Will monarchy ever make a comeback?what about aristocracy?
>>6368296
no too many people. too many damn people
malthus means control at a billion
7 billion means power to the people
btw im reading segur's book on napoleon's russian campaign
motherfucker gained a lot of weight
>>6368317
but we all know that ever more people means democracy cannot possibly work. so most alternatives are going to be authoritarian to some extent
posting random monarchs
>fucking monarchism
>>6368296
We already have an aristocracy with the upper crust of rich people growing more rich and more involved in politics every year and everyone else stagnating or getting poorer.
Our world spirit is far past monarchy. Unless we someone regress it seems very unlikely
>>6368347
>alternatives are going to be authoritarian to some extent
Authoritarian Capitalism in the vein of SE Asian countries is probably more likely than any true monarchy esp. any hereditary monarchy
>>6368446
>unless we somehow recover it seems very unlikely
FTFY
pinnacle of our existence has previously been possible only under monarchy or aristocracy
every golden age has this in common
>>6368512
Every golden age happened in the past because it occured in the past.
There are ten times as many fucking Pyramid analogs now. We have fucking sky scrapers.
And who exactly built the Pyramids? It wasn't the fucking Pharaohs, it was the laborers who built them, same with every tower and every office building and every highway.
Monarchism was our first attempt to understand society, nothing more.
>>6368446
>Our world spirit is far past monarchy.
Then why have we allowed the creation of something that is "aristocracy" in everything except name, and has far more power than aristocrats ever did?
>>6368528
lel you poor simpleton
you honestly think anything we've built today will be around for a fraction of the time the pyramids as Giza have? you think any structure made in the past 20 years will ever be as iconic as the Colosseum?
think about it for a moment. the only monument, the only proof we have that those Egyptian slaves and masons ever even existed is the very thing you see above. their labor has immortalized them, right alongside their Pharaoh and their gods.
that is the beauty of concentrated power. it allows you to direct the destinies of countless lesser wights and forge their lives into everlasting clay. it allows you to focus the combined energy of the multitude into a single enduring point.
imagine if there were no great monuments. imagine if those slaves had done as they pleased instead, and frittered their lives away. would there be even a single trace extant of their existence?
>>6368436
It absolutely blows my mind that anyone could be so unscholarly as to believe enlightenment spooks in this day and age. Yet you mock the Christians on this board for there spooks to feel superior lel
>>6368546
The material that made the Pyramids of Giza and the Colosseum being material that lasts isn't because of fucking ideology it's because the material is fucking not what we use today.
What are you even saying?
>>6368546
The modern pharaohs don't want a pyramid. They want nice interchangeable mansions. The rest of the slaves in their comfy tiers can have lesser things. Planned obsolescence feeds their capitalists religion.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You are the simpleton.
>>6368554
I'm saying that without authority figures to direct and control the lives of lesser persons, there can be no enduring monuments of any kind whatever. An entire age perishes without a trace when it has no monuments, no recorded history, no celebrated works. Completely effaced in death, like animals. In order for men to become something more, to aspire to a higher purpose, they must have both inspiration and compulsion. Only the monarch can provide that. When a man lives only for himself, the world retains no memory of him, nor can he be a paragon for future generations.
>>6368570
please don't bore me with your economic-minded claptrap. we are debating far loftier matters here.
>>6368574
>When a man lives only for himself, the world retains no memory of him, nor can he be a paragon for future generations.
I can't wait until your mystical nationalism phase is over and you'll be forced to look at your own writings like these and cringe
>>6368586
Monarchy predates any of the economic models in use today. Ergo, your arguments are irrelevant to the matter at hand.
You're not even cogent.
>>6368574
That's not true at all. People existed in actual Communist societies, it's just been since the Neolithic it's happened.
There's no reason at this point in time Monarchy should be anyone's end goal that's fucking ridiculous. It's every negative aspect of The State rolled into one.
>>6368593
Do you have a job or do you just spend all day on /lit/?
>>6368582
I don't see how I could ever be ashamed of the truth, however it may be expressed.
There are two kinds of legacies. One involves making children and hoping they fare well in life.
The other is more complicated.
>>6368574
books are kind of like enduring monuments
>>6368606
Indeed. But they are dependent on the goodwill and patronage of others to endure. A book that no one ever reads might just as well not exist.
>>6368592
Ah, I see now. You have your head so far up your ass that you weren't being "cogent" enough.
You're offended that I would compare the wealthy elite families of today with the wealthy elite families of yesteryear. Are you a god fearing man, anon?
>>6368597
I don't have work on Mondays, I'm depressed, and today I decided I wanted to get into discussion.
>>6368628
I'm saying it's nonsensical to compare them. Today's wealthy families only wield political and judicial power by association, and then, only very feebly. They're nothing like the royal lines of yore. Haven't you heard of divine right of kings? The monarch is the law, he is the light. These money-hoarding kikes that consider themselves 'elites' in modern society are nothing in comparison.
Yes.
Commiefags think their worker revolution shit will win out from the ashes of collapse.
But it'll monarchy or at least something close to it. It's always been.
>>6368676
Speak English
>>6368554
You are fucking the worst fucking poster I've seen in quite some time, please leave with your retarded fucking fucking liberal opinions
>>6368574
Why is leaving evidence of your existence behind desirable to you?
>>6368681
Do you?
>All these fucking monarchist dipshits would probably be moronic enough to forget about the problem with preventing far far far far future generations from getting into isolated radioactive areas.
>And if they considered it, they would probably go the way of building a giant fucking monument on top of it to try and signify their terrible might that would just attract people to their doom
>>6368695
>But it'll monarchy or at least something close to it. It's always been.
>actually saying the word commiefags
Speak English
>>6368684
Why would it not be?
I lived. I struggled. My existence counted for something. And here is the monument that proves it.
