The Royalist Imperative¶
This is an argument I’m really not grasping:
Libertarians are unrealistic because the world was once vastly freer than it is today, and then progressively rolled down the populist hill into the present social democratic latrine trench, so “Why would we expect different results on the second go?” [OK, still following so far] … thus we need Kings back, because … [we need to catch the rising tide, after all, the world hasn’t ever been more monarchist than now? Prussian Neocameralism outlasted Manchester Liberalism? Royalist institutions have demonstrated their inherent immunity to the forces of decay? …]
How can reactionaries criticize free republics for falling apart? Everything reactionaries have ever respected fell apart. Nobody would be a reactionary if their favored configuration of the world hadn’t fallen apart.
Republics are extremely fragile. All the more reason to take devoted care of them (first of all, by protecting them from democracy).
ADDED: Fag-end of a ludicrous institution. (via AoS)
ADDED: Epic response from Nydwracu .