Slashdot Mirror
Geeks For Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries
Third Position writes "Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there's a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution. Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy."
Get in the kitchen, wench!
Bringing back serfdom.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
We kicked out King George a long time ago...we don't want him back.
As long as _I_ am the one who's in power.
I always liked the title Jarl, I think I would be a good Jarl.
No, thanks.
I'm all for it, as long as I get to be the King.
I bet that women and minorities are underrepresented in this movement to turn the calendar back.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Contemporary political thought seems to be about electing the right king.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I blame Game of Thrones. Although you'd think Joffrey would be example enough to discourage monarchy.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
...in 3, 2, 1...
I'm a monarchist and even I think these people are crazy, they remind me of the flat earthers...
If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Any system is great as long as you are one of the elites, living off the backs of the slaves. In theory that shouldn't be possible in a democracy, which is why the elites in the US keep us as far from a democracy as possible.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Please! Someone buy these idiots a history book. This is such a perfect example of people who think they're smart but they actually know jack shit about anything except pushing bits. The funny thing is, after the first arbitrary detention and execution of a dissident for "lesse majesty" or "treason against the crown" they'd all be up in arms and in jail. I really hope they're not all really this stupid and this is all just a way to get a reaction.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
But "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
“If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move,” he writes. “The design is all ‘exit,’ no ‘voice.’”
Any business can tell you the value of switching costs. Once you reel them in, it is expensive to move. So, even though another city-state might be better, people will still not move since the cost of moving, even assuming the State doesn't actively interfere with exit taxes or similar measures, would prevent most from moving. This is why retail chains all want you to sign up for their cursed club cards, to try to create switching costs that will keep you around even though they suck. Plus, we don't live in Bruce Sterling's cladist space utopia, there are limited options for moving in space while stuck on Earth's surface, even ignoring the costs. Why don't all those North Koreans just move? Perhaps these fellows have answers to these criticisms, I haven't spent all day reading their FAQ or anything.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
This is just another teenage rebellion movement like Libertarianism. "Don't trust the old people. They're just trying to oppress you!" Yes, Libertarians, you are now the old guys who can't be trusted. :) As such you and your philosophies must be rebelled against much like you tore at the chains of your oppressor parents in the two party system.
Apparently somebody's been going to too many medieval reenactments, and spicing them up with some conspiracy theorist meetings. Monarchies were nasty places to live for the majority of people. I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them to find one they like. Sure, and communism would have worked great if the people in charge were just nicer! Why would a king not try to conquer more territory, and allow his subjects to take off and leave whenever they want?
"Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants" Don't let the pentaverate get you! "I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes!"
Alexander Kazantsev wrote a book about that. The relevant part of the story took place somewhere between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Around here, we don't dignify them with such latinate terms, we just call them assholes.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Actually, a monarchy can be a good thing if the monarch is not a dictator. For example, in the Netherlands, the king has little power but is "the face" of the country. This separation of power and representation is wonderful. Electing a king by birth is a bit preposterous, but it prevents the first power-hungry megalomaniac to be our first man. I know a monarchy is ancient and not of this age, but the mere thought of an alternative like Kohl, Bush or Mitterant makes me glad that we have one.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I wore a pocket watch before it was hip. Same with hiking boots. So many things I've done before hipsters ruined the scene. Now they want to take Monarchy from me? I've long touted the benefits that a strong authority can have in directing a country's production, but now that hipsters like it, I'm not so sure any more.
You challenged, thus I have choice of weapons.
I choose 5 megaton thermonuclear weapons at 10 paces.
Ah, so you've decided your honor is satisfied? Thought so.
... for having frequented them in France. The French Neo-Reactionaries are, quite often, staunch arch-catholics and rather vehement racists, who often glorify one form or another of fascism. They are a rancid bunch, IMHO.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
But has it done more harm than the alternative -- and what might that be?
But there's a community of bloggers ...
That's funny. Like a herd of turtles.
I vote for the anarcho-monarchist.
(He's just as safely dead as Generalissimo Francisco Franco.)
I was born in a monarchy. Although it was one of the symbolic ones, in Europe, when I became a republican later on in life ( disclaimer: no, european republicans are in no way related to their US namesakes, and quite often are rather leftist or left-leaning ), I remarked how opposed to true social progress monarchists can be. Beware !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Cue them? This "movement" is a product of them, so that there is a nice new label to throw around every time someone says anything bad about absolute democracy and perfectly "PC" society.
. . . .but the default tendency of human goverments DOES seem to be the Empire, no matter what name you call it.
And even sadder, the usual life of a Republic is around 200 years. Which explains much of Modern America, which seems to be in transition to both a Police State AND an Empire. After all, we now seem to have both a de-facto permanent underclass and a self-sustaining de-facto aristocracy. . .
Which is why you don't give them any actual power.
... were against democracy.... that is why they established a Republic.
For a better understanding of different government systems - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
Of course, democracy hasn't managed to keep someone like Kim Jung Il off the top, either, has it?
Not that I think that they're right on the gender role thing, mind: it's blatantly stupid unless the only work being done is hard manual labour and I'm DAMN sure that the ones pushing for this don't want to actually have to work hard dangerous jobs where, because they aren't physically demanding, women will be available for management roles over them.
You know, they want the RIGHT sort of heirarchy.
Some geeks REALLY need to get out and get laid...
The rise of European nationalism....
It's the economy, stupid
We've been through this before.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
They are ethno nationalists, against multi culturalism, against human rights and against equal rights for women. They are anti-democratic.
I fail to see how this is any different from nazism.
"Basically, democracy tends toward more and more socialistic policies. " One of its many advantages, yes.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
As long as the monarch is a computer and not a person, that is programmed to run a small number of tasks
I'm imagining Congress coming up with laws, and getting them all vetoed with a text response of "Our words are backed with Nuclear Weapons!"
Since 1988, the House of Bush has occupied the Presidency for 12 years, the House of Clinton for 8 years and been a major player in another administration for 4 years as well as having better than average odds of gaining the White House for at least another 4 years if not 8.
It gets even more like that if you start looking at the House, Senate and Governorships and factor in other family dynasties like the Kennedys, the broader House of Bush.
Then there are various corporate/government crossovers where scions of capitalists enter politics. Minnesota's governor is the child of the Dayton family (retail shopping, family was behind Dayton's and now Target Stores).
I'm not sure we need to declare a new monarchy or aristocracy; we've just more less quietly reinstated it.
Just recreate Plato's republic with ye old Philospher-King http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_(Plato)
Exactly, I would take a mostly harmless (as in little to no actual power) Monarchy for the subjects to love gossip, idolize or hate over as they wish, over a republic all powerful elected politician figurehead who receives these same collective human emotions. Emotions that actually interfere with any rational "who should I vote for" thought process, when there is one. Hollywood has made more than enough unquestioningly love-thy-Politican (aka President) movies, thank you very much.
Non-democratic governance is common in the modern world, it's just that we have a tendency to call them dictatorships. We call them that for a reason. While the "well meaning" dictatorships claim to represent the interests of the people or the nation, they ultimately represent only a portion of the population with little hope for change outside of revolution. Now this may seem fine if you're in that portion of the population, may that portion be a relatively small "aristocracy" or a relatively large social class (as some communist regimes claim). It is unlikely to seem fine if you are unhappy with your situation, or outright repressed, because there is no room for change.
The general argument you hear against Democratic systems is the nebulous "stability" argument.
This of course totally ignores one fact that ought to be blindingly obvious: If your system has no legal way for the people to get rid of leaders they find unacceptable who don't want to leave, then your system is inherently unstable.
