Peasant Dreams of Ideal Kings and Princes

I read an interesting piece by Charles Coulombe in Crisis  Magazine entitled: Are American Monarchists Dreamers?, December 30, 2019

I would say no, American monarchists are not dreamers, they are completely delusional peasant-minded people who in their desire for a strongman master, have utterly unrealistic expectations of what this sort of ruler would be.

Coulombe, assuming he isn't being facetious or overreacting to comments he took exception to, makes the same fundamentally flawed assumptions as other proponents of monarchy and hereditary aristocracies make which is to ignore the inherent flaws of the human element. This understanding of we humans as flawed beings more easily tempted to vice than virtue is forgotten alongside Catholic Catechism 101 where Man has free will, he is a moral actor who will act in his own best self-interests. This is not a lack of intellect as Coloumbe is quite eloquent in his defense of autocracy but rather intellectual laziness and a failing of logic and character that of the following possibilities I can offer, I can't say which it is for certain. It could be  man who through his own hubris distrusts the immoral masses and is willing to abdicate responsibility for his own life instead preferring to wear the slave's iron collar with sense of false pride. It could also be due to an idealist's yearning for some kind of revanchist imperial utopia which is sort of childish and whose arguments can then be simplified as a whine of "democracy isn't perfect! Mommy, take it away!". It further speaks to this childish mindset with its yearning for a strong father figure who will take care of his child-like peasants, relieving them of the burden of choice.

After reading Coloumbe's other articles, I tend towards the latter as I note his reasoned opposition to communism but then negates his own arguments by repeating the European left's calumnies against nationalism as causing the shedding of "oceans of blood" while calling for a "healthy patriotism" failing to note that nationalism and patriotism are the same thing. Or that it was his vaunted Christian Monarchs who started the first world war because of competing imperialism.

But he goes further with his fanboy obsequiousness of traditional European strongman monarchies in stating that somehow monarchies grounded in Christianity are somehow more moral than democracies as if a Christian King is immune from the flaws of lesser commoners. But in his article Quo Vadis, Europa?, Dec, 18, 2019, he gushes on about the old European Monarchies like a giddy schoolgirl at a boy band concert. But oh, how can one not resist giving supreme power to such dashing chaps in spiffing royal military uniforms riding on horses such as in the Order of Saint George!

Once again, a king or emperor is still only a man who is just as easily tempted to vice than virtue and European history is replete with examples of imperialist wars and bad monarchs. These old school absolute monarchies all collapsed because in the end, they didn't work. Monarchies inevitably become empires that either destroy each other in competition over who will have the biggest empire or the empire collapses under its own weight. World War 1 proved that in oceans of blood with noble kings ordering their peasants over the top of the trenches to be slaughtered in repeated human wave attacks. All so the British Empire with colonies sprawled over 5 continents of the Earth could prevent the German Empire from taking over the world. Yeah, the king really cared about his subjects. Can't wait to have those guys ruling us again.

Coloumbe cannot grasp the concept that the Catholic Catechism and the bible are in the end, nothing more than words written on a piece of paper just as national constitutions are. Words which in and of themselves have no sentience or will or the ability to compel people to obey them no matter the font or if the manuscript is illuminated. One could have a philosopher king like Marcus Aurelius in one generation and a degenerate Commodus in the next even if he looks most fabulous uniform. Man has free will and that means he may not choose to be good.

There is no guarantee of a good ruler and to remove a bad ruler takes a coup d eta usually with a nasty civil war in the bargain. Whereas in a democratic society, it is always possible to peacefully remove a bad leader.

But in the end, what is the difference between a transnational bureaucratic European empire and a empire of autocratic Christendom other than one is ruled by commoners and the other by those who won the royal sperm lottery and claim to go to church on Sundays. Or that the traditional European monarchies he is so enamored with only differ from communism by religion and rhetoric. He can't understand his arguments contradict themselves.

The greatest failure of Coloumbe's arguments is not recognizing the common denominator in the faults of systems of governance is the human element, not the system itself just as he is unable to find the heuristic but instead clings to the nostalgic. The moral failings of modern people living in liberal democracies simply means the Church has her work cut out for her.


Donald Cavaioli

Some thoughts on the Z Man "The Value of Dumb Ideas" posted December 23, 2019

I happen to like the Z man blog, especially his Friday podcast which I highly recommend, and usually his posts are insightful, witty and thought provoking. And he has one of the most simple, yet coolest logos.

 But sometimes I happen to disagree with reasons to do so or feel he doesn't connect all the dots he sets out and follow it through to its logical conclusion. And sometimes he writes a post that I think to be a clunker- but not this particular one. After all, when blogging every day, it's just not possible to hit one out of the park each and every time. Once in a while, we all have bad days.
So as the Z man says: let's get started.

