Deleted post.

[Vigilance]

It's right there in the stability during the ebb and flow of human behavior.

Imagine you were a heroin addict. Assuming that heroin addiction is bad, would stability be a good thing for an addict to have?

No -- they'd be stable in their addiction. So it is with democracy, the death of a thousand cuts.

The ANUS article still applies. Conservatism is a principle that transcends our mainstream politics. No matter how you argue it, leftism is crazy-retarded. Absolutely zero (0) "third way" movements have avoided this.

The only sensible option is a non-State, e.g. a monarchy plus strong ethnic-cultural identity.

I'd like you to consider what stable means in context of the rest of my post. As American history has shown, the heroin addiction has been cured before.  To be clear: I'm not arguing for liberalism, I'm arguing conservatism: preserving what works by making a case for the American Democracy.
 
Much respect to you brother but there are views that are veering into utopianism:

Spengler pointed out that all cultures are subject to diminishing returns. At some point everything that can be said, will be said and the people therein tend to seek out external sources. This is one human impulse which has to be ignored in order to have an isolated cultural idenity. Further, you have to ignore human migration, the impact of border expansion, the constitution of peoples after imperial states. Ethnic identities are in constant flux, though particular constitutions will arise and hold ground for some time. In short: entropy.

Monarchy isn't bad, though we only need what it entails at a specific juncture. Same with Aristocracy and same with Populism.

[death metal black metal]

In short, entropy.

We must resist entropy.

We've now done the democracy experiment, again, and it's time to try something that works.

Utopianism? How about trying to keep patching a leaky boat?

[TableauxParisiens]

History suggests a cycle: Monarchy->Aristocracy->Democracy-->back again to Monarchy.

You're listing some forms from the Iron Age, but where are hunter gatherer style societies? It would seem that if we obliterate the majority of life and resources (more realistic prediction than curbing), survivors will reject the past Iron Age altogether, and the few that remain will fend in units within the scarcity that will be a charred husk of planet earth. In this scenario, monarchy won't be powerful enough for rationed survival.

Also, how can monarchy be a good idea, ever? It's a game of chance of who becomes a monarch, or in other cases, the person who becomes monarch is the person who was the most ruthless, who maimed, or defrauded to get into that position of power.

You could turn a monarch into Plato's republic, where there are challenges and tests to get there, but how can you be so sure the person who made these wasn't corrupt themselves? Moreover, why should one person determine the overall morality of all? Isn't it better to have a society sculpted from the ground by artists and thinkers, a society based on an aristocracy of the spirit? Monarchy is just an ancient form of fascism.

Again, I'll return to Nietzsche. He saw our current time as nihilism, a small amount of overmen would walk the earth armed with knowledge, while the rest become normalized, in a time without culture. However, he believed we can still come upon a great society in the future. A great time was the Renaissance, laws were free, and society built itself on the values of overmen. The society itself had values that made its architecture, media, art, food, and environment all vast. I think the Renaissance was going towards a healthy society, but then Luther, and the Industrial/French revolution, ruined it.

[Vigilance]

We must resist entropy.

You propose that we resist a mechanism that is hardwired into the nature of reality?

[crow]

Too smart by half.
Good question.
Nature is subject to entropy.
Humans may stop the clock for a while, under certain conditions. That's part of being human.
And being temporary is also part of being human.

[Dylar]

We must resist entropy.

You propose that we resist a mechanism that is hardwired into the nature of reality?

I'll admit, I had the same reaction.

[death metal black metal]

We must resist entropy.

You propose that we resist a mechanism that is hardwired into the nature of reality?

Yes, of course. Gravity is hardwired into reality, and we resist that daily. Reality is deterministic based on choice, but its constants are forces to be displaced. Consider a boat on water: displacement of that water with air makes it float.

Dare I resist the mechanism of water's weight which is hardwired into the nature of reality?

Yes, of course.

[aquarius]

The way I see it, life is just a big old game of curling . You have to move with things in a general direction, you have a general desired destination and the potential to achieve it with some tools that help to influence potential along the way. Also, there's the element of chance (very exciting!). Of course, sometimes we just aren't going to win. Nothing wrong with that though (as though there's always tomorrow). And throwing the game just spoils it for the opponent (who is just like you, only the opposite).

