Hyperindividualism vs Nationalism

The current paradigm of hyperindividualism is based on insane mental gymnastics to explain different outcomes of people with all sorts of envionmental post hoc rationalizations to avoid any sort of "biological essentialism". This is called wishful thinking and practically all of social sciences are based on it. This hyperinidividualism is only working for those on the top of the hierarchy.

The assumption is that anyone can be anything if they are just educated enough(the left wing mentality) or if they just work hard enough(the right wing mentality). Both of these lines of thinking are flawed. Education and hard work are useful for talented people, you get to maximize their potential. Telling these things to less talented people is a cargo cult mentality; expecting for airplanes to arrive and bring you resources when you build a runway.

People are extemely afraid of the reality of the situation. Just watch the scientists tiptoe around the "biological essentialism". Admitting it would break down pretty much all aspects of our current paradigm.

One solution to the problem is some sort of nationalism where you are allowed to feel like you are a part of all the great achievements of your people, because the great men have arisen from the same stock, the same blood as you. There is a lesser feeling of resentment if you consider the great men to be your brothers, and in turn if the great men consider you his brother. If they understand that they happened to be fortunate enough to manifest the best qualities a man can have. That they are made of the same wood as you.

Good effort post, couldn't agree more

The nation is nothing but for the individuals within. And as such, the nation which cannot protect and defend individual sovereignty has no national sovereignty.

I'm not talking about discarding the individual as such, I'm talking about the idea of reviving the tribal mentality in the face of facts that contradict the tabula rasa mentality of people. The tribe is comprosed of individuals with different capabilities and telling them they can be anything is antithetical to the well-being of most people in the long run.

but how could you create this shift to people not getting envious and instead feeling pride over other's accomploishments? sounds like an age old problem, likely not to be fixed

also bump

This level of hyper individualism was not even present 50 years ago. We are nuclearized to a level were complete insanity is reigning. Yes there will always be a level of divided but even I remember with my 26 years a time where there was no shame in seeing oneself as a part of something better and greater.

well there is nothing better or greater. nativist ideals are dead, a simple look outside the window proves that cultural homogeneity/generational tradition is impossible....but the immigrant ideal is also dead; they will never feel at home, and at best, conform into being as colorless as the natives.

the national ideal is too different a picture in each person's head, making genuine connectivity to the communal impossible---or at least perceived to be impossible.

You are likely to be correct to an extent but I think it's pereferable to the current situation. At the very least it in accordance with reality. There is the other problem where people lose their feeling of brotherhood and class problems arise.

i agree--i think we are far too individually focused---i just don't know how to remedy that just short of MUHH WE NEED MORE FAMILY VALUES///MUH DEVELOP LOCAL COMMUNITIES bullshit that will never happen because social media, smart phones, the internet, technology in general, no shortage of super-materialist concerns, vidya, drugs, etc. etc.

the odds are really favoring us being utterly isolated narcissists, and humans have weak will in the face of opportunities for luxury, so it might be around to stay.

unless---as i sometimes fantasize---we will go so far with hyper-individualism that we will eventually eclipse ourselves back to eastern philosophy//collectivism. i.e., once everyone is a perfectly unique individual, really no one is a unique inidividual. also look at the rise of buddhist//yoga paradigms of "being present" // "recognizing place in universe" that are becoming prevalent across western cultures. also look at our text message//emoji manner of speaking: we are relying on ever more simply, yet ever more nuanced and abstract methods of communication, closer in relationship to the symbology of chinese characters than normal english.

does any of that sound like anything more than high rambling? because it is also high rambling, but if you are willing to believe that the yin/yang theory is true (that even if seeming opposites, there is a streak of sameness, that once you push too far, you will eventually get pulled yourself, etc.) than it stands to reason that our cultural evolution mind function along a similar trajectory.

