/monarchy/ - Monarchy

Past, Present, and Future

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 2.0.

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(124.60 KB 630x455 image.jpg)
Civilization Peasant 08/22/2020 (Sat) 18:14:37 No. 1701
>Between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, orderly, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical. The transformation diminished cruelty to animals, criminals, lunatics, and children (in that order); suppressed many cruel sports and games, such as bull-baiting and cock-fighting, as well as innocent amusements, including many fairs and wakes; rid the penal code of about two hundred capital offences, abolished transportation [of criminals to Australia], and cleaned up the prisons; turned Sunday into a day of prayer for some and mortification for all. -Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society (1969) Nobody knows why this happened. What brings this about in society? Is it good or is it bad?
Does your book state any clues, anon?
Post-Christianity Europeans are radically different in behavior overall than Pre-Christian Europeans. The change in the OP is but one example of this.
(292.09 KB 796x1206 81MW5Hm4ZkL.jpg)
>>1710 The author seemed to have tied the change to the Industrial Revolution and the development of the English middle class. However, other authors have suggested a connection with the spread of Methodist Christianity in the early 1800s. In any case, while the English "civilized" themselves for around 150 years, in the recent past observers have noted a possible reversal of the progress. A regression to the historical norm? What created this spirit of civilizational politeness and what destroyed it? The Romans once led the world, but Roman plebeians never became self-regulated Britons. Throughout this period the prestige of the English monarchy also declined alongside that of the church. British industry fell from world-leading to second-rate. If the principles failed to stand in the face of decay, what is their true value? Because we, on /monarchy/, on /liberty/ etc. believe in civilized society, and that requires civilized man to maintain. >“In the five decades since I first came to London, so much has changed. I remember enough of the past to regret the passing of that age when power and influence made London throb and hum and count for much more in the affairs of the world. >Five decades ago, London was a grimy, sooty, bomb-scarred city, with less food, fewer cars, and deprived of the conveniences of the consumer society. But the people, then homogeneous, white, and Christians, were admirable, self-confident and courteous. >From that well-mannered Britain to the yobs and football hooligans of the 1990s took only 40 years. I learned that civilised living does not come about naturally. There are other significant changes. Britain is now multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious. Churches are nearly empty on Sundays with many deconsecrated and converted into places of entertainment while some 500 mosques are filled to capacity on Fridays, the Muslim Sabbath.” – Lee Kuan Yew, “The Post-war Breaking of the British Civic Spirit”
>>1716 Either way, destruction of English Christianity has not done them any favors.
>>1722 The establishment of the Anglican Church as a separate institution in the first place was for a rather disgraceful reason was it not? Or was it in Henry VIII's prerogative as sovereign to break off from Catholicism?
>>1741 >Or was it in Henry VIII's prerogative as sovereign to break off from Catholicism? Sure it is, just like it's in your prerogative as a man with free will to stick cucumbers up your ass. "Could he have done it" and "Should he have" are very different questions, however. You can't be forced to obey the will of God, but if you choose not to, you'll reap the consequences in this world and the next one.
>>1741 >>1742 It was for selfish purposes, yes. And it was used for such purposes. The Oxford Movement almost led to rapprochement with the Roman Church, before events of WWII led to its decline.
(255.25 KB 1000x1041 Empire.jpg)
>>1701 >>1701 It is feminization/ womanization of the society (and thus civilization itself) anon. It happens to every advanced society and preludes before stagnation, followed by collapse. You can read Spengler or Fate of Empires for details.
>>1945 Is it inevitable or can a nation that never reaches the stage of empire, but rather stays in eternal struggle, preserve the greatness of the character of its citizens?
>>1948 Well, according to Spengler every empire/civilization has unfortunately met the same fate. There's yet to be seen one such as you have spoken.
>>1953 It's because power inevitably flows to the great, and it's their just reward. But the following generations come into that power without having earned it, and it is probably impossible to have an eternal succession of just men who would turn down prizes in the present for strength in the future. They may not even have a choice, as sometimes nations emerge as world leaders due to their circumspect avoidance of others' conflicts, and the world comes to them to implore their patronage.
