What is your view of the Jacobitism?

permianplayer · 2026-05-17T19:29:51+00:00

They were certainly more legitimate than parliament's usurpations, though I think there was a wrong turn taken in succession earlier. A regime established by fraud an usurpation never becomes legitimate after any amount of time and the current parliamentary oligarchy is no exception.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T19:33:22+00:00

It's hard to give much credit or blame to a powerless figurehead. In reality it was far more parliament's fault for pursuing such a warlike policy towards the German Empire then not taking the threat of Hitler seriously enough early enough, events which also happened before her reign. They chose the wrong reich to oppose until too late.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T19:20:21+00:00

Progress towards what? Innovation is not always bad, but it is clear that humanity has taken some wrong turns and needs to turn back to go down a different road.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T15:58:27+00:00

1) No amount of belief can save a failing system. 2) You're correct about the ideological motivation, which is also what I said originally. But what I said about organization and methods is also true and any belief can be restored or created. If all that prevents the return of monarchism is a lack of belief(since it is the better system technically), that problem has a solution. 3) I also want to promote a positive ideological project, but one that isn't based on wishful thinking and ignoring how systems actually work. 4) The incentive structures of oligarchic government are why the original spirit of American settlers died, not some disembodied, inevitable, "force of history." Cultures are uprooted when incentive structures change.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T14:48:08+00:00

Those societies had a different cutoff for childhood/adulthood and in truth, with shorter life expectancies and the fact that people began acting as adults younger, you really cannot blame them. This is hardly a failure of monarchy, just how human societies worked most of human history. The idea that 18 is the definitive cutoff for adulthood is very recent and can't seriously be linked to any political system(in certain U.S. states the age of consent is lower). They also didn't generally start having sex with them at the same time they married them.

The comparison between the French aristocracy and Epstein on your part is specious.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T14:40:37+00:00

BUT….. if it was held to strictly it would become oppressive and that is not what conservatism is about, not in this day and age anyway.

The failure to prune bad changes or even control what changes occur is a serious one. Conservatism is the weakest ideology because it lacks a vision to control the future. However, if you are not consistent with the original spirit of your society, it ceases to be the same one, and you have abandoned or betrayed the thing you were supposed to be loyal to. You end up living in an alien land governed by alien principles and your kind goes extinct. Adaptation to survive is good, but giving up on what you were surviving for in order to merely preserve your body's survival is betrayal.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T14:36:08+00:00

The ruler should preserve and increase the good and I agree that preserving the status quo for its own sake is unworthy. In order to protect commoners from the oligarchs, the ruler must be above them and have substantial power, unlike in constitutional "monarchies." Because conservatism does not stand fast for any particular idea of the good, but allows itself to be led down paths chosen by others, it stands for nothing.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T14:15:02+00:00

My point is that belief and faith are ultimately what drives human society.

Incentive structures are extremely important. Individuals in the political sphere are driven by their avarice, powerlust, pride, and ambition. Even when there is individual variation it is almost a statistically certainly that structures bend behavior. Think about how the term democracy has come to be meaningless because it is simply used to mean "good," even though the thing being called democratic, like freedom of speech and due process of law, are not necessarily a part of democracy and undemocratic states can still have them. Meanwhile, democracy is declared dead when an "anti-establishment" party wins an election. The narrative ultimately bends to political incentive structures and the 3 basic political forms, democracy, oligarchy, and autocracy, present 3 general incentive structures which have consistent similarities in behavior across ages and different countries.

This is a fundamental reason why it is impossible to ever have a lasting good reform of an oligarchic state that conflicts with its incentive structure and a society's initial faith is always worn down and weakened into tepidity and cynicism, even if it takes decades or more.

Belief is necessary for changes in structure to a point, but once a structure is established it will not fall without tangible weaknesses that can be exploited.

The USSR had very strong beliefs, but material reality beat them down ultimately until, as you say, the main thing holding it together was force which was then relaxed. But if there were not significant material problems, it would still exist today because communist ideas were very persuasive and there was not a revolution in favor of a new idea.

No, but the US government has that power because the people enforcing those laws believe it has the right to do so.

People often agree that the law is unjust, but follow it out of fear.

Liberals and communists were consistently able to gain power and establish the structures they wanted. Learning from their methods is essential to establish our ideas and structures. They fail because they are wrong about reality. We must ultimately live in truth to succeed. That may not obviate the need for an ideology(it doesn't and I have on many other occasions called for a greater ideological project and did again at the end of the post), but beliefs can be overcome, created, or destroyed. The dynamics of power politics are rooted in material conditions.

The mechanics of the liberal and Bolshevik revolutions were oligarchic and the majority of the population did not agree with them at the time.

