Why do so many people here romanticize the aristocracy and pre-modern ways of life...

Because if you have a modicum of human empathy and kindness, you'd wish for everyone to have their needs met and live a decent life?
But of course, we're posting on a website where many people genuinely believe in racial supremacy, so it's silly to talk of empathy...

No one is entitled to anything but it is in our best societies best interest to maximize the amount of people that are educated and comfortable so to ensure that the best of the best are able to rise to the top and progress humanity forward.

It begs the question, "what is progress?" But unless you subscribe to some racist/ethno doctrine you need to maximize the amount of people that can contribute to whatever your enterprise may be.

The revolution in France was a sickening. I'm not religious but I truly hope that all those involved burn in hell for that Treason, right alongside Oliver Cromwell. Killing your monarch is sickening.

>Why do so many people here romanticize the aristocracy and pre-modern ways of life?

such as....?

That doesn't ensure what you said it does. By trying to help everyone, you have to take away from the people who are capable to bolster the weak. You're not maximizing the people who can contribute you're just trying to raise the living standard of everyone.

Disaffected NEETs daydreaming

There is nothing more holy, righteous and glorious than executing royalty. Every man who has killed a king is certain to sit at the right side of God come His Kingdom.

So instead of grappling with modernity, honestly seeking new paradigms after the inevitable destruction of traditions and hierarchies in the globalized world, your solution is instead to bury your head in the sand and pretend these traditions still exist because it's painful to structure your life without them.
Typical reactionary garbage for idiots.

How can anyone read 1984 and think equality is a desirable goal, especially when the masses don't read?

I'm Catholic. They DO still exist for me. Even Vatican 2 didn't get rid of them.

How can anyone read a piece of fiction and pretend it makes an actual argument in political theory?
Let's not even mention it was written by a socialist.

>How can anyone read a piece of fiction and pretend it makes an actual argument in political theory
Because lots of them do

>Spend years telling white males that everything that they've achieved is an accident of their birth, not their own accomplishments.
> Wonder why they strongly identify with aristocrats.

If I lived under Fascist rule and had access to literature I'd be so beside myself.

Yes, you publish dangerously unpopular ideas in the guise of fiction, and those with most motivation to stand against an evil ideology are those who kind of agree with it, but how are these arguments against the work?

Why give them the tools of their own self-destruction?

>you have to take away from the people who are capable to bolster the weak.

I can't think of a single instance in history where this has actually happened.

>you're just trying to raise the living standard of everyone.

The problem being?

Could the ancient Egyptians have built the pyramids without the thousands of slaves they had?

Empathy is a disease of the mind. It's so bad that children found to have more than an acceptable amount of it should be lobotomized before having the chance to cause large-scale harm.

You have no pathos of distance. Absolutely disgusting.

>"Schools, especially good ones that so emphasize student voice, teach us to value opinion. This is a great deception. Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge; it requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge, according to George Eliot, is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound, purpose-larger-than-the-self kind of understanding."
—Bill Bullard

>Could the ancient Egyptians have built the pyramids without the thousands of slaves they had?

they were built with corvee labor not slaves, read a book

Egyptian citizens did the building themselves, yes they had slaves, but not the average citizens. When they were done with their agricultural activities, they still had the rest of the year to work. combine this with a godhead pharoah and a deeply traditionalist society that shuns individualism and you get huge monumental projects like pyramids.

also their slaveholding empire days were long after the pyramids were built,

Empathy as it manifests itself in most is nothing but a drive to best accommodate those who despise you. Our nation shouldn't be guided by the principles of a second rate novelist.

>With no aristocracy or proper intellectual caste; we can't really judge one man from another through anything other than, say, wealth, or success with women.

Aristocracy is basically just family wealth, and wealth remains highly heritable. What is it that's lacking today?

>Aristocracy is basically just family wealth
That's literally objectively wrong.

No, thats pretty much the definition of an aristocracy

Most peoples' needs already are met, and are living a decent life by their own standards. Very few people are starving right now.

In the West, we have an extremely high standard of living, and yet were are still very unhappy. One out of every six Americans is on antidepressants. Would you call that a "decent life" ?

What people like you fail to understand is that happiness is not connected to material possessions.

>I can't think of a single instance in history where this has actually happened.

When schools got rid of ability grouping.

Defending monarchies is the epitome of cuckoldry.

>A farmer in the Middle Ages could go his entire life without seeing a government agent.

You know nothing of history do you?

What are taxes

This

It came along with social-class too. These people were raised from birth to be our overlords, and they did a good job at pushing our countries forwards. Now-a-days, most rich and powerful people are just psychopaths who put in the most work towards getting there, and aren't really people qualified, or trained to be a proper leader. Modern politicians are trained to get elected, not to lead. And most family fortunes dissipate within 3 generations; it takes work to keep a family rich these days. Instead of having balanced leaders, we have liars who crave power. Instead of having respected merchants, we have usurers and psychopaths. Instead of having intellectuals, we have uncreative-unoriginal sycophants.

The idea of a hereditary aristocracy like we used to have is obsolete, and would be intolerable in modern times, and impossible to recreate even if we desired to do so. But it's hard not to see the appeal in having people who are so clearly a cut above everyone else.