***even IN seeming opposites, there is a streak of sameness

i love Sup Forums but i always wish the more thoughtful threads got more action.

bump again

Progressives are not individualists, they are collectivists who've implemented an array of oppression into their collectivist world view.
In regards to the biological esentialism, they are lumping all of humanity into a single human collective. Nationalism is not incompatible with individualism, because the nation state is the best type of society for the individual to reside within.

well it's Reagan, Thatcher and anti-Communism we have to thank for hyper-individ.

they are a weird group with many ironies--it's not accurate to call a group that is so fascinated with personal expression//self-actualization//pick-an-identity-path collectivist, when so much imperative is put on the individual being as unique as possible. they are hyper-individualists, too, just hyper-individualists who have developed a collective of other hyper-individualists.

but i think the individual comes first, see if I can persuade you here...follow this logic:
>person posts on facebook about LGBT pride//coming out story//trans-awareness bullshit
>yes, there is an element that superficially claims to really care about this collective, this community
>but two things
>1) this particular community is a minority community, a small counter-culture to the norm---so in a relative sense, a truly collectivist ideological system would not cast such a small net to only their particular crowd of deviants
>2) that person posting is first and foremost posting under their name---they want to be seen as a member of this unique subculture---which seems collectivist---but it's really a way to stand out more as an individual from "normal" society.

so in a way, leftists are the most collectivist because they are commies, but the most hyper-indivdualist, because their whole goal in life is essentially personal hedonism (of higher and lower pleasures)

but then again, i am being a bit general and im sure you could poke holes in this

Right wing is finding and accepting your limits and working within them, wherever they lie. Left wing is egomania and playing god.

I see what you're saying : I'd word it like this :

they're collectivist, but they're anti-nation. So therefore, they want a big government, and us all to be a part of it. However, they HATE the idea of a nation, lest of all an ethno-state, so what they really want is a world Government / Matrix / Blade-runner style situation where everyone is plugged into Google's hard drive 24/7 being told what to think.

Whereas I am a collectivist, but only in terms of my own nation. Other nations can get on with their own collectivism. Or what ever it is they want to do.

So national socialism? Hitler had a free market and an authoritarian regime on media, degeneracy and information in general. Made germany the richest country per capita in the world in just 4 years.

There's nothing wrong with collectivism as long as it is voluntary, and happens on both the left and right. Collectivism becomes oppressive when it's forced, and is a favorite tactic of the left.

And yet here we are, a community with shared ideals and values, free to discuss our differences. I think spreading real philosophy to get people to think for themselves will help.

Financial collectivism is always suicide because humans respond to incentives

GDP isn't everything.
I hate it when the left use "muh GDP" to excuse more immigration
Hitler also broke his country, left it in ruins, killed millions of Europeans and made it taboo to be a nationalist for the next 100 years.

This thread is good, dont let it die. Bump

see this gets my noggin joggin. i keep seeing how similar the left//right really is.

because it is at least an american right-wing stereotype to also be anti-nation in the sense that they hate big government//centralization//bureaucracy//regulations
>but they are ideologically, and perhaps more romantically and abstractly patriotic and nationalist

american left-wingers talk all about how terrible and oppressive america is historically and presently (anti-nation)
>but want nanny//big central government
>wants more immigrants (but wait, why would people want to come here unless...unless the country is pretty good afterall)
>actually thinks that government legislation/politicans is the final answer to reducing human suffering

is everyone just sort of retarded and hypocritical?

saving bump

so it sounds like the ideal would be some sort of abstract collectivism that still allowed for personal distinctions and incentives?

essentially, "losers" of the system would have to start telling themselves that they helped drive up the competition, made the best even better than they could have been, and then we all get to reap the spoils (after the biggest dogs eat, of course)

isn't this just sorta what we do already/naturally, like all tribal//hierarchal animals?

to be in a collective says nothing about the hierarchal structure of a collective. a collective /=/ communism.

"get people to think for themselves"

...you mean....like individualism?

you're exactly right, that is the ideal, it's just hard to actually spread that philsophy//count on people to appreciate it

thanks lads

yeah. People and things are hypocritical in general. that's something i've had to really come to terms with over the last few years as I grew into adulthood.

But the only response is to go full-on Ancap, and let's be honest : it really is just a retarded "har har checkmate everyone" stoner/ teenage edgelord's philosophy. You need a country, borders, and a government of some kind, it's just the extent of it we're debating about.
If it didn't exist we'd have to make it exist.
I think the classical writes like Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Paine have the right idea about this kind of thing. THat's why their writings were so influential at the time.

Man! And on Sup Forums of all places. This is pretty profound, dude.

Why would you call someone who feeds off others hyper individualists? Social connection (whatever that is) equals collectivism. Hyperindividualism in my mind is a hermit or a mgtow not someone harvesting the life force of others.

