bunch of clowns kissing up to Klaus and the Davos brigade. Because I suppose they would rather keep up that old English decorum instead of living wild and free.
Meanwhile, I have found that an increasing chunk of people are open to what would have been considered radical change even just a few years ago, for the simple reason of "The hostage is an enemy agent. Shoot him." Just to go with law enforcement (because its the one I have noticed one of the largest swings), there is the obvious, growing push to nuke the FBI. This is expected, the FBI has been an issue since it was established. But I have even heard some people taking on the stance that we should get rid of all municipal police, and replace it all with sheriffs. On the grounds that a sheriff is elected, and therefore directly accountable to their voters. Because I am sure its not coincidence that all of the based law enforcement, saying things like "Fuck the state and their mask mandates! Live free or die!" and "You know, honestly, just shoot the bastard if he breaks in your house. I wont even be mad." have been elected sheriffs in almost every case. And the only national level police I have heard people be willing to spare are the US Marshals, and I would imagine that is because they are usually too busy doing gangster shit to be someone's political hitmen.
But like you said, suggesting something like that happen in the UK would cause a sharp "I SAY, SIR!!" and cause them to go into an existential crisis...which is why they fail.
Honestly, if there was a place that could actually successfully overthrow a Leftist government in western Europe, it would be one of the smaller nations, like Netherlands, Portugal, or Denmark.
Barring Sri Lanka like situations, that's not going to happen. These small nations have a high degree of 'social trust', which means that a lot of people are actually convinced that the government is looking out for their interests. No matter how much evidence to the contrary emerges, it's just Murray Gellmanned away.
France could do it, but not without their traditional level of bloodshed
Most French Revolutions have been relatively peaceful. 1830, 1848, 1870.
Being that Netherlands, Portugal, & Denmark are so small, they could genuinely hold their own governments accountable, and push out moderate socialists, with die-hard nationalists, the same way some American counties and states do.
It is impossible. They've enacted 10,000 treaties codifying all their preferences into law. In case of a nationalist takeover, you'd have to abrogate these treaties, and then the larger countries would strangle you.
No, 'world revolution' in the communist phrase is the only possibility.
But a Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Austrian, AMERICAN coalition is rather absurdly powerful.
The problem is that 4/5 of the American - as well as of the others except P&H - would be fighting for the enemy. Unsuccessful revolutions often have something in common: the failure to purge the bureaucracy, military etc. of elements attempting to bring back the ancien regime.
The Fabians and Europhiles might have an iron grip on institutions, but their real power over their populations is genuinely diminishing.
Yes and no, but not quickly enough. Their ability to defraud their populations is decreasing, but not their ability to coerce. We'll be at civilization's end before they can be overthrown.
These small nations have a high degree of 'social trust', which means that a lot of people are actually convinced that the government is looking out for their interests.
That level of trust can be quickly erroded.
It is impossible. They've enacted 10,000 treaties codifying all their preferences into law. In case of a nationalist takeover, you'd have to abrogate these treaties, and then the larger countries would strangle you.
I've watched the law be treated as a suggestion for quite some time now. The point I made about why you need a coalition, is the response to the innevitable 'strangling'.
The problem is that 4/5 of the American - as well as of the others except P&H - would be fighting for the enemy.
As you say, it depends on the purge.
Their ability to defraud their populations is decreasing, but not their ability to coerce. We'll be at civilization's end before they can be overthrown.
Your assessment is ridiculously black-pilled when it is much the opposite situation. World communism died within 2-3 years. Napolean's continental arrangement fell in weeks. Fabianism will suffer a similar fate.
It'll go nowhere, I'm afraid. The elites have an iron grip on power in Europe. No amount of protesting or 'voting' is going to change that.
Honestly, if there was a place that could actually successfully overthrow a Leftist government in western Europe, it would be one of the smaller nations, like Netherlands, Portugal, or Denmark.
France could do it, but not without their traditional level of bloodshed. Spain and Italy already will, and do, revert to their Fascist history. Germany would have to be conquered by East Germans. The United Kingdom actually has the hardest fight of all with the fact that within their borders is the center of Fabian Socialism and it's political and monetary structures of power. Belgium and Ireland would be very difficult to liberate, due to the steadfast control of both countries institutions within Leftism. Scotland may be easier to liberate than Ireland. Scotland isn't advocating for it's own demographic replacement of the Scots, Ireland has.
Being that Netherlands, Portugal, & Denmark are so small, they could genuinely hold their own governments accountable, and push out moderate socialists, with die-hard nationalists, the same way some American counties and states do. Smaller governments are capable of being forced to change by the population at large. Sometimes even against the government's own wishes. This is why the dissident right in America is making progress. They seize local ground, and then hold it. The Libertarians are pulling the same stunt with New Hampshire.