Nothing is more frightful than the idea of complete extinction. Most people have their children, and that is enough. But some of us desire more lasting legacies. Children die. They go astray. They often fail to propagate. Leaving your legacy in the hands of your children is leaving it to chance.
And if I die leaving nothing, how will I be of benefit to future generations? Will I have done anything for anyone else? Will I have affirmed the ascending line of life? Or just idled away a few trifling years, and then disappeared?
>>6368698
Can you just shut up and leave please? I'm not for monarchy in the least, but you're just a fucking embarrassment. I'm tired of seeing you feeding into every shitty left wing stereotype in threads and give fuel to people who I disagree with.
>>6368705
General economic worker-based leftist see the inevitable as their victory. It is not, it is monarchy, or authoritarianism of the basest historical kind.
>>6368714
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
>>6368714
Okay, great. But it is not your place, or the place of any monarch, to make that decision for other individuals.
You can leave a testament to your existence even in this relatively monarch-absent world.
>>6368716
Stop being a spaz and I'll consider it.
>>6368724
That doesn't make any sort of sense. There's nothing pointing towards Monarchy being anywhere in the near future
>>6368714
Apparently this is your average post, and is totally not embarrassing in the slightest.
>>6368739
>There's nothing pointing towards Monarchy being anywhere in the near future
You look to the past. Your predicted trends mean nothing in a world and species so chaotic.
>>6368296
Not in the near future, no. Plebs are too anti-traditionalist.
>>6368730
Passer-by, I am Cyrus, who gave the Persians an empire, and was king of Asia.
Grudge me not therefore this monument.
>>6368761
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124898
>Iran Plans on Destroying Tomb of King Cyrus
>>6368755
>You look to the past.
Pretty much everyone reasonable alive at this point looks to learn from the past. It's more likely they'll be either state marxism or state capitalism or some kind of national economy in the far future than monarchy.
Nobody is going to jump into Feudalism when it hasn't been seen for centuries in the civilized world.
>in a world and species so chaotic.
muh human nature
>>6368772
>2008
I'm sure they'll get around to it, right after they're finished blowing up the pyramids at Giza.
>>6368774
don't worry foucunt, they'll always be a place for people like you no matter what kind of world we live in.
somewhere down in the coal mines, most likely.
>>6368774
Possibly, assuming civilized trends continue. Nothing is set in stone or can be perfectly foresighted by man.
>>6368570
Anyone who doesn't want a pyramid isn't a pharaoh. We need better aristocrats.
>>6368787
How old are you?
>>6368798
You said to look to the past for trends and now suddenly everything isn't set in stone? The fact is, there are things in place culturally, socially, that could present a scenario of post-apocalyptic monarchy, but that would be isolated.
You'll eventually see the market over shadow the kingdom before the kingdom can do anything in that scenario.
>>6368802
No more aristocrats, please.
>>6368807
Old enough to know what a slave sounds like.
>>6368783
The title is sensationalistic. He's talking about the proposed Sivand Dam, which would flood many archeological sites in the region. It probably wouldn't submerge The Tomb of Cyrus the Great, but would raise humidity in the region and accelerate the destruction of the stone. Who knows when it will be completed, because they've been planning it for about a decade and a half now. The interesting point it raises is that whether or not a monument survives is more dependent on historical whim than the greatness or enduring power of it.
Had we allowed Penn Station to stand, would it be remembered a millennium from now?
>>6368645
>I'm saying it's nonsensical to compare them.
No, it's impertinent, you whimsical caricature.
>Haven't you heard of divine right of kings?
Which is why I asked if you were god fearing. Side step it. I don't care.
>These money-hoarding kikes that consider themselves 'elites' in modern society are nothing in comparison.
They're far more sinister. They rule a shadow empire far larger. I *know* the differences, ning-nong.
>Kike
Fucking pol-ist
>>6368809
So twelve?
>>6368815
>shadow empire
only polnigger here is you
>>6368807
I'm saying a predicted trend today is taking that the certain factors of the present that cannot be guaranteed to continue. In fact it can be guaranteed they wont.
The past is a trend already happened, and one we can observe. A society always gravitates towards authoritarianism, and almost always reverts to a non-left nature.
>>6368824
>A society always gravitates towards authoritarianism, and almost always reverts to a non-left nature.
Do you care to justify this sweeping claim?
>The past is a trend already happened, and one we can observe.
Are you familiar with the concept of black swans?
how stupid do you have to be to live in 2015 and seriously think that making monuments is worth doing
"hey guys did i mention that i'm insecure? no? okay well here's a big fucking building that says i was so afraid to die that i wasted millions of man-hours on making what amounts to a giant phallus"
>>6368811
of course. look what a bunch of filthy Turks and Venetians did to the Parthenon.
>>6368830
instead of that we just make small things incredibly expensive
>>6368824
>A society always gravitates towards authoritarianism
If there are people looking to take advantage of others in vulnerable positions and times because of the social tendencies in place, presumed necessity, arrogance, unknowing.
But for the most part, without the police, you'd have uprising after uprising, against that given societal subtext.
>>6368830
This. Even Spengler thought the Colosseum was tacky af.
>>6368802
>We need better aristocrats.
How about we elect everyone.
Sure we'll look rough around the edges at first, but our kids and theirs will be something close to real übermensch.
>>6368821
The wealthy run our world. It's very decentralized, and not "all de jewz". I haven't had more than a peep in /pol/ since it became /pol/.
>>6368829
Yeah, yeah, revisionism approaches. This is a tired out thing for me.
>>6368843
>yes. you got me. I am 12 years old, and evidently more highly educated then you.
You're adorable. *pinches your cheek tenderly, lovingly*
>>6368849
I don't understand what you mean by "revisionism approaches." Could you explain?
