Why Revolutionary States Are Doomed To Fail

[@Lavader_]

Remember kids: There is nothing more Revolutionary today, than being Counter-Revolutionary!

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

What about a revolution to restore þe King?

[@miraak2213]

​@@StarsBarsAndCheese that is counter revolutionary

[@thatguys4341]

Hell yeah let’s go

[@National-Democrat.Ukrainian]

Not everywhere.

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

@@miraak2213 Fair enough, I hadn't made it þrough þe video enough to see he was talking about revolutionary ideology.

[@onemoreminute0543]

My favourite revolutionary failure to read about is the Xinhai Revolution in China in 1911: > Attempt to overthrow the imperial Qing dynasty and establish nationalism, democracy, and welfarism > Fight and then negotiate with the Qing general Yuan Shikai > Convince Yuan to force the Qing emperor to abdicate in return for making him the first president of the new Republic of China > Success! > 4 years later Yuan makes himself the new emperor of China > Fuck > His death then leads to China breaking down into a chaotic patchwork of warlords vying for power for multiple decades > Be Sun Yat-Sen You tried Dr Sun. You tried 😔

[@brandonmikhailov3569]

Xinhai Revolution was supposed to overthrow Qing and restore Ming as the government of China

[@magnoliy08]

poor guy (((

[@kwesikwansakennedy2196]

He did his best, sad for him

[@NapoleanBlown-aparte]

>be national hero in both the ROC and the PRC He actually didn't do that bad in the making history regard

[@-Justinus-]

Followed by decades of civil war and the brutal japanese invasion to boot

[@roseandsword.]

Can't be revolutionary forever; you need to have a tradition/heritage to be conservative about if you want to last long term.

[@williemherbert1456]

As if culture or tradition isn't a subject of change, heck even Christianity being borne as an abject criticism against many malpractices in Judaism by the High Priest and those arrogant self-proclaimed piety folks and Rabbi. As Jesus also fellow Rabbi that sees the essence of truth in their faith has gone long ago with many stupid excuses of rites and norms as law should be abided by everyone but them, both chaos and order should coexist by not letting each element confining others.

[@PhilosophicallyAmerican]

@@williemherbert1456 That is the most incorrect breakdown of the ministry of Christ and first century church I have ever read.

[@RomaCatholica]

​@@williemherbert1456Wrong. Christ came to do many things, but none is revolutionary. Christ was a reactionary for He wanted to restore God's monarchy. The revolution happened by the hands of the pharisees so He must criticize them. Not all changes are revolution, they may be reaction, so would you consider the vendeans revolutionaries for they criticized the republic? It's a nonsense, they did so for their goal was the restoration of the monarchy, of tradition.

[@RomaCatholica]

​@@PhilosophicallyAmerican His brain is on protestantism

[@williemherbert1456]

@@RomaCatholica Tell that when no one is King other than him, but even He still tell us obligated to pay our duties to authority, nevertheless Jesus still would vehemently reject notion of incrimentally hierarchical religious structure that had developed by now into current situation of the Church. After all, what being main point of what He's doing throughout the Gospel is reaching out the hypocrisy done by Head Priest, Pharisees, and the Torah Scribe that by intentional trying in plain sight to abuse and exploit their position within religion institution of Judaism at thay time. Even when He's the King of Heaven, He never bragging on and on about it, rather persistently say that He is the means of divine salvation for humanity to be cleansed from sin, as human will of God trying to understand our livelihood. Excessive rites and norm without properly serving the common folks and God alone in all seriousness is main reason why Protestantism came out as it is, criticism against decadency already rotting eaten up in its core that once fervour in being servant of God's will. And about changes not being revolution, well whatever you may think to justifying reactionary as change when in fact they are attempt to reverse whatever force of progress is heading into, then to me it's not a change rather than sorry excuse as attempt to salvage whatever that just no longer working. Just as I said why Jesus is revolutionaries before, if you care too muh on the nitty gritty formality or norm intentionally preserving unfair hierarchy explicitly putting oneself as better than other, powerful and righteous than them, indeed you're nothing more than alike to those Pharises and Torah Scribe being critisized by Jesus for losing their path into Truth about the Kingdom of Heaven. French monarchy is dead and decadent, useless crap of the past that even being disdained by other monarchiess from the coalition force as an incompetent, only to be preserved to stay merely for 3 reign of kings until another re-establishment of the Bonapartist regime by Napoleon III.