The advantage that the Americans have is a free flow of movement, meaning that you can actually displace political populations. This can't be done in Europe, so change is slower, but it does mean that populist support in smaller countries has a much larger effect than it would have in far larger countries that can disperse popular support at a national scale.
A small country could then ally itself with other like-minded international political coalitions. Poland, Hungary, and Austria are all already on the same page, in the same way that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are on the same page in regards to China, and are trying to bring Vietnam, India, and Indonesia in as well.
The huge threat that a right-wing American government could pose is that each and everyone of these small nations suddenly could get a big-American happy-meal sized brother to ensure their protection. This is one of the reasons Trump had to go away. The influence of a Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Austrian coalition isn't much. But a Poland, Hungary, Netherlands, Austrian, AMERICAN coalition is rather absurdly powerful.
The Fabians and Europhiles might have an iron grip on institutions, but their real power over their populations is genuinely diminishing. We are in the death-knells of the Fabian Order. Such coalitions would have been a joke 5-10 years ago, but they are getting less funny as time goes on, since there are burgeoning nationalist or anti-Leftist movements all across the world that the Fabian Order has no way of really wrangling in.
The Perennial Gale of Creative Destruction will not be denied.
It really is pretty bad. I was listening the the Lotus Eaters break down the potential new PM's, and they were massively blackpilled over the entire situation. Mostly because their options were either obvious WEF/Fabian stooges, people who talked a big game but buckled under pressure, or various other flavors of Uniparty. And unlike in the US, they dont really have anywhere for the Dissident Right to go. So they believe they are stuck there with no cavalry riding to the rescue.
They arent? I could have sworn that the [still ironically named] Scottish Nationalist Party were some of the most hardcore in that regard in the entire Isles?
Did I miss something? Granted, it was from a few years ago, but I thought I remembered Austria being even more cucked to the Globalist order than Germany was. But if they arent, great.
Probably doubly so because there is growing resentment for those institutions. People are becoming increasingly angered by the idea of "rule by expert" like this institutions are trying to cram down on everyone, and everyone is demanding they either be reigned in or failing that razed to the ground. And no one is really willing to listen to the old "But they are traditional!" arguments about these institutions when they went from respected places that everyone loved to the direct cause of making their lives hell. And it doesnt help that the Fabians have literally nothing to rely on except appealing to said institutions that more and more people are starting to ignore.
Honestly, they are blackpilled because they are not being reasonable.
The United Kingdom is the home of Fabian Socialism. It has been a Democratic Socialist state from prior to WW2, all the way until Thatcher. Carl and Club don't want to admit that they live in a Socialist shithole, and they always have, even when things were better.
Thatcher wasn't a capitalist or even a free marketeer. She was barely even Chicago School All she managed to do was construct the equivalent of Free Economic Zones in Britain, allow some market corrections, reduce the extreme power of unions, and privatize some businesses. She basically liberalized the economy to something a little bit more free than modern china. I don't even know that she went as far as Hong Kong.
From that point on, the UK has been fighting to restore the socialist order it has maintained for decades under Blair. Blair was Thatcher's success in that the Socialists returned to their Fabian ways, rather than keep hitting their revolutionary efforts. Even now, the Fabian Society is calling for the Left to abandon IdPol because they know it's a bad long-term strategy.
"Oh but the conservatives!" No. The conservatives were socialists, that's what the Post War Consensus was. A consensus for socialism, and the torries supported it. It shouldn't be a surprise. Thatcher still had to fight to make progress on her moderate liberalization.
They are black pilled, because they thought they lived in a free country.
I see the same thing with Americans who don't understand their history. The US was a Democratic Socialist country under FDR, and has been very slowly liberalizing since JFK. From Theodore Roosevelt (and arguably before), the US was moving into a Social Democracy, and hadn't been a proper republic since prior to the Civil War.
People forget that Cruikshank didn't just invent gun control, but declared that the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states. In 1873, SCOTUS declared you didn't have a right to protest the government. The modern understanding of Free Speech was the result of Leftists attempting to rationalize why it was a good idea to let them dissent, when speech had long since been criminalized for decades prior.
People are looking at the US now and remembering what they thought the world was like in the 90's. The Left's wedge issues have gone in any number of directions, but the US is finally slowly liberalizing back to where it was in the 30's. We've got a long way to go, and we've actually made progress.
The Scotts aren't. The SNP is being coy about it, but the Scotts aren't. The same can't be said for Ireland. The Irish government are starting to suggest without too much resistance, that 45% of Ireland being immigrant is a good thing.