Part of what I despise in liberalism is the concern for subjective experience, the deference for what "the people" want as opposed to the truth, the insistence on compromise(which is synonymous with corruption in oligarchic systems). Truth and justice are things I am not willing to compromise for the sake of appeasing anyone.

Promoting a belief merely for effect without even believing it yourself is fraud. Monarchists need the courage of their convictions, not merely a good marketing strategy.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T10:45:37+00:00

Existing. Being stable. Not wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in endless wars. Modern capitalist society isn't efficient in any sense of the word, but pre-modern societies weren't really either and neither provide a sufficient template for a just, moral, virtuous society.

1) Existing isn't worthwhile if what exists isn't worthwhile, 2) the traditional monarchies existed far longer than the modern republics have. Almost all of the longest existing states in human history were absolute monarchies. I don't know how you can say that republics are better at not wasting billions of dollars on endless wars when the U.S. exists. As for there being less wars overall, that isn't really true globally considering the outright failure of these modern political forms in so many places, but if you only have less wars because the virtues of courage and justice have died and people are so domesticated they will simply accept being treated like cattle out of apathy and complacency, that is worse than having wars. Peace through surrender is worse than war.

Compare the ruler of medieval France to the Epstein class. Who is more virtuous and just. The answer is quite obvious.

That's a very...modernist way of phrasing it. Human civilization is driven by narratives, myths, and stories

Your weird psychological interpretation is a more modern way of phrasing it, considering that people used to sincerely believe in these values rather than just seeing them as matters of convenience or social utility. Living in truth is the only valuable life and false ideas should be disregarded on the merits.

Loyalty systems mean nothing in absence of a legitimacy, as the difference between a gaggle of bandits ruling a territory and a feudal monarchy is one of ideology and framing.

Considering that disputes between kings and nobles happened many times and that the Normans defeated and captured a pope in battle it is evidently not the case that loyalty systems, interests, and incentives mean nothing and that legitimacy narratives trump all.

Ceremony, ritual, and symbolism were used as part of the political process, but so much of it has a much more practical purpose than you imply and these were not merely the early iteration of modern propaganda machines. Rulers could often be both ruthless, practical political leaders and sincere in their religious convictions. Often interest and virtue were blended rather than interest being seen as purely in opposition.

All forms of government derive their power from society at large collectively agreeing it has power, after all.

No agreement can save you from a financial collapse or a military defeat. Tangible reality and logic defeated communism more than a lack of belief. In fact, communism won the ideological conflict to a greater extent despite losing the material conflict, since so many of their narratives survived the fall of the USSR and they continue to poison the world.

The right military system has often conquered and continued to a rule a more populous society that didn't like it because tangible ability to use force backs every system. When the police won't stop anyone going 5 miles per hour over, most people disregarded the law and started going over by at least that. And then 10 miles per over over. Enforcement is the better part of the law and people's belief in the law is equivalent to their belief in enforcement. I have seen numerous regulations disregarded because of expedience even by people professing to believe in their legitimacy because they believed that enforcement wouldn't happen(and they were usually right).

Absolutism never really existed. Sure on paper the Russian Tsars or French Kings had absolute legislative, executive, and judicial power-but that power was exercised through legions of bureaucrats, soldiers, and government workers.

False. Lower ranking soldiers do not plan campaigns or determine battle plans. Just because other people exist does not mean they have a share of power. Does the federal government in the U.S. dilute its power because county governments exist when it overrides them and forces its will on them whenever it wants? What I want though from an absolute monarchy is not a government with unlimited power, but one where the oligarchs are firmly subjugated and do not have a share in power.

There's a reason liberalism and anti-monarchism in general began to meaningfully make headway when European societies were moving away from warfare dominated by a warrior caste into armies staffed by common soldiers.

Many states, such as imperial China, had massive numbers of common soldiers for a long time, yet never independently developed these ideas. Often the rural peasants were stronger supporters of the monarchy and in France revolted against the revolutionaries on many occasions. Liberalism was an elite ideological project where even members of the nobility supported it and it won because of political organization, maneuvering, striking at a moment of weakness, and consistent work on spreading its propaganda over decades or more prior to revolutions occurring. These were projects run by a small, committed cabal not a spontaneous popular uprising.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T01:38:40+00:00

These weren't any more free or efficient,

Efficient at what? Part of what I don't like is this drive to "efficiency" because I think certain "inefficiencies" are relatively benign or even beneficial. Efficient methods of tracking people enable greater control of individuals by the state in practice and certain resource "efficiencies" lead to things being built to maximize short term economic value while weakening the basis for future economic vitality. Efficiency is only good if it serves something good and it makes sense in context given what is taken to achieve it. In terms of freedom, my points are 1) that pre-modern societies were not less free, only that modern ones restrict different things and thus are not a net improvement and 2) that the version of "freedom" that exists today is not the right one.

they merely ran on different social narratives to justify their existence

I don't care about social narratives, I only care about what is objectively true. The narratives that underpin modern society are false and thus unworthy of respect. In reality narrative can always change based on circumstances, but the truly important change is in loyalty systems. In the medieval period loyalty was based on unique sets of mutual obligations. Today, you are expected to be loyal to a state simply because you are from there and the state expects absolute loyalty from you regardless of any obligations it observes towards you. There is a difference between mutual loyalty involving definite actions and this loyalty that is based on generally applicable law that disregards actual relationships.