[@flamingmoe1805]

Destruction of Mao's four olds philosophy in full display in the modern west. (Pulling down statues, ideas, and systems) The Four Olds were 'old ideas', 'old culture', 'old customs', and 'old habits

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

Mao: destroys the past century of China being cuked by the west and gives women rights This graduate of KZbin academy when HIS OWN society rebuilds babylon: "just liek Mao Zedooong!!"

[@ronmastrio2798]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 Lol believing in a German ideology is the ultimate cuckoldry of China.

[@Boconnor401.]

No? Mao has nothing to do with this

[@Pancasilaist8752]

​​@@daseapickleofjustice7231he literally almost destroyed china entire history,culture,and heritage. Things that once commonplace like tea house and peking opera was almost destroyed entirely by his red guards.

[@Pancasilaist8752]

​@@daseapickleofjustice7231i don't know why you acting like mao is the most anti west communist out there when in reality he was much more friendly to US than soviet ever does. And don't get me started with his relationship with nixon and kissinger.

[@darthutah6649]

TLDW version: It's because ideologies are supposed to serve the overall society. Revolutionary states revolve around a singular ideology. This ideology must be implemented from the top-down, leading to the totalitarian state. Every cultural institution must be controlled such as education, entertainment, and religion. To keep the ideology going, the people must live and breathe the ideology. The whole country essentially becomes a cult. Organic states, by contrast, are a product of several generations establishing culture. They are not static in that nothing ever changes but are not radical either.

[@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon]

Is only 20 minutes dude...

[@romanpyatibratov4361]

tell that to the bourgeoisie revolution in France. Or independence revolution in America. There is no such thing as organic state. Monarchy was the ideology of "superior" blood of royal family, benefitting the ruling class. Capitalism is the ideology of exploitation, benefitting the bourgeoisie class. Socialism is the ideology of democracy, benefitting the proletariat class. Every stated formed and developed it's ideology. And over time it gets accepted by people living in it. It's a slow process that required 2-3 generations at least to be adopted.

[@National-Democrat.Ukrainian]

Flames of revolution cannot burn eternally.

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

Ironic from a ukrop

[@National-Democrat.Ukrainian]

​​@@daseapickleofjustice7231 -Told by communist inhuman.

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

@@National-Democrat.Ukrainian hahaha dont like that you predicted your own failure? I know some revilutionary heroes who wont fail, shoutout to the heroes of Donetsk!

[@National-Democrat.Ukrainian]

​@@daseapickleofjustice7231 No, I do not. I'm simply stating a fact that is clear as day before my very eyes: you are a vile, communist inhuman, devoid of any semblance of humanity. You and your kind are a blight on society, destined to fail at life just like your pathetic revolutions. Opportunities will flee from you, disgusted by the thought of associating with a creature like you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. And let's not forget the so-called "Donbass revolutionaries"-a laughable myth. They're nothing but FSB agents and local thugs, but you're too mindless to grasp that, of course.

[@magnoliy08]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 someone hasn't looked at the state of the city, we don't even need to bomb it, its falling apart on its own.

[@commlasky6653]

"Revolutionary" and "Organic" states should be better defined, or atleast acknowledged that a revolutionary state could work given correct circumstances. In a sense the United States is a Revolutionary state that had successfully managed transfer itsekf into an organic one, similar to the KMT in Taiwan, and the Irish State. But this could similary be attributed to a differnce in the goal of the revolutionaries and what bonded them as opposed to ideology alone. Though even China has managed to survive as a revolutionary state, as it rejetected to a point Mao's original visions.