[Vigilance]

We must resist entropy.

You propose that we resist a mechanism that is hardwired into the nature of reality?

Yes, of course. Gravity is hardwired into reality, and we resist that daily. Reality is deterministic based on choice, but its constants are forces to be displaced. Consider a boat on water: displacement of that water with air makes it float.

Dare I resist the mechanism of water's weight which is hardwired into the nature of reality?

Yes, of course.

I might argue that looking outward for cultural reinvigoration is an attempt to counter cultural entropy because the introduction of another high energy resource into a system is the only mechanism which addresses energy lost.

No different than generating lift to achieve flight.

If you have a method for resisting entropy which doesn't involve the introduction of an external source of high energy into the system to achieve the same result, I'd love to hear it.

[death metal black metal]

What is the closed system, the individual or the culture? I say the individual.

Culture renews itself. It requires strong leadership or it converges on a default.

[Vigilance]

I'm not entirely convinced in the reality of closed systems. That seems to be expressive of the limits of logical reasoning. Independence is never absolute. If we are looking at smaller systems, the degree to which they are able to conserve forms is proportional to their complexity - which is proportional to the amount of energy flowing through that system. To tie that into the real world as an example, aboriginal Australians have maintained their culture for many thousands of years, however, their social organization is non-complex, thus it is immune from the entropy rape which topples complex literate civilizations.

I would argue that populations rejuvenate themselves and interject essences of themselves into cultural forms.

[Time Curator 23]

There is nothing stable about democracy. Democracy is only ever a hoodwinking of the masses by an oligarchy (most often, though not always, a plutarchy).

Even more, there has never even been an actual democacy. It is merely a chimera. The same goes for a free market. Doesn't exist.

We have to stop quibbling over the formalisms and get to the substance. The Nazis talked a good game early on, but ended up being just another form of destructive demagoguery.

Who cares if one lives in a monarchy or republic? The only relevant question is: what is the society accomplishing?

[Vigilance]

There is nothing stable about democracy. Democracy is only ever a hoodwinking of the masses by an oligarchy (most often, though not always, a plutarchy).

Democracy is human and therefore it's subject to the faults and failures of humanity. As pointing out and supported by historical events, the American system has overturned stalemates in the degenerated aristocracy multiple times now. Let's take this out of hyperbole and ground it in historical fact, yes?

Even more, there has never even been an actual democacy. It is merely a chimera. The same goes for a free market. Doesn't exist.

By the same accord, there's never been actual communism. It's quite dangerous to deny the real existence of something because the details don't match the theory or the abstraction.
 

Who cares if one lives in a monarchy or republic? The only relevant question is: what is the society accomplishing?

There are no shortage of examples throughout history where the ruling elite becomes wholly detached from reality. The advantage of the American democracy is that it can, and has been demonstrated to show that it has, removed the ineffective degenerative elite without the need for violent revolution. Again, it offers stability through the natural cycles of anacyclosis described in Plato's Republic.

Whatever human populations accomplish is always driven by whatever their culture thinks is important. The dichotomy you present is too narrow to be any usem

[Time Curator 23]

Hmm. Well, here's how I see it.

First off, the American ideal is not democracy, it's a constitutional representative republic, finding its fullest and best to date design and expression in the American School of economics. This is a highly intelligent, nuanced, idealistic-yet-realistic view. It is most definitely not democratic, at all. If you want to talk "historical fact", then name me ONE democracy in ALL of history. You can not find one. They don't exist. Democracy is always a lie, a con, a swindle, a manipulating the masses into thinking they have self-rule.

Second, there's nothing dangerous about denying democracy. It's called sanity. If someone says "the aliens are coming to kill us" yet there is ZERO evidence for their claim, I deny it. It's a healthy thing to do. The same goes for "democracy", "libertarianism", "communism", etc. -- all synthetic ideas and demagoguery designed to get people to cut their own throats.

Third, there is most definitely blood on the sword of America. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War...

Fourth, Plato himself forthrightly speaks out against democracy. He states: "These will be some of the features of democracy... it will be, in all likelihood, an agreeable, lawless, parti-colored society, dealing with all alike on a footing of equality, whether they be really equal or not."

[crow]

Comment of the week. Maybe prizes should be handed out. Symbolic ones, anyway.