Why are you so full of shit

>It's more of a frustration over the fact we have no truly respectable people these days.

We have mathematicians and scientists that put you to shame

>we can't really judge one man from another through anything other than, say, wealth, or success with women

There is no reason to believe this. This isnt even an obviously intuitive baseless assertion. Its just baseless

>The status of the under classes is irrelevant; though they certainly aren't much happier now

The masses of the past lived lives of horror and disease. Have you ever seriously studied history?

> one just has to look at the growing depression rates

Oh you have depression rates from the middle ages so we can compare them? Fucking idiot

>Why do so many people here romanticize the aristocracy and pre-modern ways of life? You do realize that in the social systems you profess to admire, the vast majority of people lived in shitty conditions and couldn't even afford literature?
The reason people lived in shitty conditions is because electricity and large scale extraction of fossil fuels hadn't been invented. Everything from agriculture, to washing clothes to quarrying building material had to be done either manually or by livestock (that needed to be tended) and this would have been true regardless of how power was administered. There is literally nothing saying that a technological society and an aristocratic society are mutually exclusive. One just happened to come after the other, but the opposite has happened in the past as well. Imperial Rome was more technologically advanced than Republican Rome.

I mean there have been some recent revisionist histories that actually say the opposite...
iterature does differentiate people. I think reading and comprehending philosophy and works does elevate the individual. Not much, you can always tell when someone is regurgitating something for show or bastardizes understanding. However, I do believe there may be something goong for individuals who do read or study aesthetic theory. I don't know this is turning into a shit post.

Fuck off with your tall poppy nonsense, aristocrats played a huge part in helping humanity into it's modern affluent state.
Ideologies built on envy and control

I want to be fucked in the ass by my father

It's ennui. People like to LARP as neo-reactionaries and traditionalists because it distracts them from the painful mediocrity of middle class life, the angst of being a teenager, or sexual frustration.

Not that guy but

>We have mathematicians and scientists that put you to shame
Scientists aren't particularly respected even though "Science!™" is somewhat popular (pic related). Scientists also aren't expected to conform to a higher level of taste and conduct.

>There is no reason to believe this. This isnt even an obviously intuitive baseless assertion. Its just baseless
notanargument.jpg

>The masses of the past lived lives of horror and disease. Have you ever seriously studied history?
A product of a lower level of technological advancement.

>Oh you have depression rates from the middle ages so we can compare them? Fucking idiot
Look up Ted Kaczynski's theory of the loss of the power principle and surrogate activities (or Marx's theory of alienation/exploitation if you prefer).

>Oh you have depression rates from the middle ages so we can compare them? Fucking idiot

People living in third world countries have much lower rates of mental illness than westerners, and I think we can all agree that life in "the developing world" is a pretty close approximation to what life was like in Europe hundreds of years ago.

because they have that obvious pol ideology

>Why are you so full of shit
Because I internalized your most profound sayings.
>We have mathematicians and scientists that put you to shame
There will always be someone better than me. Why would you hold me as the standard to judge society by. Scientists have done very little in recent years, never receive any serious attention outside of military uses, and are only respected by pop culture idiots. We have talking heads without advanced degrees, like Bill Nye, as our most popular living scientists. Doesn't that piss you off?
>There is no reason to believe this. This isnt even an obviously intuitive baseless assertion. Its just baseless
Do you have an alternative way to fairly and pragmatically judge men in our modern capitalist-materialist era?
>The masses of the past lived lives of horror and disease. Have you ever seriously studied history?
Most of the world still lives under horror and disease. Many people in our countries, particularly minorities, also live in constant violence and disease. The only difference is that the upper echelons of society in the past were much more mature and respectable than the filth that lead our countries in the modern era.
>Oh you have depression rates from the middle ages so we can compare them?
My point is that material comfort does not satisfy men. Family, religion, culture, those are things that make people happy. The growing depression rates that I cited are to point out that even though we're earning more comfort, we aren't getting any happier. This is to prove that older generations may have been happier than ours, despite not having our material luxuries.
>Fucking idiot
I'm not fucking an idiot, sorry; you'll have to stay a virgin.

Jihad versus McWorld. We tried it in Iraq and McWorld failed, giving birth to ISIS, and now ISIS is terrorizing materialistic neoliberal drones in Western Europe. Interestingly, many people defecting to ISIS are second generation Muslim immigrants living in McWorld.

>you do realize
come on my brother, don't

Because I like the film Andrei Rublev so much. Neoreaction is different than restoration or typical reaction. It is postmodern to the core. Essentially we have done away with narratives such as equality, egality and fraternity. We want to move forward.

"When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights and the most indispensable of duties."
that's from them

And defending neoliberal Western states isn't much better, if you're trying for consistency.

1984 has absolutely enlightening ideas about the relationship between authoritarianism and language. As a pseud though, you probably don't think language is all that important.

>defending neoliberal Western states isn't better
Fixed that for you.

>he still thinks people are equal

neurology has pretty much proven this to be false, and that people are not equal. mental capability varies in humans as much as fur color in cats,