[@chongjunxiang3002]

China literally manage to survive until today because it build based on nationalism, and not much about Bolshevism other than in official papers. Sun Yat-sen revolution, while try to build a brand new Chinese identity, is still build based on whatever Chinese is since Emperor Qin. Better example could be refer from Ataturk, where it is just rebuild Anatolian from crumbling Ottoman sultanate, unfortunately a lot of blood, who they see as "not Turks", were shed for that.

[@commlasky6653]

@chongjunxiang3002 I mean that the China today is arguably different from what Mao envisioned, and had evolved through his predacessors rejection of his more radical beleifs. The Turkish example is also of nationalism, as Ataturk pretty much made himself to be "Father of the Turks", and is possibly why Turkey is still functioning despite all the many military coups and power transitions

[@danshakuimo]

The US is only semi-revolutionary, which was primarily caused because the colonial aristocracy wanted to assert their traditional rights as Englishmen that the English crown and Parliament were neglecting. Even in modern law textbooks there are lots of cases from England because there is still a degree of continuity with the ancient institutions of England. The KMT is also only semi-revolutionary, and tried to become revolutionary but was unable to come up with a coherent ideology to rally the disparate factions and common people around, and this may have put them at a disadvantage during the civil war since the people were much more drawn to Mao. Chiang-Kai Shek tried to promote social reform but it was very orthopraxic and not very ideological, including things like not snacking and washing hands (lol). But perhaps tradition and revolution are like oil and water, and even though the KMT was a "revolutionary party" and inspired by Leninism to a degree, it was a revolution without a true revolutionary ideology to go behind it, but perhaps that was for the better. I am not an expert on the Irish state but it seems similar to the KMT where while "revolutionary," the only real revolutionary idea they had was Irish nationalism but is otherwise focused on preserving Irish tradition and faith more than tearing down anything besides British oppression.

[@reactiondavant-garde3391]

Recolution doesn't mean rebellion in this context, the Irish state is not revolutionary in ideology and fundamentals, the state based on not an ideology, but the irish people living tradition and faith. It is organic even if techincly a revolution created it. America is half and half, the instituations and the mentality thet maintained the USA was organic english traditions and the protestant faith, but the revoltionary ideology was baked into it's foundation as well. As we can see this foundation start crumbling as the political elit more and more want to purify the ideology and go it's logical end point and by it destroying the organic part of the state. USA is activly destroyed by the revolutionary idea thet were planted into it's foundation like a timed-bomb.

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

Yes China does defeat this entire mind rot of a video. However both the United States, Ireland and Taipei are not revolutionary states they are all occupied by the old English banks. None of their governments act in favour of their own country, they act as slaves to western banking.

[@charmyzard]

Because, when their big enemy is defeated, they have each other's 'impures' to eat. Robertspierre moment.

[@nicolascareaga6206]

Tankies: The revolutionary state will lead us to communist society! Chinese communist party with a capitalistic plan to control the global market: yes yes, of course

[@redline841]

And the Chinese are making certain Jews upset already

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

I would say that most revolutionary states are doomed to fail. However, if the revolutionaries have a set of government in place, they can be successful. Take the United States or Switzerland for example. Both countries were founded on revolutions, but they had governmental systems set in place within their revolutionary movements that have existed to this day. Neither state was repressive or had to maintain tyrannical control on the populace because they had a set of guiding principles in place. Over time, both of these countries became organic but are still in a sense revolutionary.

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

The American revolution was a hundred times less sophisticated than the Russian one, the Russian revolution was ten times less sophisticated than the Iranian revolution. Revolutionary governments dont fail, countries are simply occupied or liberated.

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 This is not true. The reason why America has lasted has not been because of the sophistication of the revolutionaries; it was because of the governmental structure. Populists and anarchists have little to no structure in their systems; that already dooms them. Communists, in spite of their ideological sophistication, have bad or unsustainable structures; that is why they fail. The USA had a strong yet simple structure. That is why it has lasted for nearly 250 years.