>>6368847
But their power-bases are highly diffuse and highly perishable. We live in the age of massive banking cartels and crony capitalism, but you can't really expect this sort of thing to go on indefinitely.
>>6368844
And what do you think those uprisings are going to result in? Surely the mass rabble will keep whatever their own goal in mind was with their own guidance.
>>6368852
Was Foucault as stupid as you? Because you should probably drop your trip if not.
Yes, once global capitalism morphs into neo feudalism we will see a new aristocratic golden age.
>>6368863
>And what do you think those uprisings are going to result in?
Plenty of death, and a whole lot of people asking why morons keep trying to build up cults and feudalism.
You'd more likely eventually meet people tired the fuck out of politics and ready to just deal with the situation and one another.
>>6368869
*scruffs your hair*
>>6368856
You don't read history, and bend its trends to your own.
>>6368838
okay good critique of consumerism chuck palahniuk
no one cares because quality of life is better
i'm not even a capitalist, i'm just a communist, but i didn't expect to encounter people willing to defend feudalism in 2015
>>6368878
Because rabble are certainly capable of smartening up, eh?
>>6368296
>posting a picture of the man that destroyed the legitimacy of "divine rule".
>>6368881
I certainly do read history. Could you explain to me how I'm adopting a revisionist approach?
>>6368878
On second thought keep the trip. I'll add you to my filter list, along with all the other Marxist clowns that pollute this board.
Enjoy your depression.
>>6368787
*shots fired*
>>6368862
>but you can't really expect this sort of thing to go on indefinitely.
I don't. Always hard to tell what could happen next with people.
But climate scientists projections are some indicator.
If we succumb to some breakout of Napolenism before the end... Well, they'll just say it was inevitable and unavoidable.
>>6368874
I knew it was you.
>>6368890
Yes. They are. Most socialist societies reported a literacy rate of 100%. That was before the theory was in place to improve upon it. These things won't likely just vanish when counter culture is very much alive.
It's more likely you'll see Syndicalism than Feudalism.
You'd see Mutual aid.
In these Feudal societies you'd see labor organization.
>>6368317
Probably due to stress eating. I can only imagine that disastrous campaign was just stressful.
>>6368909
we can only hope.
the only way I see us making any real progress is another terrible war, but it probably still wouldn't thin the population out enough
>>6368900
*slaps you*
What now bitch
>>6368912
>Most socialist societies reported a literacy rate of 100%
because we all know that state reports authored under socialist regimes are totally reliable, right?
>>6368918
*unsheathes Damascus steel katana folded over 10000 times*
>>6368512
>modern world
>not the greatest age
literally the internet, space travel, genetic engineering, retardedly efficient food production, mass media, and so on and so on
muh pile of rock is not very impressive in comparison
>>6368932
all so we can sit here shitposting on 4chin while eating hotpockets
I'll take antiquity over this disaster any day
>>6368922
America has a literacy rate of 99% at the moment, but not at the time. Given the state's resource placement towards health care and education, it isn't surprising. Pan-Africanists like Thomas Sankara; in his territory, while he had control of it, managed to complete a campaign, to immunize every person, within Burkina Faso, in I believe just several weeks, as well as reaching the same literacy success.
You have overwhelming positive results from Marxism, pretty much everywhere.
>Lets be monarchy
>I don't know, kings are cool, democracy sucks
You fucks really need to figure out how to sale this shit.
Its ok, I'm here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuL6T5Dc2LI
>>6368943
What would you do in antiquity aside from laboring all day under the hot sun, sleeping with prostitutes, and shitposting on the walls of your cities?
http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm
>>6368944
>You have overwhelming positive results from Marxism, pretty much everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes
>>6368952
I'd rather shitpost in Pompeii than on a Tibetan cartoon imageboard
>>6368946
>>6368976
Why?
>>6368971
The Soviet Union is not an example of what I'm speaking of. Besides the fact, the Dissolution disasters were the result of massive exploitation, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and mafia/KGB control. This was not the promise of Capitalism Reagan promised.
As for genocides, Stalin was mostly to blame. And the Soviets made terrible mistakes.
But what of the Western World itself? The death toll of Capitalism and its effects are astronomical. Far more than the Soviet Union when you look at it all from a distance.
I'm not even a State Socialist, I'm an anarchocommunist, so I can't attest to the Soviet Union, or any real State, either way.
>>6368981
because Vesuvius would have slapped my shit centuries ago
>>6368991
>I'm an anarchocommunist
And I'm a monarcaptialcentrohedonist.
nobody gives a fuck
how the fuck can you have communism without a state? communism IS the state made into the highest desideratum of all human existence.
I don't even like Hegel but that was his idea. he was full of shit, but at least it made sense
>>6368993
>A system for parasites both rich and poor.
You have to pick.
>>6369006
Fine, Ill tell you the truth.
Democracy is the concept of all property being publicly owned. Anyone can vote for the property of others.
Under monarchy, The king is a thief.
Under democracy, everyone is.
>>6369002
>how the fuck can you have communism without a state
It's pretty easy
>communism IS the state made into the highest desideratum of all human existence.
That is literally not what Communism is. Just because the Bolsheviks decided to stop calling thesmelves Bolsheviks and Socialists does not make the Soviet Union literally Communism.
Communism is the theoretical end result of Socialism, in which Socialism is the transitory State that dissolves. It is hard imagining a State dissolving, so anarchocommunists, Syndicalists, Mutualists, look for ways to bypass the State solution itself.
The American media, the media in general, has a hard time considering Communism to be outside of Government, because of the Bolsheviks, and decades of the term being used.
But Communism is an ideal, not a Government. It is what it sounds like, which is Community.
Marx theorized a state was necessary, and while being the consensus, there have been hundreds of takes off of it. Some being anarchist, and others being interpretations of it. You'd be hard pressed to find Trotsky agree with Stalin, for example. And because of Deng, China is hardly Maoist.