Oh wait yea. I know why. This is a "sabotage superior competition" tactic in an ideology competition.

just to get a bit more back to OP
>you are allowed to feel like you are a part of all the great achievements of your people, because the great men have arisen from the same stock, the same blood as you

impossible nowadays tho, unless we care less about racial//narrow demographic divides. i wager watching a team of black americans is less inspiring to me than watching a team of white americans, and that's just innate.
>you won't think "same stock, same blood" if people are different races//even different cultures
>america: literally infinite races//huge range of cultures
>would have to be more general pride AH LOOK WHAT MY HUMAN BROTHER WHO FLIES THE SAME FLAG COULD DO
>less inspiring than: this man is made from the same stuff as me

Also tho:
>Implying it was ever a great thing for people to ride on the coattails of their neighbors
>sure, it makes you feel cozier and a part of something
>but also is a good way to delude yourself into happiness//not acknoweledge your actual skill level
>what im saying is, einstein's little sister might have been a complete dotard and her feeling special about being closely related to einstein probably doesn't mean jack-shit over MUH FEELINGS

maybe too harsh, i feel what you are saying completely, i just don't think it's tenable anymore---and that might not be the worst thing. it might make us less happy but *sigh* at least we will be more honest with how much talent we have

>social connection
>2017
>mostly social media/phone/internet connection
>i.e. illusory connection
>i.e. fake connection
>i.e. isolated
>i.e. individualist, not collectivist

lol maybe not, it's actually really easy to bullshit back and forth between being a collectivist or an idnividualist.

my pet theory is the tapestry metaphor:
>if you want the strongest, most ornate, most beautiful tapestry, you need the best individual threads
>and you need a designer to organize all the scenes, weaves, and colours
>tfw you realize the only true answer is a non-hereditary, poet-king monarchy
>tfw I am america's first king

screencap this

yeah I know whatcha mean about recognizing hypocrisy in the adult world.

also, lol at your summary of an-cap philosophy: i am of the exact same mind. i think it's good to be a personal---or local, if you will---anarchist.

and i tend to lean more right-wing in terms of political philosophy, but in terms of poltiical reality, my personality and daily life is much more "liberal".

i don't really like most american conservatives, the stereotypes are often true

I am not an american and obviously this line of thinking is either post-american or pre-multiethnic american.

>top quality thread,

yes, sorry for being a narcissist.

also bump.

and another one

No because individualism from the hermit is based on self-reliance not on parasitism. If your energy interacts with other people's energies to survive then it means you are collectivist. Mountain man not interacting with anyone is not the same as businessman exploiting workers for his benefit.

Its not illusory. If it is illusory then it means that you can drop everything right now and live in the mountains by yourself because every social interaction was illusory and it was you all along who kept yourself alive.

Pic unrelated.


Problem with nationalism, the problem of scope destroys everything humanistic and larger scale:
- What is exactly your nation then ? Is "Spanish " a nation ? If so what is this "Catalan" business ? After 500 years these guys are still there. What is that "North/South Italy" conflict I am hearing about ?
Nationalism has a scope problem. It may go all the way to micronationalism (chaos) to over-nationalism (Global World Order)
It wrecked empires in which people more or less lived much wealthier and happier lives but it didn't solve exploitation of Africa up to this day. French literally made this stuff up and it has been plaging the world since then.

Do you know the ultimate form of biological essentialism ?
Monarchy ! It is the only system that handles the "scope" problem and whether a kingdom or empire can be considered that "great family to be part of" . Which doesn't require my genes or skin color but my loyalty and hard work. I can be a lone merchant/hunter etc or a lord/bey leader of a group.

Refute this.

>Eurocuck hides behind Gadsden flag, pimping monarchy like a subservient little bitch
>Thinks he deserves a refutation

Look at it above the scale of personal interaction. There's no true self-reliance in modern times. Is that hermit who's living in the mountain the one who's securing his territory rights? Is he the one who's stopping someone else from coming along and digging a mine on his property, or logging in his forest?

Even primitive tribes on isolated, disconnected islands aren't self-reliant, they depend on conservation treaties and such that keep countries from developing their land.