[@irrelevantcheese8623]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 what do you mean by sophisticated

[@robertotacato3500]

​@@irrelevantcheese8623he means autistic. As in a lot of interlocking and parallel systems and actors going on in the chaos of the Russian revolution and a simple view of the American revolution. Not knowing that the American confederation style of government almost instantly failed and the leaders and thinkers of what would become the modern Federal Republic had to scrap and make a brand new government. Nor the generational debates and developments between Federal and regional governments.

[@williemherbert1456]

Switzerland aren't a revolutionary state, nor originaly it is as state in modern sense since it's byproduct of political fragmentation from the time of Medieval Central Europe as part of HRE, thus how come it becomes to be known as revolutionary state when in fact Switzerland was just mutual diplomatic treaties on cooperation between city-states? Switzerland is unique because they defy the norm on what to expect from state, it's not a nation nor a centralized state, heck even back then before further centralization in 19th century literally a bunch of countries within a country.

[@sulimanthemagnificent4893]

It’s simple. They fight *against* something more than they fight *for* something. The revolutions which fight *for* something meaningful (not lust, power or greed), end up more or less surviving. Those that fight *against* something (other than corruptions, weakness and degeneracy), end up dying miserable deaths. Of course outside factors are relevant too, two Chinese revolutions (boxer rebellion and taipeng) would’ve succeeded without foreign meddling, North Korea also would’ve won without “U.N” interference and so on. But those are just my historical observations, I could be wrong.

[@sentiecide686]

I've always felt this way. When your ideology exists purely in spite of something/someone else, rather than it making complete sense on its own independent of another pre-existing ideology, 9 times out of 10 you're doomed to fail. Marxism and Nazism being the most obvious examples

[@americankid7782]

You could be wrong, but you raise an interesting idea. It probably has a lot to do with the type of people in charge of the revolution as well and (in my eyes) if they are setting up an administrative structure to support the new government.

[@ChristopherJames1993]

All revolutionaries are inherently reactionaries; but not all reactionaries have the "personality to make a revolution." Bolshevik Communism was a reaction to the Tsarist autocracy (remove one autocrat and replace him with another). Same with fasci

[@Firguy]

What about the Vietnamese Revolution from 1945 to 1975? That was focused on expelling the French, the Americans and their puppet government and the socialist state they established has been able to endure to the present day.

[@Ben-jl2rh]

​@Firguy You forget that after the 70s Vietnam faced harsh times and Communism nearly ended their country. It literally took reform and adopting a capitalistic view that allowed Vietnam to not only survive but thrive in the East Asian sphere.

[@mrboiardo1176]

Let's not pretend that the huge deposits of oil in saudi Arabia didn't help the monarchy to mantain power.

[@chongjunxiang3002]

This. Remember Saudi only exist out of the side effect of Ottoman crumble. It was just a tribal family that get lucky from fat stash of cash from British and support from Wahabi. If we insist on tradition, the ruling tribe would be descendant of Quraysh.

[@nolancer5974]

Fun Fact : Oil was discovered 6 years after Saudi Arabia OFFICIALLY was formed. the country was already very stable since like ever, in fact stability is why Al Saud rose to power in the first place because nobody could've been safe from raiding and theft at the time.

[@nolancer5974]

@@chongjunxiang3002 "It was just a tribal family" Lmao no. Al Saud literally were some of the most powerful families in Arabia because their small Emirate was a trading hub in the peninsula. even before the Wahhabi movement Al Saud did hold a lot of respect in Arabia.

[@crusader2112]

@@nolancer5974 Personally, I believe The British should have backed the Hashemites over the Saudis and assisted them in uniting the Arabs into a single Kingdom. The Sykes-Picot Agreement and Balfour Declaration were disastrous for the Middle East.

[@chongjunxiang3002]

@@nolancer5974 After some reading, you are right. Saud tribe/dynasty do runs a large amount of territory several occassions. The factors that make legitimacy of Saud (at least in my eye) looks weird is due to British direct involvement in the middle east. And its common cultural is built upon its obsession in Sharia, but not much else, due to Arab population are apathy to modern politic, so their nationalism is weak. And just find that relation between Wahabi and Saud goes way back.