>>6368944
>You have overwhelming positive results from Marxism, pretty much everywhere.
Tell me more as I have to struggle surviving in this subpar economy of a certain Eastern European shithole. And the subpar economy is a direct result of your wondrous policies of the wisemen from the East, aka the Soviet Union.
>>6369029
That's all very well, but this supposed nirvana is not going to auto-generate. It would have to develop out of something and it's extremely hard to fathom something so elaborate coming into existence spontaneously out of the chaos of total disorder.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind it. Hell, I wouldn't mind it if I was the only living person left on this planet. But I don't see that happening. Nirvana is not for this world. Somebody will always come along and fuck it up.
>>6368993
>>6369026
>libertarian monarchists
literally the most pathetic shit on the entire site
>>6369035
Why is it so confusing that The Soviet Union had highs and lows, and that Communism, Socialism, Marxism, all mean a fuck of a lot and aren't just synonymous?
For the record, most people in Russia actually miss the Soviets, because they had better access to health care decades ago, and the fall lead tot total collapse of many utilities, and drug dealers and crime lords rushed in to take their place. It was terrible, worse even.
>>6369041
It isn't going to auto generate. You are correct.
We'd be hard pressed to find a good road to it. My advice is to read Kropotkin.
From The Conquest of Bread
"We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. This is what we mean when we talk of Expropriation..."
All that must occur is total insurrection towards any and all exploitation, and it should be easy getting there.
"Imagine a society, comprising a few million inhabitants, engaged in agriculture and a great variety of industries—Paris, for example, with the Department of Seine-et-Oise. Suppose that in this society all children learn to work with their hands as well as with their brains. Admit that all adults, save women, engaged in the education of their children, bind themselves to work 5 hours a day from the age of twenty or twenty-two to forty-five or fifty, and that they follow occupations they have chosen in any one branch of human work considered necessary. Such a society could in return guarantee well-being to all its members; that is to say, a more substantial well-being than that enjoyed to-day by the middle classes. And, moreover, each worker belonging to this society would have at his disposal at least 5 hours a day which he could devote to science, art, and individual needs which do not come under the category of necessities, but will probably do so later on, when man's productivity will have augmented, and those objects will no longer appear luxurious or inaccessible."
>>6368296
It should, but it'll be tough.
Democracy is based on the silly notion of people being able to make good decisions for themselves and everyone else.
This is incredibly easy to turn sour, by manipulating the people to think they want the inevitable oligarchy. Republics are little better. You'd have to severely strip back the voting class for it to work at all.
With a monarchy, the king has no reason not to do the best for his country. He already has enormous wealth, so no need to steal from the people (see Tsarist Russia switching to Communist Russia), and the nation's prosperity is his gift to his children, so they can have the best life possible, thus even selfishness is altruistic. Not to mention that they've been trained since birth to rule, in contrast to someone who just has to be popular enough to get the required votes, regardless of skills.
>>6369053
Literally.
As are the rest of us, ya dolt.
>>6369055
>"Imagine a society, comprising a few million inhabitants, engaged in agriculture and a great variety of industries—Paris, for example, with the Department of Seine-et-Oise. Suppose that in this society all children learn to work with their hands as well as with their brains. Admit that all adults, save women, engaged in the education of their children, bind themselves to work 5 hours a day from the age of twenty or twenty-two to forty-five or fifty, and that they follow occupations they have chosen in any one branch of human work considered necessary. Such a society could in return guarantee well-being to all its members; that is to say, a more substantial well-being than that enjoyed to-day by the middle classes. And, moreover, each worker belonging to this society would have at his disposal at least 5 hours a day which he could devote to science, art, and individual needs which do not come under the category of necessities, but will probably do so later on, when man's productivity will have augmented, and those objects will no longer appear luxurious or inaccessible."
what happens Achmed and his thugs decide to invade?
>>6368546
The Colosseum was meaningless, empty, artificial, and pretentious.
>>6369071
Read excerpt before.
"We do not want to rob any one of his coat, but we wish to give to the workers all those things the lack of which makes them fall an easy prey to the exploiter, and we will do our utmost that none shall lack aught, that not a single man shall be forced to sell the strength of his right arm to obtain a bare subsistence for himself and his babes. This is what we mean when we talk of Expropriation..."
That literally just means there would be a militia involved that would take care of violent means. As well as militant opposition to exploitation, even after let's say, sudden Islamic-Reactionary-Invasion, you'd be hard pressed to let your labor be taken.
You see this with the Kurds today, actually.
>>6369077
still outlasted the twin towers m8
>>6369071
>each worker belonging to this society would have at his disposal at least 5 hours a day which he could devote to science, art, and individual needs which do not come under the category of necessities
Most people who work 40 hour weeks have around 4-6 hours of free time every day. and what do they do with it? sit around getting fat, watching TV, or piss away time on instagram.
you can make a better world overnight, but you can't breed a better species so easily.
>whole board rooting for monarchy and aristocracy
>butterfly and Foucault shitting it up with Marx and irrelevant modern analogies
>they see history in the narrative of economic & democratic progress
>calls rest of the board simpletons, dolts, children
>literally wasted energy typing this
>can't talk about the eternal & the heroic
Please stop and just read the other posts for a little while.
>>6369096
>you can make a better world overnight, but you can't breed a better species so easily.
The point of a society is protection, not the vague idea of "breeding a better species" What ever the fuck that means
>>6369087
I suppose you consider Charles de Gaulle a greater man than your hero Hitler because he outlasted him?
>>6369101
>whole board rooting for monarchy and aristocracy
I doubt it's the whole board.
>>6369101
didn't odin only have one eye, since he gave the other for the knowledge of everything?
>>6369087
Only because the Pharaohs never decided to demolish them.