Let me just say from the outset that the problem with the right is the people of the right. That is as the right consists of people who tend away from a central ideology and more into individual positions, guiding philosophies and preferences there will never be a single set of principles upon which they all agree nor a single (or even a small group of) thought leader around which the masses or righists will coalesce.

This is the single greatest reason why all sects of the right from the just right of center mainstream conservatives all the way out to the extreme right of libertarian anarchists have been as ineffectual at combating the advance of the left for the last century. We can all agree with the problems of the left and the wider trouble they've caused for society but we can't agree on a coherent strategy, let alone propose a solution, to counter it. Instead, when not debating how many social justice warriors can dance on the head of a pin in our respective monasteries, we attack anyone except our own group for their failures and ineffectiveness. Clearly counterproductive, but hey, we're the American Right. We live for this.

Worse, we take to moaning about how things are so out of control we cannot vote our way out of it and how it's all the fault of democracy, the constitution, the Jews, big corporations/banks, big this or that, big anything, yada, yada, yada. Big is bad because... reasons. Peddling despair porn and crank conspiracy theories isn't going to change a damn thing. Besides, the dissident right can't or won't even try.

Many are all too ready to give up and run away to some mystical Galt's Gulch where we can create perfect small communities of like-minded folks. All too delusional to realize the religious zealot nature of leftist SJWs means they will ruthlessly hunt down and destroy any such enclaves for the heresy of opposing their one true political belief system and even more heinous in their eyes, creating a better society than theirs. Or that moderate urban liberals, escaping the negative consequences of their own voting and policy choices, seeing a better, culturally and economically functional community will enter it, forcing their way in if necessary, bringing the baggage of their liberal ideas and voting patterns with them. Infecting and destroying these communities like a virus and no matter how many places the liberal eventually burns to the ground, he'll never understand why nor will he stop. The liberal will simply look for the next place to infest just as the SJW will never stop hunting witches even if he must create them himself.

Those who favor Galt's Gulch or Galt's Abby, will never understand this. For though they may repudiate libertarianism now, they were obviously libertarians or Randian objectivists once before (or at least fellow travelers), and as apostates from those sects, still cling to a simplistic non-aggression principle as well as their hopeless quest for the Holy Grail of a utopia with a perfect political system.

Much the same regarding the other "we have to separate" "secession now" crowd like the neo-confederates who have a similar angels and devils viewpoint and utopianist outlook as the far left but for diametrically opposite reasons. When in doubt, retreat into a fantasy world and re-write history so great-great-great grandpa wasn't a racist (whether he was nor not, it doesn't matter, who cares anymore) and the civil war he fought wasn't mostly about slavery and the political and economic hegemony of the southern planter oligarchy. This and where to separate from what as there are not any clear lines of demarcation nor will the federal government allow it to happen as it is a sign of weakness on the international stage. And again the seperatistas cling to the non-aggression principle in thinking other world powers will quietly sit on the sidelines and passively watch which is completely delusional.

We moan about everything except our own inertia, refusing to actually confront the left for fear of legal trouble and bad optics, or how we make absolutely no inroads into influencing the wider culture around us because they won't join our exclusive libertarian apostate coffee klatches. Then can't understand why we fail, or would if most of us were introspective enough to recognize our own failings rather than blaming the "system".

This post from the Z man clearly illustrates this thesis. I'll cut to the chase: It ain't democracy at fault, it's the people.

Once again, for the 876th time, the Z man blames the concept of democracy for all our present woes and is singularly unable to understand that all models of governance are inherently flawed and have all failed at some time in the past. Z simply either refuses or cannot see the human element is the common denominator in all societal problems and failures of all systems of governance. It's the fault of the system, man, like what else could it be? Democracy sucks! Big is bad!

Even in a comment in a previous post of the Z blog where I specifically made this argument in brief, there was no response. Any more than in after acknowledging the failure of mainstream conservatism to conserve the women's bathroom (a favorite trope of the alt and dissident right) asking the Z man when was it that the dissident right restored the sanctity of the women's restroom from men in sundresses. And by the way, Z man, I got it that democracy sucks and conservatism failed (repeated for the 983rd time) the first time around. Got it, roger, wilco, dude.

However, the point of posting was not to be snarky or shitpost but in the former case, raise a legitimate point and in the latter make the point that criticism is fine where warranted but maybe the critic should in the very least have an actual, workable, plan to reverse the bathroom situation. People in glass houses and whatnot.

No answer because neither the Z man or the regular commenters have an answer. It's easy enough Monday morning quaterback, to criticize others for dropping the ball, but much harder to solve the problem which makes this attitude kind of lame. If the same criticism is repeated ad nauseam with out some success to show, or at least a proposed solution on the part of the critic, it becomes pathetic. However, I digress.

The chain of logic here is simple: People as a group form a culture from which the political model of governance is derived. Politics is downstream of culture. I'm pretty sure the Z man has mentioned this before.