(205.48 KB 1035x1300 2b13755ddaf6b5a4c2a00e7f1e3de100.jpg)
>>1948 Theoretically? Maybe. According to Nietzsche, great civilizations are built not by civilized people but by barbarians, who are full of life-affirming creative force (willpower), civilizations begin to deteriorate once these barbarians forget their "Dionysian" roots and become too "Apollonian" or "heady", where they reject their natural human instincts as something vestigial and obsolete, and depend only on reason and rationality (basically redditors before reddit), they become civilized and self-domesticated, and their civility results in impotence and ineptness. This is the "strong men create good times, good times create weak men" theory. So quite paradoxically, to prevent civilization from collapsing, you have to reject civilization and live dangerously. If you ask me personally, one solution to this "good times" create "weak men" problem is to bring back rites of passage, which is a tradition that civilized societies reject once they become too comfortable in their civilization. It's absolutely necessary for a boy to be recognized as a man by other men, especially after having passed some important ritual or dangerous challenge, and it's preferable for this challenge to be long and uncomfortable enough to turn him into a real savage in addition to granting him the status and privilege of being a man among men. The challenge itself could be anything, but ideas like adventure/colonialism, ritualized warfare, death matches and gladiator tournaments can be considered, as they serve the purpose of raising dangerous men, who would proudly show off their scars and battle trophies as proof of their masculinity, instead of raising decadent manchildren and tranny faggots who show off their videogame collections and girly dresses, or the fake macho retards who think that being a man can be reduced to only big muscles or a big dick, which is the exact kind of stereotypical straw-masculinity that everyone is sick of by now.
>>1960 The problem is that the success of the society destroys the conditions that made it strong in the first place. Because it was the struggle to overcome its obstacles that made it creative and vigilant, but once the threat is gone those factors become a formality rather than a necessity. I think it may be that once a society has reached that stage there really is no going back, it completed the point of its existence. Western democratic globalism had no purpose after the Soviet Union collapsed, and it kept trying to seek out or create new enemies but neither nationalists, or fundamentalists, or Russians, or Chinese could pose a reason to justify its continued existence and reverse its accelerating decay. Humanity wants its stories to have a conclusion but history seems to show that the journey was the prize and its end is the bearer of lament. The Alexandrian conquests, the Roman conquests, the Arab conquests, the Mongol conquests, the conquest of the New World, global colonialism, the World Wars, all these marked the peak of one civilization or another, and then once they had passed, the definition the conflict had brought began to fade, until its men returned to neutral clay, for a new tide to take the stage. The process from foundation to conclusion appears to run for the West around 1000 years each cycle. The classical Greek civilization lasted from the Dark Age legends of around 1100 BC until its conquest by Rome in the 100s BC. Rome was founded in 753 BC and the Western Empire collapsed in 476. The Eastern Roman Empire, though I suppose it did not start in a state of barbarism, from 330 to 1453. The Great Schism dividing the church into West and East occured in 1053, and adherence to the Christian faith has faced a precipitous decline in its former bastions in the past century. I wonder how the cycles differ in terms of century for each culture, since perhaps the West has made the greatest achievements in the history of humanity as the result of the longevity of its narratives. Though as long or as short lived as each may be, so far none has proved immortal.
>>1961 Yep. Pretty much. It's all ying-yang dichotomies within ying-yang dichotomies just like everything else in the universe, we invent civilization to get some order out of chaos, but then we have to deal with too much order bringing its own problems. The correct place to try and be is either in the middle where these two forces are in balance or having equal amounts of both at once, where you are comfortable enough that you aren't trying to survive every single day, but living dangerously enough that you aren't able to grow weak. If we follow this logic to its conclusion, we will have to reexamine the purpose of every post-enlightenment civilization, which is to create a comfortable, utopian existence for all of its citizens, because the more eagerly we pursue this, the more we end up with the contrary - the most uncomfortable hellholes imaginable. So theoretically, we need to reverse the causes to reverse the effects, and build a civilization founded on a radically different purpose - to seek an uncomfortable and dangerous existence for its own sake, which brings the unnecessary side-effects of being a glorious nation of prosperous conqueror-aristocrats that can defeat anything that life throws at them because they've always been fighting against the worst enemy there is - themselves. The best example of a civilization like this is probably Sparta. Monarchs and their lords would have to establish harsh traditions, or at least allow for natural danger such as voluntary death matches, public dueling, jousting and other "barbaric" practices to take place. The wrong way to build such a civilization is for larping fascist kiddies and other modernist ideological idolaters to scheme up utilitarian social experiments and masturbate to their own power fantasies.
>>1962 Remember that the original aim of Catholic monarchy in Europe and eventually beyond was to prevent Hell on Earth as opposed to a mad attempt at recreating Heaven.
(263.20 KB 1080x1080 vT_wSSRmjyM.jpg)
>>1963 That's really wise.