[@cristhianramirez6939]

In short, traditions apply changes slow but with strong foundations while in harmony with society, revolutions apply changes quickly but with sand foundations causing massive social upheaval

[@toasterhothead3312]

I see it as, tradition challenges rapid change to become slower and to test certain changes to see if it would continue the existence of the society. If it seems to decay, it is rejected. If it continues or grows the society, it is accepted. Liek evolution. It simply slows down the change because too much change destroys. Obviously this can back fire just like in nature, u get to a dead end but that’s why different societies always try different ways. Like how current liberalism promotes promiscuity, blatant degeneracy (like pdf people), and mass immigration, this last one seems kinda good but the new simply replaces the old instead slowly changing it.

[@Confederate-hj2dc]

Revolutions are a symptom and not a cure for gross inequality and societal turmoil. France and Russia learned that the hard way.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

And look at what they got for their trouble.

[@martinmaffei8589]

There is absolutley nothing organic in the gulf monarchies, their continued existence is solely based on the control of fossil fuels (whitch underpins the hole social contract in a maner that has nothing to do with their traditions) and on their geopolitical usfulness as a conterweigth to Turkey and Iran first to the british and later to the americans. As for arab monarchies whitch are not petrolstates, the only two that come to mind are Giordan and Morocco, and of those two only the last is a state whitch can be called 'organic'.

[@crusader2112]

Yeah. I like Monarchy, but The Oil States are not Traditional Monarchies they’re Petrol-States.

[@irrelevantcheese8623]

@@crusader2112 it’s just an exaggeration of the blatant problems of wealth accumulation at the top

[@ridawist]

Heck even Morocco isn't organic its modern form is mostly made up by the French, most Arab states are just fake at this point

[@derfelcadarn8230]

The quote that best summarizes this video as well as this entire comment section: "Every rebellion against the order of man is noble, so long as it does not disguise rebelliousness against the order of the world." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

[@orboakin8074]

Great video, friend. As a Nigerian, this is one reason I am always thankful that my country gained independence the normal way without any revolution like Haiti or Zimbabwe did. We decided to foster an amicable relationship with Great Britain and also worked to continue using/modify the social, economic and political frameworks they left us and that's why, despite our many issues, we are far more politically, socially and economically stable than many of these revolutionary countries.

[@orboakin8074]

@@TercioEspañol simple: Reality and perspective. My country isn't currently plagued with civil war or conflict like Ethiopia or Sudan. We haven't had any coups like several West African/Sahel countries around us. We are not the most unequal country on earth like South Africa nor do we have ongoing political or ethnic/racial crisis like they do. The main issues we face are due to inept government and can be reversed with elections. We have problems but there's a reason we are more stable than many others.

[@orboakin8074]

@@TercioEspañol I appreciate it but I assure you that it can be reversed😊Things have been far worse. During the 70s, 80s and early 90s, we had several coups and military dictatorships and economic mismanagement far worse than what we have now. All that changed in 99 when we returned to democracy, formed our fourth republic and elected a more right leaning and capitalist and federalist/national government. Our economy was remodeled, our debt reduced, inflation reduced and from the 2000s to 2014, we had one of the best performing economies and stable countries in Africa and other developing countries. What changed this? We elected a more left leaning and tribalist party in 2015 and they have mismanaged our economy but with growing issues, their hold on power is not secure. That's why I am not black pilled. I mean, look at the USA under Trump vs under Biden. Things can change due to political elections. Good turns bad and bad turns good

[@seneca983]

@@orboakin8074 "this is one reason I am always thankful that my country gained independence the normal way without any revolution [...] We haven't had any coups like several West African/Sahel countries around us." Checking Wikipedia, Nigeria had coups or attempted coups in 1966, 1975, 1976, 1983, 1985, 1990, & 1993. Now, all of these have been more than 30 years ago so things seem to have stabilized a lot. But I wonder, can you really credit this more recent stability on Nigeria's peaceful independence process? If that's the reason, why did the coups in the preceding decades occur?

