The more I've learned about our government, the more I've become a monarchist. Not that it's really that good, but overthrowing a single shithead is simpler than toppling a corrupt behemoth that's gives the people the illusion of choice, but is really just beholden to a certain group in people.
Think of it in terms of responsibility; a monarchy puts one man in charge and he's responsible for the country. If he lives and dies by the state of the State, he will (mostly) do what's best for it.
Who's responsible in a democracy? Everyone, which is to say no one.
I think democracy can work if leaders are properly held to account (ie are at personal risk if the state begins to fail) and if the voting franchise is properly earned.
"Most people shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their own nose" is already true. Voting is just an illusion of choice. All the important decisions are made by the Epstein class without input from anyone else.
That's true, but it seems that a monarchy is the only thing that can reign in a corrupt populace and a republic or a revolution is the only thing that can reign in a corrupt monarch. Therefore, a political system cannot be fixed indefinitely.
The more I've learned about our government, the more I've become a monarchist
a Christian monarchist who is trained from birth to answer to God. At the end of their life they will be judged. That is unironically the best form of government. That is what the two world ward destroyed and installed a bureaucracy in every country instead. The bureaucracy who is easily swayed by bribery against their own citizenry.
The intelligent women who are capable of voting will tell you themselves that they don't want the franchise for women. Even if they, personally, can handle the responsibility, they are smart enough to understand that most women can't.
Kind of like how I, as an immigrant, would say that immigrants shouldn't vote. Even though I personally would vote in the interests of the native people, immigrants as a whole will not, so as a whole they should be denied the franchise.
Several people in my college friend group, who are all still married in their 40s, thought it was patently absurd my wife took my last name. So ... I'm not entirely convinced.
Part of HC's conditions was children from current marriage. The marriage itself shouldn't count double unless it's productive. Even then, there could still be the inverted relationship you're describing, but I think it would be an extreme edge case.
Personally I think if you don't own land, a home or a personal business you shouldn't be allowed to vote. You should only be allowed to vote if you have skin in the game.
I largely agree, if we had infinite land. However, we are already moving towards a landed aristocracy where those who vote would just be the children who inherit land.
I'd base it on taxes. If you put in more than you take out, you get to vote.
What's it called when you assume everything old is good and everything new is bad, rather than judging everything on its merits and keeping the good old while replacing the bad old with the good new?
I believe that second one is called civilization, and a lot of you return to monke folks really seem to enjoy partaking of the fruits of civilization.
By that logic, we should never have tried penicillin, since it was new, and kept on taking tinctures of lead and arsenic to treat imbalances of the humors, since that took a while to kill you and no one ever really connected the dots.
And how do you know something new is good? You've never tried it, stress tested it, identified the flaws. It could look like a million bucks on paper and still explode in your face on the launchpad.
Whereas, whether good or bad, anything that is old has been implemented in reality; we know it works, if nothing else.
I'm not a Luddite by any stretch, but I also can plainly see that I don't want for anything material. The problems I see in my society are not ones of scarcity, but of psychology; my people are purposeless, demoralised, treading water in decadent excess, and constantly dancing on the edge of mass murder/suicide. We'll smother under piles of our own trash before we have to worry about freezing to death, our hearts will explode before we starve.
These are problems that we've already solved, but the solutions were abandoned because they require personal sacrifice. Instead, people delude themselves into thinking they can innovate their way out of their own weakness. Why eat healthy and exercise when you can take a magic pill?
Other than the horrific side effects of the drug itself, which we're just starting to see, what kind of person does that create?
You talk about civilization being created by our judgement ("keeping good old and replacing bad old with good new") but that's not how it works. People who are Good discover and create things that are Good. Marie Curie spent her whole life doing good; she saw and opposed the evils of the Russian occupation of her homeland and, instead of responding with violence, sought to teach the children of Poland their history (Poland is now free and their culture is significantly more patriotic and healthy than any other European nation, btw). She discovered atomic radiation and the first thing it was used for was a way to help surgeons save lives. Julius Oppenheimer, by comparison, wasn't even intentionally evil; just being focused on his own success, rather than Good specifically. He created a weapon so terrible that it's children threaten the existence of life itself.