This is one of the most retarded things I've seen in a long, long time. This surpasses Bush and Palin idiocy.
Is this some kind of false flag astroturf by the conservatives?
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
I'm fine with this as long as i get to be king, or at least a vassal lord.
My promises are: free housing and food to fit your needs as I perceive them, 100% guaranteed right to full employment with payed overtime in the form of free housing and food. (Payments are subject to force majure due to unforseen events such as war, uprisings or me being unusually greedy). You have the right to chose between one or more choices of spouse that my expert match makers will provide for you. Together the two of you will have the right and duty to have as many children as I deem appropriate. Any children above the limit will receive 100% free child care and 100% free education with a guaranteed 10-year internship at an appropriate workplace between the age of 8 and 18.
As a sign of my gratitude to my loyal subjects I promise no more than 1 hour of torture per year on average over any 50-year period. (Torture limit void if I think you may actually be guilty of something that I don't approve of).
And like monarchy the problem lies in getting competent rulers and the succession wars.
Benevolent dictatorships are far less bureaucratic and less prone to corruption. On the other hand they tend to not represent all the minorities of the country very well, even the most benevolent dictator will have some pet issues he disagrees with even if the population agree, think abortion, gay marriage, etc. The minorities will have no way of getting their rights. The democracy motto after all is "The will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority".
I still think that benevolent dictatorships are better than democracy, but then again I'm white, male and heterosexual.
I saw that episode. Didn't Kirk have to talk the computer to death at the end of it?
Disclaimer: I'm French.
At school I was taught how the French Revolution was an amazing thing. It freed us. It was the end of a time of the absolute, divine right monarchy that France and other European nations had for almost a thousand years. I learned later about The Terror, where nobles would get their heads chopped off. Including the wives and kids, and I reckon some servants too. There's probably been a rape or two, as well, since that's what you get when a mob forms up and there's nobody to police them. They don't teach you much of that when you're at school. I guess it's understandable, since you don't want 12 years old to learn about rape and kids their age being killed just because they were born in the right family. Or do you?
Anyway, I learned much, much later, in my late 20's, that the actual History is much more cynic. It was not "we, the people" (to paraphrase an American concept) who started this. People got riled up by the bourgeois. A bourgeois is a very, very rich commoner. He can hardly hope to ever become a noble. That limits, right there, the richness he can ever hope to achieve. He'll always be looked down from the nobles. He can be killed for talking wrong to a noble. It's better to be a poor noble than a rich bourgeois. So, they didn't like that very much. They started the Revolution. They manipulated the peasants and poorly educated population to do the Revolution. Just so they could usurp the power from the nobles.
Note that I'm personally fine with the fact that we took the nobles out. Nobody should have a birthright over somebody else, just because. This is unfair, this is archaic, and it doesn't make the society move forward. The problem I have with the Revolution, besides the way it's taught (unless you do a History Major you won't hear much of this), is that it replaced one nobility with another. At least the previous one, the actual nobles, where honest about their absolute power. They said "I'm better than you, you're lesser than me, fuck you and fuck off." But the Bourgeoisie, which is still in power today (we call them Oligarchs, because they are the ultimate Bourgeois and there are not so many of them), is much more hypocritical. They will make you think you're in a Democracy, when really you're not. When the Banks can decide whether or not a state will default its credits, after pushing them towards into a mass debt, it's not a democracy. It's an illusion.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, as I just started typing with no set plans for the post. I guess my point is, I'm fed up of hearing we are in a democracy, and we should feel lucky, because more and more I feel I have no choice and no say. Even if my situation isn't as bad as a serf from 400 years ago, it sure as hell isn't as good as the people back them wanted my life to be.
1. Blasphemy: as a law the crown can and does have you executed for everything from a simple expletive to your atheism or lack of church attendance. Criticism of the monarchy, as exemplified in thailand, is very punishable by death.
2. Grinding poverty and inequality: Monarchial rule begets serfdom and a midevil class structure. furthermore that class is infected upon your name for generations. Kings decide what you can and cannot eat with hunting laws, and who you can and cannot marry by proxy of the church. in the past, even certain hats and colors were banned by monarchies.
3. forced rule: In an absolute monarchy, the monarch rules as an autocrat, with absolute power over the state and government. If you want to see what this is like, visit North Korea.
Curtis Yarvin, the prominent neoreactionary mentioned in the piece, is a Libertarian. as are Hoppe and Seller.
Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants. Anissimov calls it a 'self-organizing consensus.' Sometimes the term is used synonymously with political correctness. The fundamental idea is that the Cathedral regulates our discussions enforces a set of norms as to what sorts of ideas are acceptable and how we view history â" it controls the Overton window, in other words.
This is just a comedic recasting of a Fox news script. Rail against the intellectual elite, lambast the media for their liberal bias, and bitch relentlessly about how Political Correctness is destroying society by repressing dicks like John Derbyshire and every other techbro and brogrammer barking 'dyke' and 'cunt' at the first woman to correct their segfault. Its angry white men that think somehow because they write python or understand linux they have a carte blanche to grind their axe about everything from the taxes they pay to the horrors of enduring their multicultural workplace.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I think it was Churchill who said something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". The problem is not democracy. If we actually lived in a democracy things would be better -- not perfect, by any means -- but better. The problem is that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy. Life in a plutocracy is not much different than life in a monarchy. It survives because it maintains an illusion of democracy and is less overtly oppressive than a monarchy.
Proverbs 21:19
"old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy".
I now live in Thailand and I love it. Those three words apply to my adopted country.
Freedom in gender roles does not mean dragging women out of the kitchen; it means the freedom to stay or go as she choses, and my wife choses to stay. Our son is being raised by his mother at home, not by some artiicial mother at a beaurocratic day-care center.
In Thailand society is supreme. In America The Law is supreme because they have no society. Society can be flexible and adaptable and forgiving; The Law is a formula for grinding you up. Here, if your neighbors don't like what you are doing, they will stop you, and the Law is one tool that they can use to stop you. If society likes what you are doing, it does not matter if it is illegal.
In Thailand we have a constitutional king. He is a VERY good man, and he cares about his subjects. His power is primarily leadership, but it is real. He loves his people and his people love him.
Twenty years ago I discovered that I would rather die in Thailand than live in America.
As a Swiss citizen, I would suggest to first try add to the existing system a federal council with proportional representation, the popular referendum and the popular initiative.
Ah I get it. Women like me who are FED UP with being screwed over and looked over in work places, paid less, being belittled and regarded as weak, less able and don't except that as given and unchangeable are FemNazis.
Got it. In that case I am proud to be a FemNazi.
In fairness, the majority of Christians tend to agree on what is in and what is out as far as classifying someone as Christian. Most protestant denominations and many Catholics that are well versed in the foundations of their beliefs don't have any major problems with most other major Christian groups. It's only really generally agreed to be a problem when you get groups like Mormons, 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses that have made major and core theological changes to the foundations of Christianity that have rendered the core views unrecognizable. Pretty much every denomination that holds those core views has a problem with them.
The only argument I've ever heard from protestant/evangelical circles about the Catholic church is that they have too many people that don't really know their religion and end up with a works based or genealogical based mode of salvation, but this isn't actually consistent with Catholic teaching, it's just an incorrect understanding held by many Catholics that haven't really dug in to their religion.
AJ Henderson
These guys sound like Bond Villains. And not Bond Villains from one of the good movies. More like the bad guy from Octopussy or For Your Eyes Only.
Do I get a suit of nuclear-powerd battle armor? If so, I'm in.