I will give this concession to the Z man's basic point: Down the years, culture and politics may influence each other, at least in a democracy, which causes changes to both over time. This can be both good and bad: Good in that it allows the government to change along with the population over which it governs, staying in touch and relevant. Culture, even in a homogeneous society can change over time, faster in a civic nationalist model. Bad if native cultural institutions like the church and family are allowed to be systematically destroyed and the settled communities replaced with a more transient populations. Cultural institutions and settled communities form standards of acceptable behavior (which the Z man writes often about) which by providing moral guardrails outside government acts a governor on the cultural-political feedback loop and keep the machine of society from overspinning and flying apart.

Hint: We need the moral guardrails. Fat, fedora wearing neckbeards attached to our side, flogging their daddy issues through their militant atheism and jihad against all things Christian aren't helping.

Now the Z man does make mention of getting the culture right and politics being downstream of culture so he has all the points but somehow doesn't seem to connect all the dots nor does he propose any solution other than some references to how a hereditary aristocracy could be better than democracy or a constitutional republic. He sees the human element as the weak link in the chain but does not grasp the implications.

We get the form of government that we are able to live with. If not, ask hereditary aristocrats like Charles II, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette and autocrats like Tsar Nicholas II what happens when the aristocracy becomes too isolated and alienated from their masses of subjects.

Now hereditary aristocracy would be a workable model if we consider that the waves of third-worlders, fleeing their own failed states and banging down the doors to get into this inherently unjust and racist country to be the future majority who are accustomed to and by nature prefer strongman dictatorships. This ignores the fact that we already have a de facto hereditary aristocracy in the political and upper bureaucratic managerial classes.

As an aside, this crop of wannabe aristocrats are essentially bureaucrats and elected functionaries, people of empty words and meaningless gestures, not leaders and certainly not strong people. Far too beholden to the rhetoric and dogma of their progressive liberal ideology not to embrace and lavish praise upon their third world and identity/grievance group pets to the detriment of their own people (whom they view as potential rivals and threats to their power). And are too arrogant to realize that as they promote their pets, said pets will want to take power for themselves. Our rulers will not have the strength or will to stop their third world/coalition of fringe freaks from overthrowing them instead of the one-eyed apparatchik being the king of the intellectually blind. If successful, the new ruling aristocracy of third world/identity grievance groups will create the same failed totalitarian state from which they fled and by nature, be unable to maintain. Hereditary aristocracy is as much a failure as democracy for the same reason.

Hereditary monarchies like dictatorships and other authoritarian/totalitarian systems of government based on a rigid, central ideology offer a static and predictable form of governance. If the political, economic or social situation becomes untenable, they cannot by nature and design change without complete overthrow of the leadership or the entire system itself. There is otherwise no hope of change. A situation usually leading to a civil war.

A democracy for all its flaws does have one thing monarchies, dictatorships or other totalitarian systems do not have: the ability to change for the better as much as for the worse, In that there is always hope that it can be saved.

A constitutional republic tempers the passionate and mercurial nature of the masses while still offering the opportunity to change. It offers a middle ground between the static nature of a monarchy or dictatorship and the gyrations of a democracy.  For it too, there's always hope that it can be saved but it would take longer.

If a system was previously successful as the U.S. was and later fails, it's the people that fail in that case. Not the system of governance, constitution or the laws which are just pieces of paper with words written on them. These are inanimate objects, they have no sentience, no agency or ability to compel people to follow them no matter what font or print size was used.

Ultimately, dumb ideas originate with the people, not the social or political system and are either stopped by people or allowed to go forward by people. Not an inanimate social/political convention.

So what needs to be done is to alter the culture to more resemble the past when this country had its greatest successes. Maybe an exact replica of pre-1913 America is not possible or even completely desirable, but some modified version may work. It's far better than the alternative of collapse and civil war and making the good faith effort establishes us on the moral high ground if the shit does hit the fan. To do so, we need to get middle America, Joe and Jane Normie on board with a strategy they can accept. To do this, the right must first learn how to cooperate and work together.


Donald Cavaioli

The Hong Kong Democracy Movement: What is the end-game after the 5 demands are met?

I have been following these demonstrations since they started but really don't know Hongkongers or mainland Chinese, the language, culture and history, well enough to get a complete understanding of the situation and people involved. I have some personal familiarity with Hongkongers and mainland Chinese but cannot and do not claim to any sort of expert. But I do have enough information to form my own views that should be at least passably cogent and what follows are the opinions and observation of someone from the outside looking in.