[@orboakin8074]

@@seneca983 oh, I am glad you acknowledged that our could were more than 30 years ago. As to why they occured, tribalism and subsequent economic mismanagement, which weakened our initial democratic and socioeconomic institutions is the answer. It wasn't revolutionary zeal or what you see in places like Haiti. Plus, considering we managed to reclaim democracy despite said tribalism, that clearly indicates the instability brought on by revolutionary zeal is not what most of us wanted for our country.

[@NapoleanBlown-aparte]

​@@orboakin8074 counterpoint time: I come from ireland and for 2 years we waged a war against literally the entire British empire, and won. And today ireland is doing fine and is currently not under the grasp of an authoritarian leader telling us to starve ourself (can't say the same about what happened under the monarchy though lmao), either way, long live nigeria 🇳🇬🇮🇪

[@majorian4897]

"My son, fear thou the Lord and the king, and mingle not with them that are given to change; for their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both? - Proverbs 24, 21-22

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

This video teaches us that Jesus should not have tried to change the degenerate empire he lived in.

[@majorian4897]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 He wasn't a revolutionary, the J3w5 literally tried to entrap him into a lolbert position of not pay taxes to the emperor and he said to pay your taxes and submit to the authorities. His death and resurrection has been the basis for traditional western government all the way up until the enlightenment reared it's ugly head. Therefore it's literally impossible to separate a theological world view from the type of government you seek to enact. Modern governments appeal to secularism while traditional governments appeal to God.

[@Francesco-gf1sv]

​@@daseapickleofjustice7231stupid hippies

[@woocashP]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 Which one?

[@viktorhumanities]

​@@daseapickleofjustice7231 Quite the opposite. It teaches that that Jesus was right as he was trying to affect change in the spirit of men through spiritual means. This is why after 400 years of persecution, Christians not only managed to survive, but take over the whole of Europe and create stable cultures even if empires and states fell.

[@kratosboy5557]

I don’t Know Dude the Fact is the British Were never Going to Leave the Republic of Ireland without being Forced to Leave Ireland

[@nolancer5974]

Independence War ≠ Revolution. The only Revolutionary thing about the Irish was that they were ready to use force, that is it. They didn't seek to create an Ideological state.

[@axel665]

And Ireland had civil war with Ira you know the revolutionaries were fighting themselves

[@kratosboy5557]

@@axel665 I was Referring to the 1920s Irish Cvil war

[@ChristopherJames1993]

​@@nolancer5974the idea of their state had an ideology of Marxism-Leninism. They were communists. End of.

[@NapoleanBlown-aparte]

​@@nolancer5974 communists literally couped limerick and formed a soviet there, I'm pretty sure that's a revolution my man

[@Makanostov-cn7gl]

What about the United States? That is a revolutionary country that has managed to sustain itself for almost 250 years.

[@ethanwmonster9075]

It was independence movement against Br*tian so it doesn't count.

[@nebsam715]

​@@ethanwmonster9075 then why is I even called the American revolution then (this is a genuine question)

[@Cat_Guevara]

It was a bourgoise revolution by rich assholes and they exploited and genocided the natives and enslaved the Africans, ofc if you play by the rules of psycho you will have certain advantages

[@chongjunxiang3002]

American Revolution is not really an exception. Their tradition is still based on British politic with a bit of Greco-Roman Renaissance larping, with a lot of politic experiment tried and fail. The only reason US is not failing is because it is a very profitable empire.

[@kebabdefender49]

​@@nebsam715 Very simple really. The word "secession" does not sound as cool and triumphant as "revolution".

[@FreedomLover35]

4 views in one minute? lavader fell off

[@pewweper8059]

This "joke" is now as old as the french revolution

[@nachtwandeling1237]

@@pewweper8059 "It's too early to tell what the implications of the French Revolution are" - parr. Zhou Enlai, minister of foreign affaires under Mao.