RIP American Monarchist Party
http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/American_Monarchist_Party
moox. for a new generation.
... and they have been with us since before the U. S. Constitution was signed. They had a defining influence on that document, leading to a significant disconnect between it and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.
It was these individuals who invited the King of Prussia to reign over the new United States and it was they who opposed the Bill of Rights. Bear in mind that no small number of the wealthy who came to American shores did so to establish themselves as the new plutocratic aristocracy. Often, they had in their pockets grants of land and privileges from the crown.
It is simply a symptom of the times that they are coming out of the closet now, though their influence has always been with us. Take for instance, Leo Strauss' embrace of the Platonic "noble lie", which was a touchstone for legitimizing nobility's grip on power long before there was a United States of America.
argh
That doesn't require a monarch. Just divorce the duty of head of state from the President. We could have a "First Citizen" or something like that. They can do all the stupid diplomatic and cultural stuff that the President doesn't really have time to do.
The British monarchy is a great "face of the nation" when every woman in the world tunes in to watch Kate and William's royal wedding.
But not so great when Prince Harry is photographed at a party wearing a Nazi costume.
Figurehead monarchy can be good PR but also bad PR. It's good for national solidarity but bad for the idea that everyone is equal. European countries have pro- and anti-monarchist camps and I can see both sides of the argument.
As clearly revealed in the anniversary edition of Doctor Who, the head of UNIT is now the daughter of original Brigadier. Clearly wiser heads have prevailed...
Strawman argument. Hypocrites are hypocritical, duh. And you will see by reading your image that a filibuster does not only benefit the republicans, who are a minority in the senate now, but also have in the past benefited the democrats when they haven't had a majority.
A filibuster is a tool against the tyranny of the many. It is one of the very few institutions currently in place that allow an opinion to be counted not only by the number of people who support it but also by the force with which they hold this opinion. If a majority has a slight preference for something, but there is a minority that strongly opposes it, what should happen? Certainly a straight yes or no vote would not accurately represent the will of the voters, so when called on to vote, what should the losers do? Should they simply accept their fate? This is now what the law requires them to do, but it is certainly not just.
What makes 7th Day Adventists outliers? I skimmed the Wikipedia article and the only thing that really stuck out was the millennial stuff, and how big a deal is having different unactionable opinions about the future, really?
(actually curious)
P.S: Okay, so they're kosher, anti-alcohol, etc., but that's not so abnormal.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
That explains all those people in the Guy Fawkes masks - no doubt trying to restore the monarchy.
[Insert pithy quote here]
In the 17th century as the Divine Right of Kings declined in legitimacy, the race was on for an alternative reason to obey the government (other than that they would shoot you otherwise). Both Hobbes and Locke constructed the idea that there is an implicit contract between the citizens of a country and its rulers: you do your job and we will accept your ordering of society. A small but significant element of this was the right to leave if you didn't like what the government was doing. Interestingly the refusal of this right to the subjects of Marxist regimes marks them out as nastier than their predecessors (the Berlin Wall and the rest of the Iron Curtain was a largely successful attempt to keep East Germans at home). For Hobbes this was the ONLY right of the subject; Locke argued that the contract implied a right to participate in the government, which was seminal in the American revolution.
Seventh-day Adventists actually can be categorized quite nicely into conservative evangelicalism. They step outside the mainstream on issues like the weekly sabbath, the state of the dead and by maintaining a historicist approach to prophetic interpretation. They also have an unusually strong emphasis on religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But their soteriology/christology/etc... tend to be very orthodox evangelical.
Source: Grew up Adventist, still am a practicing Adventist, MA in Religion, and I read the work of many non-Adventist theologians and scholars.
Capitalism does not lead to corruption, lack of character does.
In the days of kings, someone would come to power typically because they were a powerful warrior. Indeed, in medieval Europe, the economy was based on a number of monarchs frequently going to battle with each other over land and resources. If you were a king of England, and you didn’t try to take over some part of France during your reign, you were a failure. (This explains the right of succession by blood. They didn’t know about DNA, but they did know that relatives had similarities and wanted people similar to successful past rulers.) Interestingly, the most successful monarchs were those who were loved by their own people (good management ability) feared by everyone else (mindless slaughter of people in foreign lands). This delicate balance between aggression and empathy was hard to find, and looking at the history of the English monarchy, not everyone managed it. This sounds like Ender’s game: In the history of the English monarchy (which I am a bit less ignorant of than others), there were plenty of Valentines and Peters those reigns ended in one kid of dismal failure or another, while the Enders are well-known in history. In the abstract, this sounds cool, except Ender and those successful kings were responsible for wide-spread slaughter of countless.
So this idea of returning to a monarchy sounds really bizarre to me. Rule by the one or few is not a recipe for peace, security, or freedom. In medieval Europe, if you were a peasant, you might live out your life unmolested, or you might fall victim to the whims of a foreign army or your own. Peasant life was essentially worthless except for the bit of farming they could do. This sort of attitude was the case into the 19th century. Have a look at the way the English treated the Irish when the potato blight killed off their only economical source of food. The Irish were under English rule, but apparently not under English protection, because all Parliament did was quibble while people starved to death. We also tried communism in several countries. The Soviet Union fell due to a collapsing economy, and China systematically converted to capitalism. Of course, capitalism is a system of economy, and China is still a dictatorship, but it’s a step in the right direction. Basically, when your life and your work have no value, then you have no motivation to work, except under the whip. So what these monarchists are suggesting is a return to slavery.
This isn’t the Christian fantasy of Jesus returning to earth to rule as a benevolent king. People will come to power because they want power, and then they will maintain that power by destroying others. We have that happening in our republics today. The differences are that (a) people are elected or not based on how their constituents perceive the representative to further their interests, (b) there are enough conflicting opinions that sometimes the bad ideas get filtered out, and (c) we have a judicial system that can find bad laws unconstitutional and overrule them. (Frankly, I think the executive branch in the US has too much power and is a vestige of the US legal system being a derivative of the English legal system, which has a figurehead king. We get to elect ours, but ours don’t seem to be very effective at anything other than being a scapegoat for the failures of the legislative branch.) Basically, a republic has problems, but a dictatorship is much much worse.
And let’s not forget to address the baloney about returning to traditional gender roles. As a society, we’re only beginning to respect individual human rights and dignity, regardless of ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation. If we’re going to experiment with totalitarianism, why don’t we try putting some women in control? Oh, sure, they’ll screw it up too. Humans in power always do. But at least it won’t be a bloodbath.
Yeah, unless it's a resurgence of a previous movement, isn't every reactionary group "neo" by definition?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Government by the masses only works when the masses are well-educated. If the masses are, by and large, as ignorant as Americans have become, then they're easy to manipulate via fear, and produce government by those least-suited for the task. Sadly, the mass underfunding of public education in the US has been a bipartisan effort- people in the US overwhelmingly choosing lower taxes + poorer public education over higher taxes + better public education- and a self-perpetuating one at that. After all, poorly educated people are also easier to convince to further cut money from education.
The ideal form of government may well be the true Philosopher King, but I'm not sure that such a person has ever existed- or could ever exist. Barring that, self-government by an educated populace has produced the best results so far- quoting Churchill: "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried."
-Z
You forget that "Catholics worship Idols" with the whole saint thing. My wife's family are presbyterian (sp?) while mine are Catholic/Anglican and it is interesting to hear the differences even though most of both families have evolved to more ambivelant religious-wise.