When does the judgement part kick in? When does humanity say "X-rays are Good so we'll keep them, but we'll get rid of nuclear bombs?"
It doesn't, or at least it hasn't in nearly 100 years. Because once the box is open, there's no going back (another ancient lesson we've put aside). Creating things for the sake of having them is not even neutral, it invites evil because there are infinite things that can exist, but only an infinitessimal fraction of them are Good. All Good things, including civilization, come about as an inevitable side effect of people aligning themselves with Good, not from the intention to innovate.
While this is your hypothetical, not mine, I will say that I would far rather live in a world where humans eschew innovation in favour of making the best of what they have, than a world where they discard what they have in the hopes that something they don't will save them. Luckily, this isn't the choice we're faced with.
I'll be interested in seeing how Islam deals with this. I've always felt Islam is the chemotherapy in regards to feminism and leftism as a whole. It'll kill the tumors, but the damage it causes in the process...
Its why i understand why places like afghanistan resisted the democracy and gender equality we tried to force onto them. It would lead to the dei cuckery and faggotry that is happening to the west. Out of control retarded women. Shit.. the taliban doesnt even have to make propaganda. They just turn on a random channel on the tv from the west and there would be gay tranny stuff in it.
Its why these rapefugees come to the west feel morally superior as they leech and rape us. Because ultimately we are weak cucks.
We're reaching the point where, despite refusing to name feminism as the problem, it is becoming impossible to ignore the consequences of feminism. Women, unburdened by responsibility, will choose total annihilation.
Women aren’t brainwashed, men are just so pathetic and emasculated that we’re seeing women in their natural state. Maenads didn’t magically disappear, they were conquered so men could build society.
Matriarachal societies did exist, but they were all stone age, tribal, tyrannies.
Any technological advancement beyond skin tent villages requires men for a simple and, now, very obvious reason; women care more about getting along and men care more about doing things.
Both of these are important but for something like a city to exist there needs to be tasks that are completed and done well. At the hunter/gatherer level most people could survive on their own, at least for a while, so the value in leadership is keeping people together instead of the strong going off on their own. At the city level, people are not able to do better on their own because there are now specialised roles that, in cooperation, produce far more than could be done individually so very few even want to leave and it's usually only the low status that would even consider it.
Ironically, even thiugh they don't care as much about people being "nice", men are better at organising and/or enforcing cooperation than women. When you have a society as complex as ours, lack of cooperation quickly becomes catastrophic.
Fair, I would say that’s stretching the definition of society a little thin though, almost every matriarchy collapsed within a few generations.
Women are more interested in maintaining a social hierarchy over a functional society. That’s why high functioning societies left women in charge of household management and communal social interactions. In Ancient Greece women were in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state and in the antebellum south women were also in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state. Same with western society throughout with how church functions worked, women’s were the drivers of social aspects and in charge of women and children while men maintained the actual church and pulpit.
Already the case with lobbying to end green cards for Thai wives in UK and Sweden (as they let in an ever-increasing stream of more violent brown and black men).
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It's unfortunate, with history's knowledge at our fingertips like never before, the west needed to be the example to refresh the lesson for the rest of the world, but I guess that's how it goes.
Because women don't ever reach mental adulthood. They stop mentally and emotionally maturing at about 15. That's why societies on the rise control them the same way they do literal children.
Feminism and “education” (indoctrination) really did a number on the western world. Women were never meant to vote, at least not in America and I’m sure in every other western nation until shortly after American reps decided to give the jews what they wanted with the 19th amendment, which is a fairly modern mistake. Only White men of good character were allowed to vote in the original American system , which worked just fine. Most White men are rational, family oriented, they have reasonable foresight abilities, and are fairly intelligent…..mix any other groups into that and the entire system will inevitably fail.