Hyperindividualism is the only sane answer in modernity. Collectivism is a farce and has proven to be such due to two reasons
>no social cohesion due to citizens holding conflicting beliefs/ideals
>collectivists do not care for the individual, only the collective
Why, then, should the individual give a single shit about the collective, when the collective has clearly stated its intention to exploit and manipulate the individual? In order for the collective to thrive, you require individual compliance and incentives to ensure regular productivity. You have neither, nor do you offer any realistic solution. A quick cost/benefit analysis yields hyperindividualism as the most optimal selection.

there is a difference---from the most abstract to the most physical qualifications---between social connection online and in person. yes, there is someone behind that other computer, but i'd wager that sight/touch/scent/present conversation play a much greater role in our happiness/sense of community.

it's not illusory because we know that there are people on the other end out there, but it is illusory in as far as it cannot replace genuine connectivity---despite the fact that it seems like it can//people have been using it as a replacement/easier alternative to actually connecting, while still not feeling too bad about themselves.

this. it's not about the political power of the monarch, it's about the unifying symbol/the national family.

redpill of the day: the revolutionary war was well-intended, warm-blooded, and bad-ass.....but a philosoophical misstep.

Snek has been appropriated by hyperindividualists

Subservience to a king who has the public obligation to uphold his subjects' welfare vs subservience to the shareholders of media which dictates public opinion and thus decides your government and has no obligations to anything except their own profits.

If the Founding Fathers could have seen what this republic would have evolved into, they would have carried on with monarchy.

I unironically support non-hereditary monarchism.

a true king and queen, who advise one another and rule together. the feminists would be happy, the liberals would get to ooogle over royal family tabloid pictures (no higher celebrity than a king and a queen), and the right would get a smaller, ismpler government that has vaguely fascist undertones.

debate me.

well-posted.

good faith bump

I am a Turk in Turkey you %56 Goblin. I have to use proxy because Sup Forums is blocked here.
Now refute it you %44 Human.

nationalism is for dumb cucks who want to bask in achievement they didn't do themselves

And Britain has both. Not seeing what point you're trying to make.

>no social cohesion due to citizens holding conflicting beliefs/ideals
The social cohesion of hyperindividualism is terrible. Look at all the marxists dragging the succesful people down.

>collectivists do not care for the individual, only the collective
I don't claim individuals don't exist, I'm claiming that most individuals lose when everyone is told lies about the natue of their being. The people at the top just get to feel self-righteous for being there, despite it being mostly coincidental.

>and has proven to be such due to two reasons
You do nothing to substantiate those reasons, and then carry on to make baseless claims about the collective exploiting and manipulating the individual.

>have monarchism
>make sure king and queen know
>that they are the people's bitches
>??????
>profit

i like it. aligns with aristotle's concept of social hierarchies: that the top of the pyramid can just as easily be seen as the bottom--full of responsibility and servitude to the "people"

Hyperindividualism cannot defend the borders or culture of a nation.

>If the Founding Fathers could have seen what this republic would have evolved into, they would have carried on with monarchy
Unlikely since they were pozzed freemason tools.

>look at the rise of buddhist//yoga paradigms of "being present" // "recognizing place in universe" that are becoming prevalent across western cultures.
You can find that in Stoicism as well

this is reductive and highly general, but has some truth.

i'd say dumb cucks are dumb cucks, and they will either piggyback MURICA or KANGZ, their area code, their friend group, or their family.

to let untalented weaklings claim to be nationalists should be outlawed.

Irrelevant if it exists or not because I'm defining hyper individualism. But yea if he stealths from the public eye or is deemed too unimportant+too much effort to deal with then he is self reliant and could not give a shit if an area is protected or not.

Yeah, this is the basis of civilization, and it is why individualism destroys all civilizations. The Human problem. www.amerika.org

...

I agree with you points. I would like to debate on non-hereditary part.
What is in your mind ? You would pit the children of the royal family against each other for say... performance in leadership, economic miltatary skills ? And the winner ;not the older ; takes throne ?
Or you mean competing "families" ?

I agree. Though maybe not so sure about revolution part. It was quite a complicated business from what I understand.

Why don't we just let poor people kill themselves without help lmao

huh, hadn't thought of that. makes sense. could you point me to any specific readings?

>inb4 google
I know you're not a librarian, but i'd be eager to read up a bit more on stoicism. never read any official docs of it

This is my conclusion, but I'm a biologist. I hate my colleagues for being spineless or stupid, and I'll never know which one it is. Spineless probably.

You might not be friends with the plumber but him unshifting your toilet before you die from disease ain't illusory connection. Besides this is a different topic.

Being an individual begs the question, an individual what? The modern answer is apparently an individual individual, and it's killing us. Embracing the tribe provides the necessary stability and substrate from which to further individuate.