This is why American Liberalism is better than British Liberalism. We're not going to be choked to death by procedure. If someone wants to hold the institution hostage... we can always destroy the institution and build a new one. British Conservatism doesn't allow for that because it's not "proper", but that's the point. Propriety relies on good faith efforts that are based on the premise of the agreement in the first place, if you don't have that, you don't have a contract, and it's proper to stop co-operating with it.
Again, the revolution shows the basis of the problem here.
When the colonials asserted that they had English Rights, they were told that it wasn't proper for them to believe they were English because they lived "over there". When the colonials asserted that it was improper for Parliament for nullify their English rights and their sovereign governments, they were told it was improper for them to disagree because Parliament was sovereign, and they must be punished. When the colonials asserted that it was improper for their property be seized, weapons to be seized, placed under military rule, and have the right to protest and assemble rescinded, they were told that objecting to the punishment was also improper, so further punishment and violence was warranted.
Eventually, the colonials lost their shit, flipped the fucking table, and screamed "FUCK YOUR GOD DAMNED PROPRIETY YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT! YOU WON'T FUCKING TREAT ME LIKE THIS OR I'LL FUCKING SHOOT YOU"
"Then it is proper... to treat you as an enemy... and kill you."
"LIBERTY OR DEATH YOU FUCKING PUSSY!"
eagle screams
..
At some point, institution and propriety need to be hurled out the window, because it's being used as a weapon by someone who wishes to subjugate you the way they did with the Irish: by starving you into submission.
To the point I have even heard someone I know say "Kill the hostage" in relation to institutional capture. And yea, I have noticed it is a very American attitude, especially over the last few years.
I was thinking about it today listening to the Lotus Eaters podcast, where Carl was yet again going on one of his anti-republican rants. Where, in relation to the US, he said that he opposes republics because they are (direct quote) "inherently unstable and prone to corruption", and was once again saying how constitutional monarchy is the superior government. Yet I distinctly remember him and his cohorts bitching and moaning that Elizabeth is fine-ish, but the rest of the Royal Family are a bunch of clowns kissing up to Klaus and the Davos brigade. Because I suppose they would rather keep up that old English decorum instead of living wild and free.
Meanwhile, I have found that an increasing chunk of people are open to what would have been considered radical change even just a few years ago, for the simple reason of "The hostage is an enemy agent. Shoot him." Just to go with law enforcement (because its the one I have noticed one of the largest swings), there is the obvious, growing push to nuke the FBI. This is expected, the FBI has been an issue since it was established. But I have even heard some people taking on the stance that we should get rid of all municipal police, and replace it all with sheriffs. On the grounds that a sheriff is elected, and therefore directly accountable to their voters. Because I am sure its not coincidence that all of the based law enforcement, saying things like "Fuck the state and their mask mandates! Live free or die!" and "You know, honestly, just shoot the bastard if he breaks in your house. I wont even be mad." have been elected sheriffs in almost every case. And the only national level police I have heard people be willing to spare are the US Marshals, and I would imagine that is because they are usually too busy doing gangster shit to be someone's political hitmen.
But like you said, suggesting something like that happen in the UK would cause a sharp "I SAY, SIR!!" and cause them to go into an existential crisis...which is why they fail.
Barring Sri Lanka like situations, that's not going to happen. These small nations have a high degree of 'social trust', which means that a lot of people are actually convinced that the government is looking out for their interests. No matter how much evidence to the contrary emerges, it's just Murray Gellmanned away.
Most French Revolutions have been relatively peaceful. 1830, 1848, 1870.
It is impossible. They've enacted 10,000 treaties codifying all their preferences into law. In case of a nationalist takeover, you'd have to abrogate these treaties, and then the larger countries would strangle you.
No, 'world revolution' in the communist phrase is the only possibility.
The problem is that 4/5 of the American - as well as of the others except P&H - would be fighting for the enemy. Unsuccessful revolutions often have something in common: the failure to purge the bureaucracy, military etc. of elements attempting to bring back the ancien regime.
Yes and no, but not quickly enough. Their ability to defraud their populations is decreasing, but not their ability to coerce. We'll be at civilization's end before they can be overthrown.
That level of trust can be quickly erroded.
I've watched the law be treated as a suggestion for quite some time now. The point I made about why you need a coalition, is the response to the innevitable 'strangling'.
As you say, it depends on the purge.
Your assessment is ridiculously black-pilled when it is much the opposite situation. World communism died within 2-3 years. Napolean's continental arrangement fell in weeks. Fabianism will suffer a similar fate.
Holy hell I hope you're right. 👏