Giving war brides the ability to control national policy was always a strange concept, but I suppose that's why those nations never stood the test of time
Because democracy doesn't work. Most people shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their own nose.
The more I've learned about our government, the more I've become a monarchist. Not that it's really that good, but overthrowing a single shithead is simpler than toppling a corrupt behemoth that's gives the people the illusion of choice, but is really just beholden to a certain group in people.
Think of it in terms of responsibility; a monarchy puts one man in charge and he's responsible for the country. If he lives and dies by the state of the State, he will (mostly) do what's best for it.
Who's responsible in a democracy? Everyone, which is to say no one.
I think democracy can work if leaders are properly held to account (ie are at personal risk if the state begins to fail) and if the voting franchise is properly earned.
Democracy only works if it's kept as small as possible. You should only be voting for what happens in your town and that's it
Indeed.
"Most people shouldn't have a say in anything beyond their own nose" is already true. Voting is just an illusion of choice. All the important decisions are made by the Epstein class without input from anyone else.
The problem with a monarchy is the perfect converse of that: the machinery of the state only has to corrupt one man to gain absolute control.
Corrupting hundreds hasn't seemed to have been much of a problem.
Because society itself has become corrupted. The people who wrote the Constitution pointed out that it could not handle an amoral populace.
That's true, but it seems that a monarchy is the only thing that can reign in a corrupt populace and a republic or a revolution is the only thing that can reign in a corrupt monarch. Therefore, a political system cannot be fixed indefinitely.
That's the result of the oligarchs and their puppets having nothing to fear from the people nowadays. What are you gonna do, vote harder?
a Christian monarchist who is trained from birth to answer to God. At the end of their life they will be judged. That is unironically the best form of government. That is what the two world ward destroyed and installed a bureaucracy in every country instead. The bureaucracy who is easily swayed by bribery against their own citizenry.
The intelligent women who are capable of voting will tell you themselves that they don't want the franchise for women. Even if they, personally, can handle the responsibility, they are smart enough to understand that most women can't.
Kind of like how I, as an immigrant, would say that immigrants shouldn't vote. Even though I personally would vote in the interests of the native people, immigrants as a whole will not, so as a whole they should be denied the franchise.
Women shouldn't vote, but the male head of household could have his vote be counted twice to reflect his responsibility.
That could easily backfire if the man is a soyboy betacuck and the woman is a overbearing feminist she-beast.
The solution to that is built in; those relationships collapse quickly while strong marriages stand the test of time.
Several people in my college friend group, who are all still married in their 40s, thought it was patently absurd my wife took my last name. So ... I'm not entirely convinced.
Part of HC's conditions was children from current marriage. The marriage itself shouldn't count double unless it's productive. Even then, there could still be the inverted relationship you're describing, but I think it would be an extreme edge case.
The issue is that one side always sees it can gain and maintain power by expanding it out just a little bit more.
Letting 16 year olds and illegals vote was inevitable.
Personally I think if you don't own land, a home or a personal business you shouldn't be allowed to vote. You should only be allowed to vote if you have skin in the game.
Landowning White men with clean criminal records, only. Minimum age 35.
One step at a time my friend.
Well yeah, nonwhites and sexual deviants will be purged already. Otherwise I'm fine with a Christian Monarchy.
How very realistic of you lol
I largely agree, if we had infinite land. However, we are already moving towards a landed aristocracy where those who vote would just be the children who inherit land.
I'd base it on taxes. If you put in more than you take out, you get to vote.
If you aren't a net contributor to taxes you shouldn't be able to vote.
So, the bigger the nose the more say you have?
It works if you don't let women vote... FACT...
Ancestors: Women shouldn't vote
Modern Human: Women should vote
Do you see the problem? Our ancestors weren't stupid.
What's it called when you assume everything new is good and everything old is bad?
Oh yeah, progressivism...
Oh, I thought it was called retarded.
Same thing, just spelled different.
What's it called when you assume everything old is good and everything new is bad, rather than judging everything on its merits and keeping the good old while replacing the bad old with the good new?