They would be much more explicit in what constitutes a citizen

They don't have both, their monarchy's (sadly) been reduced to essentially a tourist attraction.

no, ideally the children wouldn't be involved.

it's the reelection process/next in line thing that gets tricky and risks running the route of...
>an elite group selects next in line (elite in either the educational, financial, or sphere of influence senses)
>pro: not swayed by general ignorance, mob rule
>susceptible to takeover/corruption/mafia
>other option: people elect monarchs
>well, that's just democracy, but with more power and longer terms
>pros: abstract feeling of involvement, political power for (((everyone)))) cons: it's fucking retarded, our electorate is fucking retarded, fuck that idea

the only thing i can think right now would be some combination of locally elected representatives from all over the nation to form the committee that chooses next in line///with much advice and consideration from the current monarch

obviously there are holes in this haha

I don't really have a good depth of knowledge so I don't want to speak for an entire philosophy, but Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a pretty common entry point for those interested in Stoicism

State and nation aren't the same thing.

Social cohesion is irrelevant to the hyperindividualist. What others do is of no concern. I won't deny that human nature puts hyperindividualism at a disadvantage, but we live in the age of modernity, where such an approach to life is not only superior to collectivism but also a form of self-preservation. The reasons for one to cast aside their rational self interest are simply not there. Once again, there are no appealing incentives to abandon hyperindividualism, so expect it to grow in the future.

Want substantiation? Simply observe how hostile people are towards one another during a political discussion, how willing they are to get aggressive and hotheaded. And note that your average far leftist only concerns their mind with what's best for the collective at the expense of the individual. In order for your collective to thrive, you need compliance and incentive. Once again, neither are there anymore.

You're right, hyperindividualism on its own cannot do that. Neither can leftism, which is a very collectivist ideology determined on doing away with borders.

Collectists have no one to blame but themselves for why hyperindividualism is on the rise. When you remove the incentives for one to want to contribute, don't act surprised when they stop caring and go elsewhere. Removing the carrot from the stick was a disastrous mistake.

i agree---but that's not really what i'm talking about. to use your example, i'd say having a non-friendly, purely business based interaction with your plumber IN PERSON is worth 50 (you)'s on Sup Forums.

and it's not a totally different topic. we were talking about how it's impossible to be a true hyper-individualist so long as you are ingrained in society---and i totally get your point there----but i think you are underselling how different our very ideas of social interaction are nowadays.

like how we interact socially is one of the most influencial aspects---if not the most important and infliencial aspects---of the the collective psyche.

our primordial need for community, that itch to belong, can now be scratched indirectly and at least A BIT INAUTHENTICALLY...you must admit that the internet is a great way to really feel like you belong without ever really getting the long-term (or even short-term) benefits of belonging to a community. there is a reason that facebook usage and depression are correlative.

and it's not just like, "oh now our social interactions are a bit taken care of online, but we still function normally socially offline"
>i'd argue that our dependence on internet/media/smart phones actually make us never really offline,
>and even when we are "BEING SOCIAL"
>so much of the reason to be social is for internet glory, for internet commemorating, for internet attention.
>we can't be doing something socially unless everyone sees that we are doing something socially.

i would say, if I may be horribly vague and extremely centrist.....we are simultaneously more connected, and more isolated than ever before.

CONGRATS, I JUST PASSED PHILOSOPHY 101

on it.

Hereditary monarchy provides stronger incentives for stewardship, and modern understanding of genetics eliminates risks. The people should have choice over which family member takes the reigns. Possibly even say over marriages. The royal line is everyone's concern. Every royal generation has a duty to produce multiple heirs to allow for the choice of the people, but they can all be educated to rule from birth.

Then how about a group of advisors that are selected for their loyalty and skills advising a member of the family to the family and then family makes it's own choice according to what advice they get and what citizens think (popularity). And if he/she turns out incompotent/crazy/overambitious he will be dethroned by decrees from advisor council and head family ?

I highly recommend it, it helped get me out depression and really improve my worldview

yeah i know there are abstract/academic/and very real distinctions to be made, but they often occupy the exact same psychological place and offer us that same feeling of unification and community. so thanks for the critique, but i wish you'd addressed some of the decent points i raised rather than being an autist

How about adopted?

>Simply observe how hostile people are towards one another during a political discussion, how willing they are to get aggressive and hotheaded.
That's because they're operating as hyper-individualists. They don't actually subscribe to any collectivist ideals. "Greater good" is used merely to satisfy their personal narcissism. Would they be so willing to self-sacrifice if they didn't have a Facebook account to tell everyone about it and get thousands of likes?