>all these college socialist spooks on /lit/
pls go
>>6369105
de Gaulle went and hit in the woods until the war was over. he was a punk bitch
and Hitler didn't die in Berlin. That's an old piece of allied propaganda
>>6369101
>the eternal & the heroic
Those are the essence of childish make believe. It's darling how kids posit perennial meaning where none exist.
>>6369122
>all these college socialist spooks on /lit/
I'm not college educated, but I am self educated.
>>6369127
go back to shitposting on your private blog you insect
>>6369126
still outlasted Hitler m8
>>6369129
that dude's got a tiny penis
>>6369102
The point is no matter how good your society and its institutions are, the human race will still be shit and do the same shitty things.
give people more freedom and opportunity and most of them will squander it
>>6369133
you would fixate on that you immunodeficient queer
>>6369137
>the human race will still be shit and do the same shitty things.
Who cares? People are something worth protecting. They're not ideals to be molded into a perfect conception. As long as there is an ideal, there is reason to exploit someone who cannot fit it.
There are plenty of people capable of being your ideal human being, but not everyone is. Being ignorant shouldn't be a death sentence, having a low IQ shouldn't be a death sentence, being disabled shouldn't be a death sentence. Nobody deserves poverty while others make bounty on our own hypothetical value.
Nobody deserves poverty. That includes you, I, your parents, and your friends. If anything, the system in place to throw everyone to the wolves and try and find meaning is the maddening conception of what is wrong with humanity you are trying to convey.
>>6369143
Hey now
>>6369129
eeesh , get a load of that insipid Caravaggism and dry gaze, that's what happens when cheap hacks cheat and use photography because of the Jacobins killed off all the actual talent in France. Achilles' Wrath is reduced to being jostled on a tram, what a joke. You just like it because it's old. The grass is always greener where you can't prove it isn't.
>>6369127
>literally the entire Western Canon in antiquity
>childish make believe
Did you start/end/currently read the Greeks?
The Iliad was about the eternal and the heroic bro.
>>6369177
You misread Hesiod, naive.
/lit/ cannot into nobility
too much >muh labor, muh workers party
>>6368922
Actually they did. The bad thing is that that's makes education worse in the long term.
>>6368774
>in a world and species so chaotic
you claim a knowledge of history and you debate this?
>>6369565
Oh ye of little brain.
>>6369565
There does need to be consideration for the workers, and all classes really. The trouble is when people start to think of themselves as invaluable, and that they deserve more than they really do.
>>6369149
>deserve
P U R E I D E O L O G Y
>>6369177
The Homeric age was the childhood of the west. It's called antiquity for a reason.
I wouldn't use the term "bro" around so loosely.
>>6369122
Was he a robot?
We won't get monarchies, but we'll definitely get Chinese style authoritarian capitalism with a ruling party elite that resembles an aristocracy.
>>6368296
Over my dead body.
>>6368296
One party states may act as an effective monarchy. Take China's Xi and Singapore's Tan for two examples of this. While these simulacrums of Monarchs aren't revered as appointed by god in the traditional sense a Royal family would, dictatorship of merit is replacing monarchy, which is better for the political, long-term economic, and cultural growth of these nations.
Hopefully we get some of it over here in Europe too.
Would you rather have the worst democracy or the best tyranny ?
>>6369852
>pic related
;^)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>>6369621
>There does need to be consideration for the workers, and all classes really.
No there doesn't
>>6370516
There does if you want shit done.
>>6370522
>There does if you want shit done.
Not even.
pic related
>>6369050
You mean the most patrician people in the world.
>>6370536
Exactly. If they hadn't paid their workers what was due, shit like that wouldn't have been built.
>>6370542
libertarian is Austrian economics which is born of the enlightenment
Nothing post enlightenment is patrician
>>6370558
Very intelligent comment, thank you for that.
>>6370563
you're welcome
>>6368574
Oh man, I better start piling up rocks because some twat on /lit/ will think I have not achieved anything otherwise.
>>6368512
M8 we are living in a golden age right now. Maybe the golden age of golden ages if WW3 comes soon
>>6368730
The poem was written as England was busy looting Egypt, and the poem itself inspired directly by a gigantic statue of Ramses II getting shipped to England for display, with a similar phrase to the famous “look on my works” carved upon it. From this perspective, the poem is not just revealing the irony, but mocking those who put it on display without seeing that it equally applies to them. Ha! Silly ancients thought they were so powerful, let us display the monument of their shortsightedness in our mighty capital that will surely last forever.
Cool side-story
If we have a monarchy does that mean we have a king? I know there are many flavours of monarchy. Do all of them center around a person or group?
If so, these persons should have more power than other persons.
1) this leads to shitty power struggles that the masses have less control over
2) more powers = making regulations and laws.
so this means we can't get a good, fair justice system (in comparison to the one we have in a democracy which is fair-ish) AT ALL with a monarchy because the king's word is the law. He'd need to delegate and it would be endless bullshit.
>>6370615
>If we have a monarchy does that mean we have a king? I know there are many flavours of monarchy. Do all of them center around a person or group?
Yes
>1) this leads to shitty power struggles that the masses have less control over
What power struggles? there are more under democracy than there were under monarchy.
Also 'the masses' having control over things is not a good thing.
>2) more powers = making regulations and laws.
not necessarily Singapore's government has more power over its people than the US and the laws are not as numerous
>so this means we can't get a good, fair justice system
False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.
>in comparison to the one we have in a democracy which is fair-ish
I'd like to see any concrete evidence of this
>AT ALL with a monarchy because the king's word is the law. He'd need to delegate and it would be endless bullshit.
except this happens in governments that are out of the will of the people, fascism, socialism not monarchy etc.
>>6370554
>Exactly. If they hadn't paid their workers what was due, shit like that wouldn't have been built.
lol
so slavery :^)
>>6370645
The pyramids weren't built by slaves, whizkid.