The differences are a lot more serious than that. In theological terms they are very different. Most importantly the protestants place great value on the personal relationship between each believer and Christ, while the Catholic church place themselves as the divinely appointed intermediary. This also means they claim for themselves the exclusive power to interpret or decree God's teachings. The two major branches of Christianity are on good terms right now, but remember that past centuries were characterized by the two taking turns to persecute and torture each other in the struggle for influence.
Isn't that what's already happening in the US? Anyone with an affiliation with the Kennedy/Clinton/Bush is automagically a strong candidate in any election.
From the article:
Indeed, why should we be worried about an idea apparently only popular with a few kooks on the internet? Because it makes a great boogey man for use in undistributed middle fallacies. Now anyone who has any sort of criticism of our current political system can be ignored simply by accusing them of being secret neoreactionaries. No need to actually address their argument when you can accuse them of secretly wanting to reduces us to serfs. Oh and they hate women and minorities too!
Take for example:
See? Srinivasan may not be neoreactionary himself, but he once made an argument that appealed to some neoreactionaries. Therefore we can safely ignore him without bothering to have to refute any of his points.
sounds like the Mormons!?!?
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
The summary is right about one thing: democracy appears undesirable, or at least sub-optimal, to many intelligent successful geeks.
The actual support for wanting to "turn back the clock" or to have gender roles or whatever is fragmented, and may range from "this is probably worked better than what we're doing today" to "yeah, I'd enforce this via the sword", with relatively few people advocating the latter.
In the last 15 years I've given up on the GOP, given up on libertarianism, and now consider myself squarely an anarchist.
There's a strain of people, lets call them "technocrats", who are probably very smart, and believe that if only they were in charge, they could make things better.
These people want to believe in democracy, but they see the very real impediment it presents to them getting anything done. It's ridiculous to them that they must put up with climate deniers and intelligent design blowhards (and critically, those that these groups elect to office) when there is critical work to be done.
They may be right, but invariably the powerful institutions they build will be co-opted by people who are either less capable or less moral, or often, both. You build a state science department, and invariably, Pat Robertson is going to end up running it somehow.
Then you have people like me, who have become so disillusioned with government that I contend the whole affair should be done away with.
I was fed a steady diet of government school growing up, and I've found out how much of that was pro-state mythology. And so one naturally questions other parts of the mythology. Is our government good? Is it effective? Does it have the right goals? What about the "right" to vote? Who really ought to have it? Why?
I, for instance, take the unpopular view that voter suppression is probably a good idea - as long as it is done for the right reasons. Voting in this country is by no means an "absolute right". Felons don't get the right to vote; neither do children or the mentally handicapped (beyond some level). So let's dispense with that claim entirely. Society has always had (and will continue to have) rules on who may vote.
Some percentage of the voting public is clearly dumber than I am, and clearly unable to manage their own affairs and well-being appropriately.
So a rude question emerges: Should people who cannot manage their own lives get any role in managing mine? (e.g., a "vote")?
I'm persuaded that the answer is, "no".
The difference between an anarchist and a technocrat, on this issue, is that an anarchist ALSO doesn't recognize the right of a successful man to govern an unsuccessful one.
The tech crunch article listed Herman Hoppe as one of the members of this club. I'm a fan of Hoppe, and he in no way is an advocate of Monarchy. He is a critic of the state, and specifically a critic of democracy. He has an excellent bit of writing that explains immigration policy from the POV of a monarch vs. an elected official, and in his conclusion, the self-interested monarch has a much better set of incentives for a positive immigration policy than does the elected official who panders for votes. Pointing out situations where a monarch behaves preferably to a democratic body does make one an advocate of Monarchy, any more than saying "the trains ran on time!" make one an advocate of Mussolini.
What you're seeing here is a group made up of successful, intelligent people, who grew up with the internet in its wild-west days -- there was no authority to crush dissent and no censorship.
They're questioning the mythology of society. Either our society is on firm enough footing that it stands, or it isn't, and these ideas spread.
It's worth pointing out that the fastest growing socio-cultural group is socially conservative Islam. Proponents of progressive social democracy had better have some pretty damn good answers (and more kids), because there's a storm coming. Not helping the impending clash is the reality of this article: Some of the best and brightest that our progressive society has produced are having second thoughts about the society that birthed them.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Sorry, I think my statement was overly ambiguous. I meant "most protestant denominations" and "most/many Catholics who actually understand their religion". I clarified because I've run in to many Catholics who are more culturally catholic than practicing that have problems with protestants, however most devout Catholics who dig in to the official views of the catholic church don't have any major problems with most protestants.
AJ Henderson
I honestly don't recall, I just listed them because they were in the original post. I may have misspoken in regards to them, but I didn't have the time to dig. That's honestly a my bad for not checking further.
AJ Henderson
Yeah, sorry, my bad. I just repeated the list that the previous poster mentioned. I don't think they belonged in the list after all.
AJ Henderson
... like it did for Louis XVI the 2nd of Pluviôse of Year 1 (1793-01-21 for all the morons that don't use the Republican Calendary ;-)), I'm OK to put all of those "neoreactionaries" one after the other on the throne :-)
That is why I put in the part about having to understand their beliefs. Personally, I'm protestant, but the actual orthodox Catholic view is that Saints should not be worshiped but rather that they intercede on behalf of the person praying to them. They don't have any power or honor beyond being a hero of the faith so to speak. It does end up leading to (what I see as a minorly incorrect view) that their being "better" Christians results in God listening to them more, but it isn't idol or saint worship if properly following formal Catholic beliefs.
AJ Henderson
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both. Much of the fighting is the same as it is today, it comes from politicians attaching themselves to the church (or at times abuse of the church when politics and the church were one and the same). The views of both groups are not that fundamentally at odds even if the practices and minor points have considerable differences. Most conflicts between the groups were about power or revenge, neither is related to theology.
AJ Henderson
The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill. The problem is not the type of government, but rather that people suck. People are selfish, biased, territorial, cliquish, bribe-able, stubborn, irrational, etc.
Asking for a new or different government system to compensate for ALL the crappiness off human nature is simply asking too much. It can compensate for some of the weaknesses, but not all. And it's often a trade-off such that compensating for one weakness may magnify another.
That being said, I'm all for small-scale tests, just not on me. If you can form a voluntary colony somewhere to test a different kind of government, that's wonderful. Just don't invade and force it.
Table-ized A.I.
...it's only a model.
Table-ized A.I.
Also, to respond to your other points, issues like birth control, evolution, drinking & dancing, to some extent literal Biblical interpretation, guns, gay marriage (to an extent) and most other political hot topics are outlier issues that are not of core theological importance. Core theological issues are things like core nature of God and means of salvation. These core foundations are represented in things like the Apostles and Naciean(sp?) creeds. Departure from those core views will get you branded as heretical by the vast majority of mainline Christian denominations and staying within them is good enough to considered to have a saving faith by most. The rest is just minor details that have an impact on how we live our lives, but not on who is "actually" Christian (ie, saved).
AJ Henderson
Sorry, one last thought, as a real world example, check out Christianity on Stack Exchange some time. We've actually got people from all of those and we have quite interesting conversations on topics such as those, but also none of us think the others aren't Christian, just that we think they may be mistaken about some minor issues.
AJ Henderson
Let me guess...overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white, angry that women and swarthy people are horning in on their privileges. Folks for whom the Tea Party didn't work out. Fun bunch, to be sure.
"The feeling that you aren’t being heard or seen or represented isn’t psychosis; it’s government policy."
