AMA: An angry, reactionary, backwards-thinking monarchist

Author: triangle.128k ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 30
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    Following the trend because why the heck not
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @triangle.128k
    What entitles the fascist fucks at the top of your type of society to stay at the top?
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @RationalMadman
    I don't really consider myself to be a Fascist anymore, so nothing. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @triangle.128k
    I repeat, what entitles the Rotschilds or whatever your Crest represents as the rightful overlords to remain Totalitarian dictators?
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @RationalMadman
    I don't want any modern corporate or banking elite to rule as a dictator, I want a man of the people to rule as a dictator or Monarch. 
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @triangle.128k
    If he is a man of the people does he need to dictate?
  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @triangle.128k
    You've abandoned fascism? Unexpected.
  • bsh1
    bsh1 avatar
    Debates: 14
    Forum posts: 2,589
    5
    5
    8
    bsh1 avatar
    bsh1
    Who are the three people you admire most, living or dead? What three world leaders, living or dead, have done the best jobs leading their countries? Why Monarchism?
  • Wylted
    Wylted avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 2,603
    3
    4
    9
    Wylted avatar
    Wylted
    I'll answer for him. Top 3 leaders, Hitler, Donald Trump and Julius Caesar.
  • Vaarka
    Vaarka avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 695
    2
    1
    5
    Vaarka avatar
    Vaarka
    --> @triangle.128k
    rule over me you sexy monarch
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @Vaarka
    Off with your head
  • Swagnarok
    Swagnarok avatar
    Debates: 3
    Forum posts: 687
    2
    2
    5
    Swagnarok avatar
    Swagnarok
    Who designed that awesome flag?
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @bsh1
    Who are the three people you admire most, living or dead? What three world leaders, living or dead, have done the best jobs leading their countries?
    Hmm, not sure if I can select a top three people throughout all of history (though Justinian does come to mind)... However if we're talking about world leaders currently alive today, I could do that. In that case, I'd probably have to go with Viktor Orban, Vladimir Putin, and Bolsonaro.

    If we're talking about the 20th century, I'd have to go with Antonio Salazar, Francisco Franco, and Chiang Kai Shek. 

    Why Monarchism?
    There's an endless amount of reasons I can name with democracy and the superiority of a despotic system. 

    To start, Democracy relies on a pacified form of mob rule. It involves many uninformed masses, many of whom can not name the three branches of government, to decide the fate of a country. I do not have faith in the masses to preserve an effective democratic system. They can me easily misled, may often vote on emotion, and so forth. I recall that Plato's talked quite a bit about this, and all of it seems to hold true today. The Founding Fathers recognized the flaws of a Republic where the people are misinformed, and have talked quite a bit about preserving the Republic through educating the masses to uphold morality and be informed about the process. However, this is a difficult task in the long run and its benefits are unnecessary - if existent at all. 

    Moreover, the entire system in general is a mess. It leads to an unnecessary amount of time in the decision making process, leading to a great deal of inefficiency. Monarchies are far more stable and efficient. One may cite the flaw of monarchies as being more prone to authoritative rule, but I'd see this more as a benefit. 

    Additionally, the general form of Monarchy is a conservative institution that can keep a country morally sound, and uphold religion. Democracies are much more prone to liberalism, due to the nature of radical new ideas making their way to the masses and then to the leaders. This traces far back to the social revolutions of the 1960s, all the way back to the early Enlightenment. For a reactionary or traditionalist, the monarchy is a preferred system to Republics. 

    Also, there certainly is something to be said about the fact that monarchies have been the default system for millennia. Democratic systems have been tried and have ultimately failed.
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @Castin
    Yup. I eventually abandoned it due to some major flaws: an unrestricted state that calls for no limits, the exact combination of a state and its nation, and nationalism that can be taken to extreme extents (I'd prefer nationalism to the present idea of globalism, but it too is essentially flawed).  
  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 272
    0
    4
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    I actually used to debate fascists on reddit lol. It would usually dissolve into yelling and flaming. I know you're technically not a fascist, but... Anti-democratic, corporatist, nationalist... You're in the general category. 

    Would you consider yourself an anti-semite or a racialist in any other way? 

    Thoughts on the alt-right? 

    Would you call yourself right-wing or Third-Positionist? 

    What is the main threat to society right now? 

    What are your thoghts on free expression? 

    Thoughts on Israel and Syria? 

    I have a lot more, that's just off of the top of my head. 

  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @armoredcat
    I actually used to debate fascists on reddit lol. It would usually dissolve into yelling and flaming. I know you're technically not a fascist, but... Anti-democratic, corporatist, nationalist... You're in the general category. 
    I'm not a nationalist at all, and I'd really not like to have toxic discussion either.

    Would you consider yourself an anti-semite or a racialist in any other way? 
    I suppose I'm something of an anti-semite. I generally dislike Judaism and the Jews as a collective group (but not necessarily as individual people). But I'd base this off of culture and theological reasons. Ethnic/racial Jews who can denounce their culture and convert to Christianity are perfectly acceptable in my view. 

    I acknowledge there's racial differences that might go beyond being skin-deep, but I'm not a "racialist." Racial or ethno-nationalism is pretty stupid.

    Thoughts on the alt-right? 
    Hmm, it seemed like some broad outrage against social liberalism, without any sort of central basis other than shilling for Trump and posting Pepe memes. It's now seemingly devolved and separated, as expected from a loosely connected group. 

    My views are mixed. It was necessary in a sense to detract from conventional neoconservatism... The main divide between it was a sort of Richard Spencer white nationalist faction, and the "alt light." The former of which, I wouldn't support.