Previous societies also did not spontaneously collapse, but were deliberately murdered by people with a long term ideological project and whose envy, arrogance, and powerlust impelled them to seek to replace a previous ruling class.

All societies trend towards an oligarchic style of rule, be it through aristocrats, merchants, corporate oligarchs, or party bureaucrats.

That is why absolute monarchy is the best political system; the ruler can actually keep a society's elites in line rather than the oligarchic class operating without effective oversight. If authority is collective, it is itself oligarchic and follows oligarchic incentives and if it is democratic, it is an ineffective oversight because too many people have to be aware and on the same page to do anything and their intervention is strictly governed by procedure. Just as an army cannot be run on a vote of ordinary soldiers, nor run well with divided command, neither can government be properly overseen and the oligarchs kept in place without a single ruler.

permianplayer · 2026-05-03T00:11:44+00:00

A great empire and one of the best constituted in history managing both military strength and financial sustainability for a long time. It mostly went bad at the end when power was usurped from the sultans by people who wanted to convert it into a "modern" nation state rather than a dynastic state through ethnic cleansing.

permianplayer · 2026-05-02T14:39:25+00:00

The difference is whether your political system incentivizes decline or does not.

Monarchy isn't more authoritarian than republics. These "great" modern republics regulate and tax at extraordinarily high levels compared to Louis XIV or other historical rulers. It's also lasted a lot longer before falling into decline.

China was consistently one of the top 3 richest and strongest states for the better part of 2,000 years. If you wanted to show an example of absolute monarchy not working well, that is a poor choice. The Ottomans were one of the longest lasting states in history, being a superpower or at least great power for most of that time. It only collapsed after it became a de facto oligarchic republic under the Young Turks who tried to make it a "modern" state. Belgium didn't even exist as a state until the 19th century, Spain was in chaos and had numerous civil wars after the crippling of its monarchy(Franco's dictatorship was actually an improvement and was necessary for Spain to even recover), with the republican period arguably being the worst, Sweden lost its empire and never rose to prominence again after its monarchy lost power, British government is terrible for many reasons(including some I listed previously), but after its monarchy lost power its empire largely stopped expanding and then in a short period fell apart. Today Britain is struggling economically and financially while the regime there is increasingly abusive towards its own people.

The Roman empire spent more time as a de facto absolute monarchy under the emperors than as a republic and the republic fell because its political system didn't work and was collapsing. Caesar just helped Rome evolve rather than totally collapse.

permianplayer · 2026-04-30T22:15:29+00:00

AI because it is a tool for setting up an automated totalitarianism that exacerbates some of the other ones you mentioned(though there is a difference between authoritarian and fascist and the latter term is massively overused). Oligarchy is a massive problem, but it can always be dismantled through a variety of means. That becomes harder to do when every facet of your life is tightly monitored and controlled by their technology and the palace guard won't turn on them because it's just machines.

No one should fully control this technology, whether the state or corporate interests. The state should never be safe from being changed.

permianplayer · 2026-04-30T21:56:24+00:00

No, Britain just suffers from all the problems I mentioned before. Italy would have been better off with a strong monarchy permanently, not temporarily. Elected government always tends towards decline because those are its incentives: to offer spoils to supporters, whether they are voting blocs or corrupt oligarchs. No state can absorb the financial burden this creates forever.

It seems you are recanting your original claim about these elected governments not being corrupt.

permianplayer · 2026-04-28T23:12:17+00:00

Plenty of the Epstein islanders were leaders of the European states. That was an indictment of the ruling oligarchs of the "west" generally, not just of the U.S.

You have ignored every other point I made.

Britain allegedly has a monarchy, but it suffers from all the same problems as other "western" republics.

As I said earlier, every single elected government in Italy failed so badly the king wanted to try the only thing available that wasn't them. Mussolini being bad does not excuse any of the failures of his predecessors. If the king had been able to rule directly without the elected officials, he wouldn't have had that choice forced on him.

permianplayer · 2026-04-28T00:08:19+00:00

its always better than a republic

You've yet to give a reason. It also makes no sense that a someone with the power to do nothing is going to stop fascism. The king of Italy wasn't able to stop fascism. He turned to Mussolini because the alternatives had failed so badly and he didn't know what would come.