-- Russell Brand in New Statesman
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
yeah? in Finland we use the president for representative functions, why do you need a king for it and what difference does your king make from our president? pretty much nothing except ours could call Putin.
you just have a dude you pay money to for nothing and who got the job by birthright, in the days when kings had power they could lose that power too.. as such you don't have a functioning monarchy at all.
however, it makes little difference if you call dictatorial systems monarchy or whatever and that is what these neofucks want. they don't want a representer monarchy for tea parties, they want functioning monarchy without understanding one bit apparently about how european monarchies worked back in the day - the king spent a lot of his time on what are now party politics, as he had to cater for generals wishes, merchants wishes and for papal wishes. that is, if they wanted for their country to function.
having a position available that gives power to one man is what makes it possible to have one man in power who is power hungry! most western countries have eliminated that position(which is why our president has about zero power over parliament nowadays).
if you go with a system that has that position then it's pretty likely some fuckhead will end up in that position eventually either by playing the nation to get that position or just by playing the relevant people - usually we call that a coup and being a monarchy doesn't prevent coups at all, if anything it makes them more worthwhile to do since then you can appoint the heir to the throne.. provided that you behead everyone else who might throw a coup.
nothing wrong with a functioning parliament... plenty of things wrong with a dysfunctional parliament though since then you'll end up with just some cronies running the show which can be just as bad as having a shitty king(in both cases a bunch of cronies run the show so there's really no difference).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It's almost as if Parliamentary Scandinavia, Republican Rome, and Democratic Greece never happened. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Perhaps you should read about Catharism or one of the many other Catholic Cursades? The fact is, the Catholic Church has engaged in plenty of purges and multiple "councils" to discuss matters of the faith, eventually deciding "the one true way" and burning/killing the heretics who kept going. Most Protestants are so far removed from these decisions that once you actually start reading some of the decisions, you start to see how many people you've met in your life are at least partial believers in at least one of the "heretical" ideas.
You see, the point isn't that the Catholic Church is per se some evil organization. It's that people just presume a lot of their own personal beliefs are (a) similar to others or (b) at least tolerable enough if they have the same "core" beliefs--and it's only after they start really talking that the find out differently. Hence, Protestants have had their own purgings--not always any less bloody than the Catholic kind. They've just had fewer years to have a long history of it. So, the very idea that the US is all some sort of happy Christian family, even as a majority, I think is rather ludicrous. And the more that we actually focus on being "Christian", the more only the "true" Christians will be tolerated.
Hence, the very notion of bring up the point is an act of intolerance is the slippery slope to the same inquisitions that supposedly were the foundation of "Freedom of Religion" in the US. No, the truth is that no denomination had the monopoly on power to reign, so everyone agreed to a sort of truce. And for that, I despise any attempt to pretend or grant any religion a consideration as a majority because any group, religious or not, should not reign. Oh, and, yea, that's why I'm against monarchies too. :)
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both. Much of the fighting is the same as it is today, it comes from politicians attaching themselves to the church (or at times abuse of the church when politics and the church were one and the same). The views of both groups are not that fundamentally at odds even if the practices and minor points have considerable differences. Most conflicts between the groups were about power or revenge, neither is related to theology.
All the more reason(s) why religion has absolutely no place in government.
My neighbor, a Southern Baptist, would argue with everything you have said to his last breath.
The priest at my local Episcopal Church says they're not Catholic 'light' but Catholic "Right".
My sister in law - Church of God - thinks they are the only TRUE Christians.
A Cardinal once said, "If you are not Catholic, you belong to a cult."
And I won't get into all the nuts who come to my door.
Everything I witness in the Christian community flies in the face with everything you have posted.
Not serfdom. Serfs were bound by traditional duties, but the same traditions bound their liege lords with obligations and to recognize certain rights. So, for example, you cannot turn a serf off the land his father worked. You cannot threaten him and his family with hunger in order to compel new concessions. He has a great many days guaranteed off since they're holy days. Most days of the week, he's actually working for himself and only a fraction was her required to work on his liege's land and projects.
Compare this with the circumstances your cite. Some rights are granted by our legal system but the obligations owed to a worker (esp. pay) have been in decline since the 1970's. But the employee has no security. High unemployment makes them easily replaceable; Walmart doesn't allow them to organize; they could be left at any moment with more bills than money. Thus, concessions are easy to secure for the employer who knows his employees only work for him because they've few other options. Sure, they don't lower their worker's salaries but they do reduce labor costs by having ever fewer workers perform ever more tasks. And who can complain? As for days off, Walmart workers certainly don't get our civic holidays off. Days like Sunday were once a great and beautiful thing. They were guarantees that an employer was not the master of an employees life. They granted all people the very human dignity of being able to spend time with family. They even allowed time for people to recognize a god other than Mammon. Walmart employees even have to work on Thanksgiving now and the holiday season has the most taxing schedule for them. A retail worker often does not know when he'll be working two weeks hence, and can therefore make few sure plans to spend with family and friends. Oh well, it's easier just to stay home and watch TV ($199 at Walmart!) and eat popcorn than to have to risk cancelling on friends again. As for the fraction of pay, I would be willing to bet that the ratio of profit, Walmart:"associate", is far better for Walmart than ever was the ratio of produce, liege:serf.
So, I do not think it best to say Walmart wishes to make its employees serfs. Serfs are a meddlesome bunch and tend to riot when their traditional rights are usurped. I think rather that Walmart wishes to leave its employees in a servile condition, as a great master over so many slaves. And while I'm at it, I'll throw this little bomb: the current form of consumerist capitalism undermines friendship, family, the human dignity of workers, and even religion.
If you are truly curious, I'd suggest you read the 15th Chapter of Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. I was going to quote parts, but honestly it would give too partial a picture. 7th Day Adventists are basically a resurgence of Nazarenes/Ebionites who were marginalized as heretics even before the great purges of the ecumenical councils.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Isn't reactionary by definition not "paleo"?
Wasn't this basically Plato's argument a long time ago? The best theoretical form of government is to have a "philosopher king" that has a lot of power but always acts in the interests of the people, this way things get done efficiently and even if the uneducated people think its not correct to do. But of course the problem is making sure the king is a philosopher -- most of the time, these type of people are not the ones that even want to be king. Otherwise, you end up with a very bad situation. Democracy is not perfect but it tends to smooth out the problem of not having philosophers as leaders, but we don't always know what is best for ourselves.
Harry Reid just got rid of the filibuster in the Senate. It was one of the few protections against the tyranny of the majority. Maybe his next step will just be a winner-take-all type setup in the Senate where the minority party is abolished completely. Once this is done, he can just declare Obama King. Sadly, most on the left would cheer for this.
Yes, this was a bad step, however the alternative was, for the immediate future, much worse.
Please realize that the filibuster rules are unchanged for matters legislation. They have only been removed in confirmation hearings, where the Senate says yes or no to someone the President wants appointed to fill a vacancy. Most commonly a vacant judge position. The change means that appointments cannot be held in limbo for months and years; there will be a timely "yes" or "no" decision. That will enable the Federal government to run at closer to its best possible efficiency. Instead of staggering for lack of judges, etc.
This Senate rule can be reversed using the same process that put it in place. If there is ever any value in allowing procedural delays in a Senate confirmation process, then this rule will be reversed fairly soon.
Will
Where are you getting "paleo" from? A Ctrl+F in the article itself didn't even find it.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
+1 Funny.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Please realize that this end of filibustering only applies to the Senate confirmation process. Where the Senate votes on whether a proposed appointee is fit to hold the appointed office. Filibustering on policies and legislation is NOT affected.