    Would you call yourself right-wing or Third-Positionist? 
    Probably both to some extent. Third position seems to be used in related to economics. I would consider myself third positionist to an extent in that regard, as I acknowledge the flaws of unrestrained Capitalism. As a replacement, I'm deciding between Corporatism and regulated Capitalism where the markets are generally free, but the state has the absolute power to intervene when necessary and charter state-controlled monopolies for control. I'd probably have to finish reading a book on Corporatism.

    What is the main threat to society right now? 
    Secularism.

    What are your thoughts on free expression? 
    It was a mistake.

    Thoughts on Israel and Syria? 
    I abhor Israel. The Jews, an extremely small minority, have no rights to claim a land that's holy to another 2-3 billion people and persecute them. I'd ideally prefer a neutral secular state that allows all religions, but I am not sure about its practicality.

    My main concern is Christian control and Christian interests in the holy land. I suppose the pragmatic solution would be to abandon Israel and support Christian interests. A state ran cooperatively by Muslims and Christians would be ideal. If the Jews are willing to abandon Zionism, they may be welcome if conflicts don't arise. 

    However, currently Christian interests are greatly underrepresented. Palestinian Christians feel abandoned by the US and west, and their numbers are diminishing. Before cooperating with Muslims or Jews of any sort, establishing a Christian presence would be the necessary first step.

    In Syria, the only solution is Assad's regime. 

    I have a lot more, that's just off of the top of my head. 
    Go ahead lol.
  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 272
    0
    4
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    I'm not a nationalist at all
    Huh. Wow. Do you support trade protectionism and are you anti-immigration? If yes to those, I would call you a nationalist. 

    and I'd really not like to have toxic discussion either.
    No, I understand. I'm just giving some background. 

    I abhor Israel. The Jews, an extremely small minority, have no rights to claim a land that's holy to another 2-3 billion people and persecute them. I'd ideally prefer a neutral secular state that allows all religions, but I am not sure about its practicality.
    Israel was originally created by the British and recieved early support from Americans. It was far from a Jewish operation that basically rallied everyone on their side. 

    There's more to the Israel thing than them having "the best claim to the land" if you will, although some Zionists do have that line of reasoning. For one, Jews have mostly been persecuted by many of the nations they lived in. After 6 million of them were killed by the Nazis, they decided that Jews might be wiped out entirely if they kept moving around and they needed a central state with them as a majority. That's all for now. 

    Keep in mind I wouldn't call myself a Zionist, I think a lot of the things Israel does are kinda nasty and I strongly dislike AIPAC. But as a ethnic/religious Jew, it's obviously not for antisemitic reasons lol. 


    Go ahead lol.

    I'll have more questions in a little, have to eat. 
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    Huh. Wow. Do you support trade protectionism and are you anti-immigration? If yes to those, I would call you a nationalist. 
    Trade protectionism? Yes.
    Anti-immigration? It seems any immigration restrictions are anti-immigrant nowadays, so your call. 

    Nationalism is a Classical Liberal idea initiated by the French revolution. I prefer the order before nationalism, more loyalties to the local community and to God. Extreme nationalism is artificial. 


  • Castin
    Castin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,936
    2
    2
    6
    Castin avatar
    Castin
    --> @triangle.128k
    Yup. I eventually abandoned it due to some major flaws: an unrestricted state that calls for no limits, the exact combination of a state and its nation, and nationalism that can be taken to extreme extents (I'd prefer nationalism to the present idea of globalism, but it too is essentially flawed).  
    Interesting. For me the prohibition of free speech would have been the first and last nail in the coffin.

  • armoredcat
    armoredcat avatar
    Debates: 7
    Forum posts: 272
    0
    4
    11
    armoredcat avatar
    armoredcat
    --> @triangle.128k
    Trade protectionism? Yes.
    Anti-immigration? It seems any immigration restrictions are anti-immigrant nowadays, so your call. 
    I'd call you a nationalist, then. 

    Nationalism is a Classical Liberal idea initiated by the French revolution. I prefer the order before nationalism, more loyalties to the local community and to God. Extreme nationalism is artificial. 
    That's far from true. "My country is better than yours, let me invade you" was the domineering political philosophy before the French Revolution. And extreme nationalism was mostly pioneered by the Axis Powers. 

  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @Castin
    Interesting. For me the prohibition of free speech would have been the first and last nail in the coffin. 
    I don't really care for free speech under an ideal order. I would not mind liberal viewpoints and degeneracy being outlawed.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @triangle.128k
    Do you actually realise how disgusting your system is unless held ironically? Would you enjoy living in the Middle East of today? Go ahead then, live there. Sharia government structure is completely, utterly based on the system you want just that it has Islam instead of Catholicism.
  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @RationalMadman
    Why would I want to live in an Islamic society?

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @triangle.128k
    Aside from the core religion and the quirks of the system that come with it being that instead of Catholicism, there's nearly nothing that separates said societies from the corruption and brutal injustice of the system you propose. They last only by claiming again and again that 'enough people under me want me' while silencing any and every Media outlet that could lead to otherwise being expressed and influenced.

  • triangle.128k
    triangle.128k avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 372
    1
    1
    6
    triangle.128k avatar
    triangle.128k
    --> @RationalMadman
    Last time I checked, I have nothing against pork, music, men and women talking to each other, movie theatres, etc. Nor did I ever say women should be denied any rights.

    You'd be deluded to confuse a Catholic social order with a Wahhabi Islamic social order.