And if you keep people oppressed for too long, it reduces their usefulness, and thus is a failing to the oppressors.
Better to have them content and working for you, than forcing them against their will to do so, whereon they would seek to undermine it.
>>6370645
Free farmers not slaves built the pyramids
>>6370638
>more power struggles under democracy than monarchy
>>6368599
Julius Evola, is that you?
>>6370654
>The pyramids weren't built by slaves,
lol
>this is what leftists actually believe
>And if you keep people oppressed for too long, it reduces their usefulness, and thus is a failing to the oppressors
sorry i no longer acknowledge marxist terminology use something other than buzzwords
>Better to have them content and working for you, than forcing them against their will to do so, whereon they would seek to undermine it.
slippery slope fallacy
>>6368296
>Will monarchy ever make a comeback?
it is planned my child
Who will be our king, then our tyrant ?
what will be his fall ?
>Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order: 1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy.
>According to Polybius' elaboration of the theory, the state begins in a form of primitive monarchy. The state will emerge from monarchy under the leadership of an influential and wise king; this represents the emergence of "kingship". Political power will pass by hereditary succession to the children of the king, who will abuse their authority for their own gain; this represents the degeneration of kingship into "tyranny".
>Some of the more influential and powerful men of the state will grow weary of the abuses of tyrants, and will overthrow them; this represents the ascendancy of "aristocracy" (as well as the end of the "rule by the one" and the beginning of the "rule by the few").
>Just as the descendants of kings, however, political influence will pass to the descendants of the aristocrats, and these descendants will begin to abuse their power and influence, as the tyrants before them; this represents the decline of aristocracy and the beginning of "oligarchy". As Polybius explains, the people will by this stage in the political evolution of the state decide to take political matters into their own hands.
>This point of the cycle sees the emergence of "democracy", as well as the beginning of "rule by the many". In the same way that the descendants of kings and aristocrats abused their political status, so too will the descendants of democrats. Accordingly, democracy degenerates into "ochlocracy", literally, "mob-rule". During ochlocracy, according to Polybius, the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues.
>Eventually, the state will be engulfed in chaos, and the competing claims of demagogues will culminate in a single (sometimes virtuous) demagogue claiming absolute power, bringing the state full-circle back to monarchy.
>>6370656
>more power struggles under democracy than monarchy
under democracy we see more power struggles such as: racism, sexism, gays and other cultural marxism which did not exist under monarchy
>>6370655
Skilled labourers more than just farmers.
>>6370656
>What is every election?
>>6370663
You're kidding, right? No one actually believes the myth of slaves building the pyramids? I refuse to accept that anyone has consumed that much Jewish kool-aid.
And fine, if you're going to be a petulant child about it: Slaves rebel. They have nothing to lose. There is no reason for a slave to not fuck up your day, because they can live in miserable servitude or die, and you can only cower people so much on a very thin tightrope.
Compare the farmers of the Soviet Union, who preferred to burn their crops and slaughter their livestock than submit to the Bolshevik tyrants, to modern workers who are doted upon with luxuries.
>>6370666
This guy is making sense
>>6368772
> israelnationalnews.com
>>6370536
You know the Egyptians actually had Labor consideration and the idea the Pyramids were built by slaves is basically a myth right?
Evola shut the fuck up
Monarchism is the only ideology where I can't tell who's being serious and who's joking. I'm glad it has no relevance anywhere outside of fringe websites.
>>6370885
You are aware that your favorite nordic Welfare States countries have a Monarch, right?
>>6370891
You have seen the Middle East, right?
>>6368546
>lel you poor simpleton
He's the first trip I've genuinely considered filtering.
>>6370891
I don't have any favorite Nordic states. I hate states. States are annoying.
>>6368645
>these money-hoarding kikes
I was with you up to there, mang. Just say "banksters", you come off less ignorant but everyone knows who you're talking about.
>>6370903
Then stop complaining and do it.
>>6370898
Monarchial Welfare States also. Probably the best Islam can do. Too bad the murrican wanted to export Democracy and ruin those countries or just give them over to ISIS.
Foucalt, Butterfly, and EvolaKid all in one thread.
>>6368437
It is called an oligarchy
>>6370913
The poverty in those countries compared to the riches of the royal families make it hard to refer to them as welfare states.
>>6370915
>>6370885
>Monarchism is the only ideology where I can't tell who's being serious and who's joking. I'm glad it has no relevance anywhere outside of fringe websites.
the advantage of the monarchy is that it can be defeated, once you kill the king
the default of the democracy, is that you cannot kill it, thereby you must bear the current ideology and you remain powerless to change it.
>>6370933
It doesn't matter. Those monarchies increased education and health levels. Also Kultur should not be sacrificed for equality of income. Your own parliament probably thinks itself fair or some shit also and lets not kid ourself, it probably ain't.
>>6371036
>Those monarchies increased education and health levels
You know what else increases education and health levels
>>6368512
If you read herodotus you would know that the suffering of the people under the time of the pyramids had become a civilization wide memory
>>6371058
Shut up dumbass western-centric idiot. Those arab monarchies were mostly allies to us Soviets and had the same know-how. It still stands that they were monarchies, religious ones even. Even the capitalist alligned ones like Saudi Arabia were same type of Welfare State monarchies.
>>6371093
I was just pointing it out..........You know the Soviets aren't the be all end all of Marxism, correct?
>>6368296
It never went away. And this also goes for aristocracy.
Only the pomp did.
>>6370954
You can easily defeat democracy
>suspend constitution
>dissolve parliament
>no new elections
>>6369128
Go make me a coffee.
>>6369852
>china
>culture
>>6370666
Fourth Reich when?