>>1963 The clergy still exists even today it's just that has lost power and has been pushed away by the Cathedral the new Church and its god unfortunately is Progress regardless if it is good or bad.
>>1962 I think that while the pursuit of hardiness may be noble and wise as an individual philosophy as promulgated by the Cynics, it may be lacking as a cultural philosophy. It must be noted that the Spartans, who did not seek after wealth, or luxury, or power, nonetheless were not exempted from the law of empire. In their case the downfall was of politics, because the other city-states of Greece became their dependants to counter the weight of an aggressively expansive Athens. Thus the two powers of the classical Greek world which had been allied in the war against Persia became competitors, though one unwillingly, and this became their priority. As its obligation to its subjects the Spartans answered their calls to defence as a natural extension of its own, ending with the Peloponnesian War that had Sparta triumphant. It became the hegemon of Greece despite not having sought that position, and as hegemon had to contend with challenges to its power. At that point, it was no longer simply fighting for its own local interest, it was running beyond the "fulfillment" of its purpose. The spoils of the subjugation of Athens also corrupted its citizens, who traditionally lived austere lives and had no experience with the direction of such wealth. Divisions arose in Spartan society between those newly rich from the victory at the cost of those that continued under the established ideal. Despite being led by a king that epitomized traditional Spartan morals and temperance under Agesilaus II, at the end of his reign came the first defeat of a Spartan army in the field by a Theban revolt. This was despite a numerical advantage and shattered their hold over the country, which was surrendered when Thebes pressed its vantage and never reasserted though the Spartans managed to check their expansion. Occupied to slave revolts the Spartans did not pose a challenge to the rise of Macedon and did not participate in the conquest of Persia. While never attempting to conquer Sparta itself the city-state was forced by Macedon into its sphere of influence anyway after yet another army was defeated in battle with Spartan king Agis III slain. It was finally crushed by the Romans and turned into a tourist attraction, long after its apex had passed. Aristotle also wrote in Politics, Book II that while the institutions of Sparta created disciplined men it did not do the same for its women: >Again, the license of the Lacedaemonian women defeats the intention of the Spartan constitution, and is adverse to the happiness of the state. For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves. The old mythologer would seem to have been right in uniting Ares and Aphrodite, for all warlike races are prone to the love either of men or of women. This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy. This license of the Lacedaemonian women existed from the earliest times, and was only what might be expected. For, during the wars of the Lacedaemonians, first against the Argives, and afterwards against the Arcadians and Messenians, the men were long away from home, and, on the return of peace, they gave themselves into the legislator's hand, already prepared by the discipline of a soldier's life (in which there are many elements of virtue), to receive his enactments. But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt. These then are the causes of what then happened, and this defect in the constitution is clearly to be attributed to them. We are not, however, considering what is or is not to be excused, but what is right or wrong, and the disorder of the women, as I have already said, not only gives an air of indecorum to the constitution considered in itself, but tends in a measure to foster avarice. The role calamity plays in creating civilization though is catalytic though. In China, Confucius established his Analects in the destruction and the devastation of the Warring States period, and it would come to define its culture for the next thousand years. In the West, the idea of the nation-state was established in the Peace of Westphalia ending the Thirty Years War, which up to that point had been the bloodiest and most destructive conflict in Western European history. It also inspired Hobbes to write Leviathan. In both cases the pure chaos of the world brought inspiration to men who wanted to create a new reasoned order that could put it at bay. Yet in modern history lessons, the Thirty Years' War and the European Wars of Religion are a footnote. One chronological measure to map on to modern history may be the span between the collapse of the Han Dynasty in China and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. When the Han collapsed the Romans were about to enter into the Crisis of the Third Century. When the Qing collapsed the West was about to enter into the First World War. Between the collapse of the Han and the fall of Rome was a period of 256 years; if we were to extrapolate from the fall the the Qing in 1912, the current Western world order would collapse in the late 2100s.
>>1969 So if we make it in a workable system what would the main outline be? 1. Create a strong discipline for the man, punishments for skiring away from training would be based upon how many times he has avoided it. 2. Oversees for the cultural advancement of the women. What else?