As an aside:

It must be noted that Hongkongers were not given a referendum so they could have a say in their own fate at the end of the British lease and colonial rule was wrong. Had the majority wanted repatriation with the PRC, then the current pro-democracy demonstrations would be invalid. You guys signed on for this and it's too late for buyer's remorse. Had they wanted independence or continue with the U.K. in some capacity or another, then there may have been a chance of getting U.N. recognition under the rights of people to self-determination or negotiation of a better deal with strict provisions with the PRC. In the least, maybe one country, two systems would have been permanent with some kind of real international enforcement mechanism. Maybe I'm just dreaming here.

As it was, Hong Kong was transferred over to PRC ownership as if one were selling a house and Hongkongers were treated as if they were nothing more than the furniture sold with the house.

Now to the point of this post.

One might view my question of what is the end-game after the Democracy movement's 5 demands would be hypothetically met with some curiosity. Would not the 5 demands be the end-game?

I don't think so. As I see it with the current one country two systems paradigm set to expire on July 1, 2047, the 5 demands if met would constitute a sort of Faustian bargain where Hongkongers would enjoy a liberal democratic society for just over the next 28 years before Mephistopheles comes to collect Hong Kong's soul in the bargain.

I don't know where Hongkongers' minds are on this whether 28 years of freedom would be just fine before being absorbed into the People's Republic of China collective and that they only want the PRC to live up to it's end of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. Would they be perhaps rolling the dice, reasoning that if 24 hours is a long time in politics then 28 years would be a geological epoch during which the Chinese Communist Party would meet the same fate as all the other dinosaurs and they could keep their democracy. Or do they think it possible to either extend the one country two systems thing indefinitely or perhaps try for independence.

The first possibility to me would make no sense as it would be very naive. Communists, like organized crime families, when crossed, never forgive and never forget. After it became evident through one and two million Hongkongers taking to the streets in marches and the recent council election blow-out, the CCP will view all Hongkongers as guilty and will be sure to punish the city at their earliest convenience. Hopefully the leaders and the more radical protesters will be able to emigrate before 2047 otherwise the odds are good they will be dissappeared all legal and above board unlike the Causeway Bay bookstore guys.

The communists are the sort of people who will get an enemy even if he's 95 years old, on his deathbed and minutes from a natural death. Then the commie will put a pillow over his face just to make it personal. Don't underestimate vindictiveness of leftists or how seriously communists take any challenges to their power, real or perceived.

There might be some who would claim "socialism with Chinese characteristics" would be a different sort of commie with a different outcome. I disagree as the mechanics of power and control in an authoritarian/totalitarian system are more universal. Also the socialist/communist system attracts the sort of person Spandrell at the Bloody Shovel blog refers to as biolenninists. Maybe they differ in culture but in psychological defects and immoral motivations, they are brothers under the skin. The cultural differences in this case would simply be overtones. As another aside: The Spandrell and Bloody Shovel blog reference is ironic in this case as a post he wrote about Hong Kong, well...let's just say he doesn't like Hongkongers very much. No, he really hates Hongkongers and it seems personal. Besides, it would seem that "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is really simply "Socialism with Communist characteristics". End aside.

The second, wait 'em out possibility would be a Hail Mary pass to cheat Mephistopheles of his prize. A long shot at best but possible. This idea does have a potential and serious drawback.

In the mean time until 2047, civil unrest and demonstrations will continue as the situation becomes a stalemate or the PRC does something to definitively end it. One possibility of ending the pro-democracy movement is by relocating a significant percentage of the population of Hong Kong and spreading them throughout the mainland. For those dissidents who remain: A seat in the tiger chair and chat with the boys from the Ministry of State Security or Ministry of Public Security might be enough to convince some but for the stubborn and recalcitrant, there's always room for one more in one of the concentration camps re-education centers for naughty malcontents.

Those Hongkongers scattered throughout the empire will be replaced by more loyal mainlanders which will fundamentally change the culture of the city and also make Mandarin Chinese the primary language of the city. It's an old tried and true tactic used by the Soviets. If the reader has seen my previous posts on the civic nationalism/magic dirt fallacy/Hotel Queens, native population ethnic dilution or replacement works by atomizing the community into a series of small, competing groups. Who says Marxism isn't scientific? They just test their theories out on human beings instead of lab rats.

For the remaining malcontents who can't see the wisdom of being a slave of the State, among the loyalists will be informers working for pay or extra "good citizen" social credit points so people will either be found dead from "suicide" or mysteriously vanish into a Bermuda Triangle type thing that exists near Causeway Books.

As to independence, maybe it would be the best solution as things stand now with Hong Kong and China not seeing eye to eye but as of now that is really a long shot with an incredibly small chance of success. The CCP is not going to let go of its "all your Chinese people, anywhere on Earth, are belong to us!" over-the-top, rapaciousness and racial/ethnic chauvinist attitude. This is problematic because with a pro-democracy movement up against a totalitarian communist regime, said protesters are viewed by CCP authorities as what they're pleased to call a "color revolution". And there can be no half-measures as a revolutionary.


Donald Cavaioli