>>6370861
>You know the Egyptians actually had Labor consideration and the idea the Pyramids were built by slaves is basically a myth right?
this is not true
>>6371564
>>6371564
At least back it up with some facts :^)
>>6371564
EvolaKid, you're a clown:
http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html
>>6371610
no you're a clown
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/03/maybe-the-egyptian-pyramids-werent-built-by-union-workers-after-all
>>6371631
On a scale of 1-10 how fuckable is moldbug?
>>6370668
>racism, sexism, ze gays
>did not exist under monarchy
considering filtering
>>6371642
reported/10
>>6371657
YES MOLDBUG YES MOLDBUG! MOLDBUG I'M GETTING REDPILLED!
>>6371631
Yeah bud, I'll take the conjecture (based on no archeological evidence)of a humanities professor from Villanova over the physical excavations and faunal analysis of Wetterstrom, Lehner, and Renning.
You obviously didn't read the article I gave you, because its conclusions aren't drawn from the work of Dr. Zahi Hawss.
Also,
>Ancient sources unanimously claim that the pyramids and Egypt’s grand construction projects were carried out by slave labor. The Greek historian Herodotus ( Histories 2.124) was told by Egyptian officials that 100,000 Egyptians (probably a number exaggerated to impress him) were forced by Cheops or Khufu to build his great pyramid in Giza. The Book of Exodus shows the Hebrews as slaves making bricks (though does not mention pyramids), and the ancient Jewish historian Josephus ( Antiquities , 2.9) makes the explicit claim that they did work as pyramid builders. These were all written over 1000 years after the fact.
>These were all written over 1000 years after the fact.
Yep, I'll base my conclusions on thousand year old hearsay instead of physical evidence.
>>6371695
clown
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/03/maybe-the-egyptian-pyramids-werent-built-by-union-workers-after-all
>>6371758
That's the exact same blurb you sent me before. You're astoundingly stupid. How do you reconcile the laborers being fed prime cattle meat, bread, and fish in great amounts with them being slaves?
>>6371758
nydwracu?
This thread went to shit in a hurry
I forgot why I hated trips, but then I read this thread.
Tripfags please go
>>6372964
hijacking this thread to ask, were we mentioned on reddit or something? why are there so many shitty tripfags these past few days
>focault
>evolakid
>shitposter
there are more but this place smells like reddit
>>6372965
They'll get bored and leave soon. Foucault is due to hang himself any day now
>>6368296
i hope not
unless i luck out and end up a nobleman
Fuck that, I thought Marx put an end to it once and for all
>>6370915
And then there's this idiot.
Go back to /b/, assnon.
Leave to anonymous to ruin a thread with his shit-posting and ugly-fat-people folder.
>>6373055
not even if you rolled nobility?
i fucking hate working
>>6373047
For some reason, I think that girl will grow up to become so fucking beautiful, in a non-lusty way. Like a hard-working, "traditional" gal
>>6373070
I bet you didn't even read the filename
>>6370638
What I meant to say by
>2) more powers = making regulations and laws.
Is that if you have all the power then you make the laws, and laws are guidelines which are meant to be applied to every situations.
So a single authority cannot rule fairly, because he has to make laws, but these laws aren't really good (understand "good" as: the same always).
>>6373055
the enlightenment and rise of bourgeois society put an end to it
>>6374852
>So a single authority cannot rule fairly, because he has to make laws, but these laws aren't really good (understand "good" as: the same always).
Why is this meant to be just something we accept?
>>6373123
once a whore, always a whore
>>6371547
There has been a growth of westernizing culture in China - Meritocracy as opposed to Confucian ideals of the past.
>>6374870
Do you accept that your husband (cause we all know you gay) will be decapitated for sneezing in the king's face, but the nobleman who killed seven peasants with a spade gets to go free?
And here I'm choosing crimes which aren't the same. There will always be poor people and rich people, and if only one person makes the law:
1) he can't be everywhere, so he has to delegate, and you get lots of little tyrants and cock-sucking for favours (I view this as a bad thing)
2) when the king IS there to make justice:
2) a) that's not his primary function so he might not have any idea what he his doing
2) b) he may judge the same crime differently
Of course, this argument only stands when the king has absolute majority. If there is an Assembly or a thing to restrain the king's power, it might be manageable, but then what's the point of even having a king?
Sorry if this was confused.
>>6374899
You're still basing this off the monarch only being a dick, and misjudging the tasks of the monarch. Of course he has to delegate, and the monarch isn't the entirety of the judicial system.
Your complaints are equal to the public plumbing system being not up to par because the king had to delegate to actual plumbers, rather than do it himself, even if he doesn't know how.
Also don't understand this complaint
>and you get lots of little tyrants and cock-sucking for favours
Why would that be the case when judges operated under monarchs for many centuries, and under non-monarchical systems?
>>6374921
I don't know the right words to explain this, so here goes imagination.
There's a big pile of cups stacked on one another in a way that when a glass is full the liquid flows into glasses below.
Someone comes and begins filling the glass that sits at the top, alone.
When the glass overflows, it fills the three glasses underneath, and so on.
The liquid is power. In a monarchy like the french monarchy all the power comes from God (the man with the bottle) who gives it to the king (the first glass) who then distributes it as favours to the other people, starting with the rich, the aristocrat and the powerful.
The power that is trickling down can be anything: money, tax exemptions, or an "office": to become a judge, general, member of the administration, whatever.
(Keep in mind that I know mainly of monarchy by the french monarchy).
"Offices" are bought from the king, and the king requires a tax when they are sold to antoher person: his presence is felt in the passation of power. And when that power is the power to judge, you can have no fair trial. Because it's only a matter of money to the judge: every relationship in a monarchy is economical, you give something to get something. A monarchy is made of relation that are "mano a mano", from man to man. The administration can only be disrupted by that bothersome imprevisible factor, the king's power.