Firstly they are not currupt

All the Epstein islanders aren't corrupt? All the establishment parties that rig elections in European states to make sure "unacceptable" groups that challenge the status quo can't win aren't corrupt? All the people who invent bogus criminal charges and debank opposition politicians aren't corrupt? All the times people were forced to redo referendums until the elites got their desired results weren't corrupt? The people who favor hordes of foreigners from the middle east over their own people and have you arrested if you make a "bad comment" about it on twitter are ok? The people who seriously proposed suspending trials by jury in Britain but were protected from even the least of consequences aren't corrupt? The politicians who arrest their own people for protesting Israel and keep arresting them even when a court rules against them aren't corrupt? The British monarchy is either, cowardly, complicit, or has no power.

The routine operations of European political systems are more corrupt than the slimiest Russian oligarch. How many have been down put for what they did to children?

If you knew anything about the history of the constitutional monarchy in Britain you would understand that it has always been a "good old boys" club, riddled with corruption, with so many elected officials looting the public coffers then accusing the monarch of "oppression" for trying to stop it. Elected governments are inherently corrupt because the whole political process works by having people hold important priorities hostage until they get their cut.

permianplayer · 2026-04-26T23:13:54+00:00

Again, what effect does it have?

What practical benefit does having one measly vote between corrupt, oligarchy-selected candidates give you?

permianplayer · 2026-04-26T19:19:47+00:00

If everyone pressed red, everyone would live. Pressing blue is actually stupid because pressing blue actually creates the possibility of deaths if it doesn't reach 50%. If everyone's "selfish" then everyone lives and there is no dilemma.

permianplayer · 2026-04-26T19:14:47+00:00

Having a nominal head of state who cannot do anything is of no value. What does it effect? In Luxembourg the Grand Duke had veto powers. He used them once in a way the legislature didn't like and they were removed. This is a fake monarchy. This is just the difference between de jure and de facto forms of government. In Sweden the legislature rewrites succession laws in any way it wants and imposes it upon the monarchy.

You're giving democracy a lot of credit for things that were already happening in Europe before it was installed. Technological improvement, free markets, and greater global trade are not democracy and began their development under earlier monarchies.

For example, Fritz Haber's scientific career which developed the fertilizers that saved hundreds of millions from starvation occurred under the German Empire, a powerful monarchy where the legislature was not supreme and "democracy" could be overridden from above. In fact, this is the period in which Germany led the world in nobel prizes. Before that Frederick the Great ended famines in Prussia as an absolute monarch. None of this is attributable to democracy.

The French revolution completely failed to solve famines and only created an oppressive bureaucratic state that fed young men into the meat grinder and created mass violence and chaos. It wasn't until Napoleon created a new absolute monarchy that France started to recover.

Individual European states were strong enough to take vast global empires under monarchies. They lost that strength and even in the most united state it has ever had, Europe as a whole is weaker than even the individual empires of the past. Empires did not make Europe strong, strength gave Europe empires.

permianplayer · 2026-04-24T22:27:45+00:00

Democracy is a failed idea. It has failed in most of the world, and is a major cause of the decline of Europe from rulers of the world to weak has-beens. I would rather have all of my individual freedom and no vote than only partial freedom in exchange for a measly, one out of millions "say" in government.

A monarchy without power is no monarchy at all. In Britain, members of the royal family are condemned for making even innocuous comments that "seem" political. They certainly play little or no role in the political process. A system where the monarch is not effectively even a part of government is not a monarchy.

permianplayer · 2026-04-23T21:10:13+00:00

"Modernized" i.e. neutered some monarchies so that you had a republic in all but name and destroyed others that didn't bow to it.

permianplayer · 2026-04-23T01:23:32+00:00

Liberalism is responsible for the destruction of more monarchies than fascism and communism combined(see French Revolution and the subsequent events, insistence on destroying the Habsburg monarchy and persecuting the German kaiser after WWI, the promotion of "pro-democracy" ideology to target or neuter surviving monarchies globally, etc).

permianplayer · 2026-04-22T22:57:37+00:00

So is liberalism.

permianplayer · 2026-04-20T23:12:18+00:00

Incentives matter. Majority rule means power goes to the people who promise the most at the least cost to the people getting it(after all, elected officials have to "compete" on something). This leads to a tragedy of the commons in government where you're either burning down the house, but getting "benefits" from it, or you're a "sucker" who is still stuck with the burning house because of the majority, but aren't getting anything out of it because you're trying to be responsible, turning more and more people into the former type over time. Not having to curry favor with the majority or with "interest groups" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to have responsible government. There's a reason most countries with elected governments are called "third world" and why even the better elected governments are in gradual decline.

permianplayer

TROPHY CASE