I believe that second one is called civilization, and a lot of you return to monke folks really seem to enjoy partaking of the fruits of civilization.
Western Civilization arose from Christianity, not progressivism.
That's not what I said, and you bloody well know that, you damned god botherer.
It is what you said. You're just too retarded to know it.
I'm not a religious person.
And your false dichotomy framing of Weedle's comment wasn't what he said either, so I guess you're even.
In a vacuum, old IS better than new, because if you know nothing else, the old hasn't killed you yet while the new might.
By that logic, we should never have tried penicillin, since it was new, and kept on taking tinctures of lead and arsenic to treat imbalances of the humors, since that took a while to kill you and no one ever really connected the dots.
Read more carefully, and you'll sound less retarded.
Because no. Thats not what that logic implies.
And how do you know something new is good? You've never tried it, stress tested it, identified the flaws. It could look like a million bucks on paper and still explode in your face on the launchpad.
Whereas, whether good or bad, anything that is old has been implemented in reality; we know it works, if nothing else.
I'm not a Luddite by any stretch, but I also can plainly see that I don't want for anything material. The problems I see in my society are not ones of scarcity, but of psychology; my people are purposeless, demoralised, treading water in decadent excess, and constantly dancing on the edge of mass murder/suicide. We'll smother under piles of our own trash before we have to worry about freezing to death, our hearts will explode before we starve.
These are problems that we've already solved, but the solutions were abandoned because they require personal sacrifice. Instead, people delude themselves into thinking they can innovate their way out of their own weakness. Why eat healthy and exercise when you can take a magic pill?
Other than the horrific side effects of the drug itself, which we're just starting to see, what kind of person does that create?
You talk about civilization being created by our judgement ("keeping good old and replacing bad old with good new") but that's not how it works. People who are Good discover and create things that are Good. Marie Curie spent her whole life doing good; she saw and opposed the evils of the Russian occupation of her homeland and, instead of responding with violence, sought to teach the children of Poland their history (Poland is now free and their culture is significantly more patriotic and healthy than any other European nation, btw). She discovered atomic radiation and the first thing it was used for was a way to help surgeons save lives. Julius Oppenheimer, by comparison, wasn't even intentionally evil; just being focused on his own success, rather than Good specifically. He created a weapon so terrible that it's children threaten the existence of life itself.
When does the judgement part kick in? When does humanity say "X-rays are Good so we'll keep them, but we'll get rid of nuclear bombs?"
It doesn't, or at least it hasn't in nearly 100 years. Because once the box is open, there's no going back (another ancient lesson we've put aside). Creating things for the sake of having them is not even neutral, it invites evil because there are infinite things that can exist, but only an infinitessimal fraction of them are Good. All Good things, including civilization, come about as an inevitable side effect of people aligning themselves with Good, not from the intention to innovate.
While this is your hypothetical, not mine, I will say that I would far rather live in a world where humans eschew innovation in favour of making the best of what they have, than a world where they discard what they have in the hopes that something they don't will save them. Luckily, this isn't the choice we're faced with.
Because of a pile of shoes in Poland.
Don't forget the lampshades and the bear and eagle pit.
And the masterbation machines
Oy vey not da mastabation machines, such tyerrible horror
Easy answer: because the west is where women are allowed to vote.
As Asian countries normalize women’s rights, they have this problem too. Korea is a great example.
I expect to see the same out of "Westernized" ME countries within the next 10 years.
I'll be interested in seeing how Islam deals with this. I've always felt Islam is the chemotherapy in regards to feminism and leftism as a whole. It'll kill the tumors, but the damage it causes in the process...
It's Epstein's islands all the way down. Is that worth it?
I believe it will take longer but yes. Even in the west it took a couple generations before women became completely unhinged.
"Feminism" was a civilization-wide shit test the west collectively failed and we've paid the price for a hundred years. And it'll only get worse.