The Tea Partiers brought this situation on by their attempts to cripple the Federal government until they got their way. That is tyranny by a minority. As a group, the Tea Party is walking closer to the line that defines treason and impeachable actions than any other political faction in living memory. They do not seek the compromises that make a democratic republic work; they push a "my way or the highway" agenda which risks everyone's safety and pushes the cost of government higher and higher.
Will
The two major branches of Christianity are on good terms right now
The Eastern Orthodox churches think that Catholicism and Protestantism are branches of the same heresy.
I would also note that, while the Catholic church is more monolithic in its belief structure, there are many, many branches of Protestantism which actively seek to convert and save Catholics. It is not by accident that many Evangelical churches sponsor missions in Catholic dominated countries.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
OK, I now realise this applies only to the Senate confirmation process. I apologise for not having read. I will agree that filibustering the vote to fill a cabinet position is more commonly an unsportsmanlike tactic than it is a fight for the minority's rights. Nevertheless I will maintain that there are legitimate reasons for a minority to want to reject a candidate to an appointed office, and while removing the filibuster may be justified, another avenue for minority dissent should be opened. To be clear, I believe that as a tool to stand for the rights for the few against the wishes of the many, the filibuster is very poor.
The neo-reactionaries are awesome! Who else will take charge and keep the house-elves in their proper place?
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both.
Wasn't that really the true divide? Catholics claim salvation follows the "chain of command" from God to the Pope to the cardinals to the bishops to the priests of the Catholic church and that under ordinary circumstances they are the only way to get absolution from your sins. What power this gives the priesthood is left as an exercise to the reader. Protestants claim salvation comes directly from God to those who follow the Bible, priests are prayer leaders but neither priests nor churches are strictly speaking necessary. However from the Catholic point of view protestant priests weren't ordained by the Holy See so they were not part of the "chain of command" but rather false priests that pretended to speak on behalf of God. Commence bloodshed.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Pat Buchanan has found a new audience.
Great.
Note that I also am not advocating that the US is "Christian" or should be. Personally, I don't think the government and religion should be crossed. It's a little more questionable when laws based on morality come in to the picture, but I tend to be very much against "moral" laws that can't demonstrate harm to someone other than the person doing it. Religion and politics do not mix well because those who seek power will abuse religion to get what they want. I elude to that in another one of my posts and this is also where much of the infighting has come from.
There is no Biblical basis (new testament anyway) for violent acts against someone for being a heretic, so therefore the only way to come to that conclusion is that it is an erosion of your power base and therefore a threat to be attacked. You even see this today with the "Christian" politicians who fear-monger up followers by saying all sorts of bad things will happen if they don't get their way.
AJ Henderson
Historically, yes, the reason for breaking off from the Catholic church was widespread corruption within the church where priests were selling things instead of behaving in a Godly manner. This has largely been rectified by the Catholic church in more recent times though. It is true however, that it is far more difficult for a Catholic to see protestants as saved than the other way around. It's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be though as the basic foundation still comes from Christ and belief in him. A lot of that is probably questions better asked of a strongly practicing Catholic (which I am not, nor have I ever been). I only know what I have picked up from conversations with Catholic friends on the subjects.
AJ Henderson
That largely comes from the fact that "Catholic" individuals frequently have nothing but religion rather than faith. In fairness though, this is not really the Catholic church's fault. They are the big dog, so they attract the most cultural identification without any actual belief or practice. Thus you may have a country that is 95% Catholic, but in many cases as few as 5% or less actually attend church. That's a huge group of people that isn't reached. My church supports a church plant in Italy for exactly that reason, even though it is "hugely catholic" it is effectively post-Christian because there is no actual involvement with any church (including the Roman Catholic church).
AJ Henderson
the majority of Christians tend to agree on what is in and what is out as far as classifying someone as Christian.
I had an interesting chat with a Mennonite once. He was from a group newly arrived here in Belize from the US. I quickly ascertained that he had very sketchy knowledge of the differences between various Christian denominations. Then I asked if his group had any links with the long-standing Mennonite communities here and he said 'No, they are not even Christians.'
My Methodist parents did not view Mormons as proper Christians, but at least there are some actual doctrinal differences there.
Thanks for sharing, yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about with people who have a cultural affiliation but don't really know what there views are or how they differ from others. I personally agree with your parents that Mormons are not Christians though as there are key and critical theological differences there. It is really hard to explain the differences in how critical parts of theology are though, particularly since the level of criticality of some elements is different for different groups. The most core points are pretty consistent though.
AJ Henderson
Ebionites you say?!
Now the matter is perfectly clear!
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Freedom in gender roles does not mean dragging women out of the kitchen; it means the freedom to stay or go as she choses, and my wife choses to stay.
That is true, but when most people speak of "old-fashioned gender roles," what they typically mean is that deviation from this scenario -- men working, women keeping the home -- is frowned upon. That women should have either less actual rights (as a matter of law) or less effective rights (as a matter of social pressure).
What, for example, would most Thai people think of a couple where the man stays at home to take care of the kids while his wife works? Would anyone think that was odd? Would they be subject to mockery or scorn? How about even just small jokes that aren't really jokes or odd looks?
Here, if your neighbors don't like what you are doing, they will stop you, and the Law is one tool that they can use to stop you. If society likes what you are doing, it does not matter if it is illegal.
Society rarely is flexible and forgiving especially if focused on conformity of tradition, and if your neighbors can punish you from deviating from their expectations, then you have no real freedom. "Freedom" to do whatever other people want you to do isn't real freedom. It's just oppression by more local means.
We used to have situations in America too when society trumped law: black people got lynched for being the wrong race in the wrong place, and the murderers got off scot free because society approved of what they did regardless of what the law thought. The reason for rule of law is to protect those who are unpopular but whose rights would be trampled without it.
In Thailand we have a constitutional king. He is a VERY good man, and he cares about his subjects. His power is primarily leadership, but it is real. He loves his people and his people love him.
He might well be, but a man who cannot be criticized cannot be trusted. No government or other organization can run well if it closes its ears to any data that might suggest a course correction, and the crime of lese majeste is an abomination that elevates a mere man to the position of a god. Respect should be earned, not dictated by law.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Nonsense!
The only way this rule can be reversed is if the majority Party wants to reverse it. And the majority Party has NO NEED to reverse it - if they need procedural delays, they don't need a Filibuster to get them...
It was a mistake, however, on the Part of the Dems, though, because, by and by, the Republicans WILL get control of the Senate.
And the Republicans will have no more reason to grant the Dems more power as the minority than the Reps had as a minority, now do they?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I read/watch Game of Thrones! But I do NOT want to play it myself.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I'm actually with them, part of the way.
Democracy, no we must be more precise: Representative Democracy has failed us.
If you lump 300 mio. people into 600 representatives (each one representing half a million people) then the main unintended consequence is that you have just created a massively optimized corruption center.
And if the income inequality is large enough that the very rich can spend more money on lobbying their wishes than half a million people can, then they always win.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Neal Stephenson did it first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age
Like consent of the governed, yo. What makes them think they could get a monarchy even if it was a good idea? How the hell do you even go about that, and when you do--who chooses the first king? I can't imagine much outside of an outright military coup, which doesn't bode so well for a well-running modern nation state.
That largely comes from the fact that "Catholic" individuals frequently have nothing but religion rather than faith.
Amusing. I'm an ex-Catholic, and we viewed mainstream Protestantism in the same light. As a non-believer, I now watch the antics of both, and they look strangely the same.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
The Baby Boom ended in 1964. 1957 was the peak year of the Boom. The youngest Baby Boomers are 50.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Birth_Rates.svg
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Instead of everyone who breaths being able to vote only let people who opt-in vote. To opt-in would require some form of service to the government be it civil services, administrative, military, etc. Freedom would still exist for all but political decisions would be limited. That might curb masses of people voting for candidates who simply promise the world and deliver little. Just because the idea is from Starship Troopers doesn't negate its efficacy.