There are plenty of people who aren't like this, they recognize and accept that they might be wrong, or that someone else might have a better idea, and are completely prepared to concede it if it's demonstrated; simply because it would be better for the collective.

I agree that the compliance and incentive aren't there in our society, but that's the point. It's not an intrinsic fact, it's a product of this type of society we built. I think we need to build a different one.

If you're successfully breeding monarchs, I can't see why you would bother accepting an adopted ruler, as you marry in the genetic diversity you want. It also disrupts the family ties function that might interface well with neighboring states. Seems risky.

y'know, when you spell it out that ways, it doesn't sound so bad.

i like what you said about incentivizing stewardship through a family dynasty. that makes good sense. and a small, highly limited pool of candidates like the royal family would seem manageable for the general population haha. i think the public would then also have to verify marriages, which would be fun.

>but what if kids are just straight retards? modern understandings of genetics doesn't mean we have done away with getting unlucky and birthing a bunch of anti-social retards
>also: wealthy, powerful kids can often be highly entitled and low in work-ethic
>would have to be forced to go out in the world and learn to empathize with the everyday civilian if it was to work
>this would also boost the public's perception of the ruler, as well as likely making them a better ruler in a more tangible sense, too, after learning more about "normal" life

just playing devil's avocado

> The assumption is that anyone can be anything if they are just educated enough(the left wing mentality) or if they just work hard enough(the right wing mentality).
Or the third line of thinking; with freedom people have the opportunity to follow their path in life however they wish to whatever lengths while offering others the most freedom to find their life meaning as well.

There's nothing more disgusting than trying to justify the sacrifice of a soul on the altar of collectivism like some fucking aztec degenerate.

It violates the "Biological Essential" part :)
Can be an advisor commander or "spiritual leader" but no... not real royal family.


OK then. This was the best thread today. Goodnight lads. It is literally morning here and although a useless NEET I am, I also need some sleep.
Nighty night.

good post user

forget about ethno-nationalism and tribalism.

what we need to embrace is sperm donation eugenics, so we can breed the smartest humans possible, then distribute this super sperm to everyone who needs a brain boost.

once everyone is intelligent, race won't matter, there will be no racism, because everyone will act intelligently and in a civilized manner, and there will be world peace and an end to nations and war.

I don't disagree with your assessment. My criticism is that much of the contradictions you noted dissolve when you differentiate nation from state. The right is consistent with regard to nation, and the left in terms of state. If you conflate the two it becomes utter hypocracy.

Because you're not always going to breed successful monarchs, such as Charles II and Commodus. And the strict standards for hereditary succession always follow with conflict, as the bad monarch doesn't breed a son or some other issue

If the one adopted comes from your people and a family of high status, then I don't see the problem. I guess I just disagree on the biological essentialism

so you are suggesting a three-way deliberation? advisors///family///citizens decide?

makes sense, if I understand ya correctly

>group of advisors selected for their loyalty and skills
but who choses
>incompetent/crazy/overambitious
again, who choses, who judges

you're right in theory, there is just plenty of room for corruption leading into full-blown Big Brotherhood

>be me
>be pointing out human systems are fallible, no matter what
>actually think I'm smart for a second
>almost delete post out of self-loathing
>tfw pseudo-intellectual

I'm an individual, just like society expects me to be

goodnight, love.

fun shitposting wit ya

All that stuff is a good idea. Nobless oblige and all that. Obviously, you veto retards, and I assume you could submit them to psych evals or whatever.

>Absolute state of American biology classes

What da fug am I supposed to do with that white liquid ?! Drink it to make me smarter ?

This isn't how biology works user...

Trips

...

ah i appreciate you further articulating that, you're onto something. it's very easy to conflate the two, and in the pop-culture-politics that we are drowning in, the two terms are virtually interchangeable. that's likely part of the problem (and a part of the problem that I played into a bit with my post)

seems to me that proving to liberals that what they are after is actually closer to fascism and big brother than trump could ever be might be a very persuasive tactic. hilarious to me that the political party that hates authoritarian rule and oppressive regimes so much is constantly calling for bigger government.

i think the left and the right would get along a lot better if we worked out our differences in how we articulate issues.

I really think you have to have a constitutional monarchy where the people have authority over succession and such to mitigate this. The benefits outweigh the risks if you set it up properly. If succession isn't based on birth order, and there's no inbreeding, or you have a mechanism for selecting a new monarch from the family by will of the people, you can cover the bases and retain the better incentives and focused specialization of monarchy as leadership.

Kek. Great post.