Its why i understand why places like afghanistan resisted the democracy and gender equality we tried to force onto them. It would lead to the dei cuckery and faggotry that is happening to the west. Out of control retarded women. Shit.. the taliban doesnt even have to make propaganda. They just turn on a random channel on the tv from the west and there would be gay tranny stuff in it.
Its why these rapefugees come to the west feel morally superior as they leech and rape us. Because ultimately we are weak cucks.
We're reaching the point where, despite refusing to name feminism as the problem, it is becoming impossible to ignore the consequences of feminism. Women, unburdened by responsibility, will choose total annihilation.
We all know who's responsible for feminism as well
Yup.
It's always jews
Women aren’t brainwashed, men are just so pathetic and emasculated that we’re seeing women in their natural state. Maenads didn’t magically disappear, they were conquered so men could build society.
Matriarachal societies did exist, but they were all stone age, tribal, tyrannies.
Any technological advancement beyond skin tent villages requires men for a simple and, now, very obvious reason; women care more about getting along and men care more about doing things.
Both of these are important but for something like a city to exist there needs to be tasks that are completed and done well. At the hunter/gatherer level most people could survive on their own, at least for a while, so the value in leadership is keeping people together instead of the strong going off on their own. At the city level, people are not able to do better on their own because there are now specialised roles that, in cooperation, produce far more than could be done individually so very few even want to leave and it's usually only the low status that would even consider it.
Ironically, even thiugh they don't care as much about people being "nice", men are better at organising and/or enforcing cooperation than women. When you have a society as complex as ours, lack of cooperation quickly becomes catastrophic.
I know you meant tents made out of animal hides but skin tent villages sounds like something straight out of MotherHorseEyes.
I'm not ruling anything out, these people literally worship animals.
Fair, I would say that’s stretching the definition of society a little thin though, almost every matriarchy collapsed within a few generations.
Women are more interested in maintaining a social hierarchy over a functional society. That’s why high functioning societies left women in charge of household management and communal social interactions. In Ancient Greece women were in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state and in the antebellum south women were also in charge of the household slaves while men maintained the state. Same with western society throughout with how church functions worked, women’s were the drivers of social aspects and in charge of women and children while men maintained the actual church and pulpit.
They vote for prospective cocks that can be inserted into their gaps and thats all they care about.
If migrants were attractive women, women would be fighting to keep them out.
Already the case with lobbying to end green cards for Thai wives in UK and Sweden (as they let in an ever-increasing stream of more violent brown and black men).
As they do, even proactively: https://www.google.com/search?q=yellow+fever+feminist
Infinite male competition = infinite hoeflation and izzat farming
The feminine instinct to lie down and open their legs for the stronger invading tribe.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It's unfortunate, with history's knowledge at our fingertips like never before, the west needed to be the example to refresh the lesson for the rest of the world, but I guess that's how it goes.
Young men are also left wing in the UK just not as much. A decade plus of backstabbing Tories tends to turn people off of right-wing parties.
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/53923-how-would-britain-vote-at-the-start-of-2026
A lot of people complain about the voters, but at some point the right-wing parties have to not be irredeemable awful corrupt backstabbers.
Because women don't ever reach mental adulthood. They stop mentally and emotionally maturing at about 15. That's why societies on the rise control them the same way they do literal children.
Feminism and “education” (indoctrination) really did a number on the western world. Women were never meant to vote, at least not in America and I’m sure in every other western nation until shortly after American reps decided to give the jews what they wanted with the 19th amendment, which is a fairly modern mistake. Only White men of good character were allowed to vote in the original American system , which worked just fine. Most White men are rational, family oriented, they have reasonable foresight abilities, and are fairly intelligent…..mix any other groups into that and the entire system will inevitably fail.
Because women and children shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Women are very easy to manipulate. It's why both sides cater to them
The head of the green party legit looks like a retard with downs
Yeah we need limited democracy or an autocracy.
They were never supposed to vote.
Giving war brides the ability to control national policy was always a strange concept, but I suppose that's why those nations never stood the test of time
WHO NOSE