You do realize that this system is required to offer everyone a government job, right? So that everyone can "opt in" who wants to? Or do we instead only let certain select people to "opt in"?
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
but take away . . . and . . . and . . . and . . . Democracy is garbage...
So the Constitution but not the Constitution? Amusing, and more coherent than most of your posts.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
In this case it was appointing judges to a court circuit that has the lowest case load of any circuit and also happens to be the one that hears a majority of cases being brought against actions being taken by Obama. The situation reeks of court packing.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
It's certainly present largely in both. It has just been my experience that Catholics (being biggest fish around) get the most of them, but it also depends on where abouts you are I suppose and when locally Catholic isn't the big dog, then the roles may be reversed. Either way, my point is that it isn't the religion but the culture that is responsible for the issue.
AJ Henderson
is a dumb serf. We all serve at the pleasure of our super-rich masters. When they tire of us, out we go. We pay taxes, they receive them. We ARE living in a feudal system that disguises itself as a democracy and gives the illusion of political choice because they let us vote.
There goes one now! How do I know? Because he's not covered in shit like the rest of us!
I see what you are getting at, but I'm just not sure it is true, or at least, largely true. Perhaps your church is after nominal Catholics, but the majority of missions I was aware of were not shy about wanting to save church-going Catholics, as they considered it to be a heresy. Missions to the Philippines and South America were the most egregious. There was even a Spanish speaking church started in the local town I lived in which was focused on converting the local immigrant Catholic population. They were quite open about it, and the times that they worked the local prisons with the Catholics were interesting to say the least. Of course, the Catholics were trying just as hard to convert the Protestants, so I don't mean to give the impression that it was one sided. Both sides were "poaching," so to speak.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
As a Protestant, the Catholic Church is still WRONG. Because they have NEVER ADMITTED what those priests did was SINNING... And that THE CHURCH led people to hell. They just promised they wouldn't "approve" more priests to do those things.
It's just like they can protest pagans having "gay marriage" but priests RAPING little boys en masse is just "normal sins" with no consequence to their JOBS. AND. They STAY priests?? Excommunicate those fuckers.
Famous mathematician Cauchy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin-Louis_Cauchy (1789 – 1857), was a "royalist."
Haven't got to tracking down more details about his attitude.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Relies on the premise that the majority of people are good.
I challenge this assumption.
This is leaving aside the fact that sociopaths will be the ones to climb the most ambitiously.
Why don't we have a lottery to decide who represents us?
It works well enough for juries anyway.
A King, anointed by God, must retain the favor of said God by behaving in the proper manner, putting right and the good of his people foremost and protecting his loyal subjects from the evil merchant and military classes. If he says "Off with their heads." then we should make it so. (If he fails, then we equip the courtyard with pikemen for the ritual defenestration.)
Works better than any other system we've tried, AFAICT.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
... they could just learn Arabic and move to Saudi Arabia. I am happy to pitch in a modest amount for the ticket price, if this helps to get rid of them.
Parent post assumes that the Republican party will continue into the future. However it is failing, has been failing ever since Reagan stitched together an unlikely coalition of evangelicals and corporations. Whether the Tea Party nonsense is its demise (Sarah really plays the part of the Angel Of Death quite well, doesn't she), or it staggers on for another five years, it just is not going to recover.
This has happened before. In the history of the USA the GOP will be the sixth or seventh national political party to lose its clout and crumble away. Hopefully a workable alliance of smaller parties will be able to fill the need for an articulate conservative point of view in Washington. Maybe the Libertarians and some of the eco groups can find ways to agree to disagree on some things while moving together on other things.
Back to the point. There are a lot of Democrats who had to hold their noses to vote for this limitation on filibustering. The rules will likely be changed as soon as the threat of the Tea Party shutting down parts of the government goes away. So in two to six years, is my guess.
Will
Indeed. Why waste money on some dumb family to be the "face of the country".
Seriously.
Why not just erect a statue to some mythic national figure and use that as the face of the country.
It will cost less, not need feeding, cleaning, clothing or transport and so forth.
In fact, why bother with a statue.
Why not just find a large rock, paint it purple and call that the face of the nation.
If you absolutely need to have something useless, you might as well just get the age-old classic...
I think decimated meant reduced by ten percent, from the Latin word meaning reduced by one tenth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)
Are you quite sure you don't have a monarchy, or at least a ruling class? For example if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary and won the 2008 election, the last 20 years of the presidency would have been held by just two families. And that's just the political ruling class, not even going into the stupendously enormous wealth gap and the power the 1% and 0.1% wield. Citizen's United means that a billionaire holds a hell of a lot more power than your one vote and 10 dollar donation. I would posit that you do have a ruling class, you just don't dress them up in robes and a crown.
Just that...
Here is what sums it up for me:
Thiel, meanwhile, voiced a related opinion in his own article for Cato Unbound: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”
Simply Brilliant! You believe that freedom and democracy are not compatible, so you go for a system in which only one person or family is free.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What's the difference from being ruled by the likes of Jamie Dimon?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchy_(theory) is better
Casteism
Well, there's a lot of little things, but the big one would have to be that Adventists don't believe in an immortal soul. The saved will go to heaven by having their physical bodies (without which they could not exist) restored by God and then made immortal. The damned will simply cease to exist altogether.
For most of human history people lived under the social systems these people are advocating. Enlightenment civilization, of which democracy and free markets are only two components, is less than 400 years old, and in that time we've seen a flowering of technological and cultural growth that dwarfs everything else that happened in the previous millennia of human civilization. Coincidence? Perhaps. But I think it more likely the neo-reactionaries are analogous to the cranks who write papers claiming to disprove quantum physics and then post them to the world using tools which depend upon those physics to function.
Science fiction author and Enlightenment champion David Brin has a blog post exploring some disadvantages of neo-feudalism. In that article he links to the Anti-reactionary FAQ with detailed criticisms of their arguments and goals.
There are more currents who adhere in one or more ways to these ideas:
Political and philosophical Satanism, for instance, which despite it's name and despite being inscribed as religion is in all aspects an atheistic movement based on aesthetics and the embrace of most of the things that have been deemed as "bad" by most judeo-christian (and similar) cultures such as the right to vengeance.
More of interest in regard to the current article is their conception of society as a meritocracy, Social Darwinism, but not in the sense of Liberals but more in the sense of what is really meant by meritocracy: People which contribute to society should be leading and the rest wouldn't have any right to vote or decide, much in he way of Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and tribal societies such as the Maori. The more radical proposals rank from an aristocracy very similar to the old one but with no implied inheritance or a limited one (such systems have been in place in ancient China and to certain extend Korea or in other forms among the Germanic and Nordic tribes).
Note, however, that the idea of "gender roles" is not even contemplated or discussed: Everyone has the right to do as he/she fits. And of course, race place no role whatsoever... (except that black Satanist goth-chicks kick massive ass).
One of the arguments against democracy of these groups is that the majority is not always right and that a mass of ignorants can hardly take intelligent decisions. Of course, Democracy is actually not about intelligent decisions but more about keeping as many people content as possible. If this is a good idea with 7.000 Million H. sapiens on the planet is a different question.