(41.50 KB 511x511 Rm9P25lU.jpg)
>>1975 Christian philosopher kings
(87.90 KB 960x720 slide_5.jpg)
(92.59 KB 640x640 der nihilist.jpg)
>>1969 Yes, Sparta was not exempt from the law of empire, and it had it's own problems. I'm not too well read on the history, so I can't say anything for sure, but it's interesting to consider how civilizations would develop if they went the Spartan route instead of the eudaimonian route. >Between the collapse of the Han and the fall of Rome was a period of 256 years; if we were to extrapolate from the fall the the Qing in 1912, the current Western world order would collapse in the late 2100s. An interesting theory. >>1975 You know, I think even that won't help. If everyone in society is a nihilistic piece of shit that doesn't want to aspire for greatness, you can't change that fact by forcing them to serve in the army or spend n hours per week in a gym or something. You need to give people willpower, and a source of meaning, to cure the nihilism first, otherwise it's like throwing a worm into the air to try and replicate the majesty of a soaring eagle - it's a cargo cult and what fascists and other ideologues try to do, the worm has to want to soar like an eagle on its own, and if it wants to badly enough then it could eventually transform into something like a butterfly. If it continues with the same willpower, along with its offspring and their offspring, then theoretically they may one day become as glorious as their ideal or even better, the meme becomes the gene and over a long enough period of time they evolve into higher forms of life based on willpower alone. After all, genes are just memes encoded as information into proteins, so it's not inaccurate to say that humans, animals, and other forms of life are all memes, maybe even offshoots of one primordial meme, which would be God. So the nihilist and postmodernite in today's society is truly a fucking worm, it's the human version of a kind of sea slug or some other simple creature that feeds off of debris that falls to the bottom of the ocean while hiding in the comfort of its shell. The king is like the eagle to look up to, his proximity to the sun, which is the source of meaning (God), allows him to act as an intermediary between the sacred and the profane so that all creatures can have a connection to the divine, thus curing nihilism. It's not enough to just have a secular ruler who passes on the government to his children, and it's not enough to have a system in place rationing out the appropriate amount of comfort and suffering. What's necessary is divine figures serving as bridges to a spiritual center and a source of meaning that makes any suffering worth it and any comfort unnecessary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XrVnjpVdWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoDP4bXOX_0
>>1978 This is the inevitable product of the industrial revolution. The vast majority of individuals today are the descendants of peasants, whose capacities are no longer necessary. In the medieval era, peasants dreamed of the land of Cockaigne: >Cockaigne or Cockayne /kɒˈkeɪn/ is a land of plenty in medieval myth, an imaginary place of extreme luxury and ease where physical comforts and pleasures are always immediately at hand and where the harshness of medieval peasant life does not exist. Specifically, in poems like The Land of Cockaigne, it is a land of contraries, where all the restrictions of society are defied (abbots beaten by their monks), sexual liberty is open (nuns flipped over to show their bottoms), and food is plentiful (skies that rain cheese). As the peasantry is now the predominant force in society, with all lines between classes erased, we live in their paradise, our world is Cockaigne. The peasants only ever dreamed of the small, they were never meant to lead. That is why we live in the age of petty interest, and the twilight of the soul. The will of the individual is subsumed by the beast of the average, which has proficiency in nothing but neither is deficient; it's only interests are its self-amusement. The question is whether this has become terminal in the disposition of man -- has the blending of classes and the dilution of character resulted in a genetically average creature that cannot comprehend nor pursue greatness? Or if man's environment were transformed, would we be able to transform him, would we be able to restore a natural order? The liberal idealists of the Enlightenment built the concept of democracy on their beliefs that every individual had a natural affinity towards intellect, creativity, and willpower. However we see today after 300 years of Enlightenment society that this is not the case, for the Enlightenment thinkers were deceived by their fellowship. They had considered the manners of the educated European upper class to be universal, rather than cultivated and particular to their extraction. That aristocracy no longer exists, and therefore their construction degenerates; but from whence may a new aristocracy arise? Certainly it cannot come from the merchant class that dominates today's world, with their shameless unscrupulousness, greed, and debauchery. Is there a class of talented individuals which in this world have had their capacities suppressed? In the 19th century, a stock character in Russian literature was the superfluous man: a young aristocrat of possibly untapped potential, who was trapped by a lack of opportunity to progress due to administrative corruption. These individuals were depicted as nihilistic, cynical, fatalistic, self-serving, and petty-minded. Are even those among us of better breeding crushed by the profanity of the world? The sickness of the world drove the great author Tolstoy, an aristocrat, to become a Christian asectic anarchist; but for the sake of man I hope it is not the only station for great individuals to pursue. In Shakespeare, we find described the dissolute behaviour of the young Prince Hal in Henry IV, only for him to become the adroit and courageous warrior-monarch of Henry V. Perhaps if we direct our hopes and prayers, such a heroic man will come to the fore.

Quick Reply

no cookies?