Again, this is only the french monarchy that I know of, and I might be wrong; I think the appeal for the monarchy is much like a champaigne fountain: you clearly see power flowing down the glasses, you see bubbles and things happenning, but you forget the bottom glasses. The democracy is ten thousand glasses each filled up to a third of their capacity with weak wine. Boring, but fair.
>>6370676
An election is a controlled, open power struggle where every party gets his time to speak.
>>6374954
>In a monarchy like the french monarchy all the power comes from God
First mistake. The power comes from the people, without exception. Their claim to rule, in the French system at least, was usually divine mandate, but they all knew it was control of the military and popular support.
Anyway, what I think your argument is, is that official positions are purchased under the old French system, similar to the English purchasing commissions in the army, and because of that the wealthy are unfairly represented.
The obvious solution is to just switch it to have them earned via education, like most countries now. This isn't actually a concern restricted to the monarchy anyway.
>>6374972
Well, they're meant to.
>>6374992
But then would the king be selected in such a way? Would there be a king exam, and if you were the best you would be a king?
Or is there only violence to start the monarchy?
What about the passation of power between the kings? The king's family would have an advantage in the case of the "king exam".
I want to know, are you a monarchist? I can't really understand how and why.
>>6368830
you are mediocre and want all of mankind to be as mediocre as you are. Kil yourself, slave
>>6371372
>>You can easily defeat democracy
>
>>suspend constitution
>>dissolve parliament
>>no new elections
only once you gain power, and to move to a new system
democracy is the lowest of the low, with the aristocracy the best, before the monarchy from >>6370666
>>6368631
>I'm depressed
GOOD, kill yourself soon worthless unfunny subhuman chandala
>>6375025
Violence would be the easiest, followed by popular support. Omelet/eggs, etc.
And the heir would indeed have kind of an exam, but less like that. They'd be trained from birth to lead the nation. Competition would be eliminated, and thus prosperity be the only goal, not attaining or retaining power.
Of course I'm a monarchist. It's the most logical and efficient system of governance.
>>6375073
Redpilled by Moldbug
All governments have a monarch and aristocracy, they just give them different names.
In a western democracy the monarch is called president or prime minister, and the aristocrats are called rich people. Yes you can vote, but you will always end up voting for candidates chosen by the aristocracy..
Similarly, even under a monarchy, the king only rules by the consent of his vassals. If he does not keep them happy, he'll be disposed. Similarly, the nobility have to keep the peasantry in mind if they don't want to deal with a revolt.
The idea of a king as an unquestioned ruler who can devote all his energy to running his kingdom without having to defend his position is just as romantically false as the idea of a democracy where the people have a political voice.
Almost all human governments have followed the pattern of a single charismatic figurehead, a collection of warriors or aristocrats who dictate politics according to their personal or collective interests, and a large underclass with very little power. You, me, and everyone on this website are the latter.
Some governments have a stronger figurehead who can play his aristocrats against each other, (An effective Dictatorship) while other governments have a larger aristocracy which is closer to the people (A democratic Republic). But most governments fall somewhere in the middle.
>>6375242
Another reason, among many reasons, why the state must also leave.
>>6375245
Why? It'd just be a brief period of chaos before another state forms.
What about a superhuman computer cyborg created to rule us?
>>6375247
>he thinks the power of mutual aid is useless
>he thinks that exploitation is inevitable, therefore, should be mindlessly accepted without question, why it occurs
>he thinks that the drive of all people towards a more free world, throughout history and time, is not evident that man desires to rule himself and not be put under the restrictions of state and economy and finance
Tell me, how was your intro to politics class, son?
>>6375260
>He thinks exploitation isn't inevitable
Tell me, philosophy minor, why states formed in the first place if your system is much better?
I'd rather a king than a gang of thugs which votes that right is wrong and up is down every even day, and then murders itself every odd day.
>>6375265
>philosophy minor
He's a depressed hikki, the fucker can't even pay for his education.
>>6375265
States formed as a result of the first need for organized society. In the mid/late Neolithic, societies were mostly agricultural communistic. Aside from your marauders, thieves, etc. But, it was within the next several thousand years that states started to develop, and man has never really looked back, except for few occasions.
States are a very blunt, organized way of dealing with the question of other humans, and is totally and utterly primitive. Economy is only next after State, that is created to manage.
Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behavior, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force.
In this sense the word State means government, or to put it another way, it is the impersonal, abstract expression of that state of affairs, personified by government: and therefore the term abolition of the State, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express of the destruction of all political order based on authority.
You're out of your element
>>6375271
Redpilled
>>6375291
>the fucker can't even pay for his education.
You can't even get a job
>>6375293
The last part is an excerpt from an essay by Malatesta, clarifying things, what Anarchists mean by state.
>>6375296
unfortunately for you i'm currently studying for my bachelor :^)
What insane Ideologies drive you to support monarchy
>>6375304
wow so you spend your free time on 4chan talking about how you wish monarchy was back.
>>6375291
Ah, that makes even more sense.
>>6375293
>Dat cognitive dissonance
You acknowledge that states are a way of dealing with everyone, but don't understand that it's inevitable?
When two or more people agree or disagree, you have the makings of government. There is literally no way to have society without government in some form.
You also don't seem to get where authority comes from; society.
>>6375293
Yeah, only a neo-reactionary fedoralord could find any fault with The Terror
>>6375311
You are a literal fucking monarchist in 2015, why are you talking down to me? Besides I have two fucking jobs I have to go through to pay for a flat, and an education. If anything you're projecting hard, you're NEET Monarchists and Dark Enlightenment dumbshits how nothing they ever say has political relevance.
>You also don't seem to get where authority comes from; society.
Have you ever opened up a book? On anything?
Aside from that, what are you majoring in?
>>6375319
Trusting 4chan of all places to influence you politically would make anyone so inept, true.
>>6375309
I wasn't even participating in the threads. You're sure butthurt though.