Another ideal firmly rooted in democratic and libertarian ideals is the sanctity and superiority of human lives. And I am not talking about abortion here. We are obviously social apes and our ancestry brings this heavy burden to such an extend that even the most liberal pro-choice activist would be shocked by the mere mention of reducing somebody's freedom to create a new human to add to the rest. A new fat ass to add weight to an already crowded couch, another waddling burger-swallowing piece of lard unable to even walk a mile without a car or escalators. Or if born in the "other part of the world" just another mouth to feed with not much to put into it.
Please note that I stress "new Human" as we are not talking about killing an existing one or doing anything that may pose the lives of existing ones in danger: We are talking about creating a completely new individual from scratch, to add more burden to the society and the planet, and just for the sake of an ideal about a right that is as stupid a notion as the superiority of democracy or the right of every half-witted redneck to decide how to steer a country or a city.
OK, you got me. I feel perfectly identified with many of the Neoreactionary ideas. But you also have to note that we are mostly talking about a philosophical and aesthetic current with a great of romanticism and the knowledge that we don't have much of a chance to win; But don't ever grow to confident...
-- 29A the number of the Beast
If you want to understand the most critical difference between political ideologies and system and get past their oversimplifications, the fly in the ointment things they gloss over, the hopeful dream with all the nastiness ignored, ask yourself if they include everybody or who they exclude.
So, if you want to exclude people, ask yourself if you can really get away with it and at what cost. Quite often political ideologists either aren't honest about this or get it wrong. Do you want to include people who are financially minded, for instance, or white, or Christian? And how to you keep the "others" out.
American History in particular is full of enclaves of people that think alike, where like-values are enforced. Such "utopian" colonies survived because it was easy to isolate them. Jim Jones moved the People's Temple to Gayana to isolate them from what he regarded as dangerous outside influences before he coerced them to drink cool-aid laced with cyanide and die. Except from the suicide, how is that much different from the Mormons in Utah?
The problem with that today, and I think it is connected with the recent spike in gun violence and mass shootings, is that there are fewer places to run and hide and that to have to stay and get along with lots of different kinds of people, like in the increasingly urban lot of most of humanity, takes an approach that is not elitist. The problem with this is that economics, the breakdown of inclusive economic and political institutions could change all that, and that change would be based on elitism and scarcity, for the notion that there isn't enough to go around turns people selfish and they begin to invent lies about how they deserve the fruits of society while others do not. For a long time I scratched my head about how a very advanced nation like Germany could have embraced Hitler and the Nazi movement in 1933. It seemed to me a mystery of how the nation that had embraced the most advanced science and philosophy could have made what in hindsight seems like such a dreadful mistake. But now I know how any advanced culture can go down that road including in the United States. It is by embracing Conservatism in the form of elitism, the motto for which is "I've got mine, screw you!" The Brown Shirts are not all that far removed from that kind of thinking which the rhetoric from some of the Tea Parties has revealed.
Now, of course, the opposite political pole also can spawn elitism, as we can document in Socialist and Communist regimes. but they become essentially Conservative. If the poor generializations that come out of American political rhetoric were to apply, North Korea and even China would be much more inclusive societies than they are. They are essentially protecting their investment and their elites just as Western countries who cater to Conservative Capitalists do.
There is no better elitism than an big lopsided income distribution, such as is emerging in the U.S. The apologists for laissez-faire economics like to downplay its unfair aspect, that having very rich people in the market drives up prices for everybody and especially those at the bottom. Look at the housing market, especially in the wealthy parts of the nation. They love to point out how opportunity is there and to be rewarded by iniative. What they fail to tell you, and probably why they are so willing to claim that, is that they got to a scarce resource first and locked out others in doing so. So the psychology of scarcity feeds on itself, it supports elitist thinking. The problem with that is that there is a Day of Rechoning in which accounts are called in and in which the disadvantaged get some payback. That is made even more likely by a high rate of change, that business models and empires become vulnerable. In human history the tide of tyranny has often been helped by outside calamity, and although I cannot predict when the next volcano will explode and plunge the earth into ashfall winter, that has happened before and it has promoted elites. We might be able to outgrow the temper tantrum of elitism by then.
I'm not sure neo (new) and reactionary (embracing old ideas) are comfortable together.
Not that I was saying you were, but the majority of Americans profess to be Christians. And I honestly think that exposing the "ugly" truth on just how many people are "supposedly" Christian is probably the best way to avoid either (a) uniting people under a banner as an excuse to persecute others and (b) to avoid internal conflict and purges when people feel out un-"Christian" a lot of people are. Note: I say all this with the presumption that at least the devote are Christian in their own mind--ie, it isn't just a claim to avoid scrutiny--and yet the difference in beliefs is so wide that plenty of people would claim other Christians aren't "true" Christians, which seems to be the foundation of a lot of intra-religion abuse.
There is certainly truth to this to some extent, but the other ugly truth is that there are those in power who are so self-righteous in their cause that they believe it is necessary to engage in purgings, from excommunication to banishment to outright death, to avoid somehow tainting "their" religion or otherwise leading "the flock" down the wrong path. Ie, they come to their own justifications upon what is necessary, even if to do such acts is clearly counter to the word of God.
While that can certainly be true, one need not be a hypocrite to expound upon beliefs that one does not follow. You see, in their own eyes there is "the higher virtue"--see the 0th law in Asimov's 3 laws of robotics for a similar idea--that can be used to justify the "self-sacrifice" of damnation for the greater good. Now, that doesn't mean that the person can't also be doing it for their own power mongering. It's just not as clear as arguing that the two are truly separate and it's all for show.
The "best" kind are the ones who seem to believe bad things will happen anyways, eg Job. Certainly, I can't recall hearing them stop for a second to expound upon all the praise now that they're elected or that things are going good and the evidence is all the gay marriages or something. :) It's one place I can see parallels with some AGW proponents who are more devote to the cause than to reality. Thankfully, we don't have to rely upon them to know the truth nor are they basis for what we know. Still, if you want to have some fun, there's nothing quite as enjoyable as joining a random hate group and shouting along and then changing your mind and chanting something other than the party line. Just be sure to have your escape route planned. :)
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
As much as the current form of democracy isn't working too well (turning into police states), the problem with monarchy is it pretty much was a police state. So, we'd be trading one system of oppression back to another one we got rid of because we didn't like its system of oppression. Maybe these 'geeks' need to try thinking forward rather than backwards. A way to guarantee less oppression and more freedom would be good.
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
Faced with the eloquence of parent post, I find that there is nothing I can possibly say to argue this any further.
Thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point.
Will
Govt doesn't need our taxes. Govt can PRINT dollars.
Govt is imposing taxes only to keep us SUBSERVIENT.
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws." --Rothschild in 1744.
Casteism
They have reserve powers that they can in theory use any time, but in practice can only use in the gravest constitutional emergency. Think of them as the Supreme Court with teeth. If the Queen uses her reserve powers without reason, there'll be a republic by the end of the week.
The oppression fantasy is a self-fulfilling claim. A person with a hammer eventually sees nails everywhere. Also, the wage gap has been debunked ad nauseam, perception of your ability doesn't take that ability away, your bitter entitled female-privileged attitude as displayed in this post probably doesn't serve you well when you want a raise or promotion, and please learn the difference between except and accept (do you realize how severely that mistake changed the meaning of what you said?)
It would also help if you had noticed that my post was not pejorative towards feminazis so much as commentary on what would certainly happen if someone were to try to shove some form of mass traditionalism down society's throat.
Probably autocorrect. The perils of mobile browsing?
I've lived/worked in US/EU/Japan. IMO https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy is better due to the proliferation of cell phones/internet/tv channels/print/electronic media.
Casteism
power corrupts people and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
powerful people should volunteer to 24x7 surveillance.
Casteism