[@_greenrunner_]

dude, i was just thinking about how neat it would be for you to do such a video, stellar shit

[@Water90435]

Honestly I’ve been thinking about revolutionary states a lot and I’ve pretty much accepted the fact that they are almost always guaranteed to fail. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that there’s always gonna be horrible people that are able to galvanize regular citizens into loyal supporters like Joseph Stalin, adolf hitler, Mao Zedong or even a pol pot. There are some revolutionary states that have succeeded like the United States and even Japan, but the difference there is that much of the political infrastructure and will to change was already there to begin with. States like the Soviet Union and the prc had no such infrastructure however, leaving millions to die for a revolution that basically collapsed or become half capitalist decades later.

[@nolancer5974]

The United States is a unique exception, because the secession of the thirteen colonies was more of an Independence War rather than the complete societal overhaul of an existing independent state. Not to mention that the US was never that Ideologically radical compared to the likes of the Jacobites, Communists and Fascists. The only one of the founding fathers who really wanted to go through with the whole Revolution thing was Jefferson, all the other founding fathers were pretty moderate.

[@seneca983]

@@nolancer5974 But I'd say that the American Revolution did have the character of a revolution, at least to an extent. It created an independent state with a republican form of government. That was at the time quite rare (though not completely unprecedented).

[@bmetalfish3928]

@@TercioEspañol I'll try one. The US upon it's revolution consisted of extreme, crystallised versions of cultures that existed in England after the English civil war, they where appealing to the king to defend those rights from parliament as the crown believed it's duty was to do in the era of original settlement. It was only after the kings rejection of their demands to oppose parliament that open warfare gained more traction in congress. It would be considered a reactionary war by people who use that term to describe their opponents.

[@StarboyXL9]

Everything dies.

[@ChristopherJames1993]

China and Korea say hi 🙋🙋🙋🙋🙋

[@serteshsardrakal2272]

Something interesting i always think about ww2 Germany is that it was quite likely if it somehow won that it would fall into a purity spiral with its obsession over race purity. Always expanding the definition of untermensch and who was untermensch until it imploded. That's assuming the Schutz staffel don't do something even crazier.

[@austriangrenadier7181]

I think you forgot about the dreaded year of 1848...

[@bacepesho]

I'm pretty sure for a revolution to work the people need to be given time to adapt and the revolutionaries need to think what should happen after the revolution.

[@vetarlittorf1807]

I notice you made a really great video defending Wilhelm II, but what are your thoughts on the Hun Speech?

[@thechaiizfalling8349]

So with this in mind, I wonder if the secession of the thirteen colonies from the British Empire for the founding of the US, would be considered a failed state.

[@nolancer5974]

The United States is a unique exception, because the secession of the thirteen colonies was more of an Independence War rather than the complete societal overhaul of an existing independent state. Not to mention that the US was never that Ideologically radical compared to the likes of the Jacobites, Communists and Fascists. The only one of the founding fathers who really wanted to go through with the whole Revolution thing was Jefferson, all the other founding fathers were pretty moderate.

[@realmao59]

It's because the American "Revolution" wasn't even a Revolution in the literal sense. The founding fathers saw themselves as rebels against the British Parliament, not the Crown. It was Jefferson who completely changed the narrative and made it look like some great Revolution against royal tyranny.

[@yhvvcbhjjggjk-id1re]

@@realmao59it doesn’t matter because the foundation of the American republic was strongly anti monarchist

[@belstar1128]

@@realmao59 the American system was very radical for 1776 no monarchy voting rights for all land owning men (land was very cheap back then). but the big difference was that the American revolution was most about freedom while most modern revolutions are about ending poverty and usually ending up failing to do so. the only thing the American revolution wanted when it came to ending poverty was having no taxes. but you need to keep in mind that in the 18th century there was no welfare state so taxes had no real benefit for the average person it was mostly spend on the military and luxury items for the royalty so it seemed obvious to do this. in a modern society governments may use tax money on welfare or infrastructure. so the people don't care about paying taxes as much and prefer to go into the other extreme since it seems like a more simple solution in modern times even if it doesn't work well .

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

Independence war is kinda different from what he's saying here because these states generally already have a strong cultural tradition.

[@Adeptus_Mechanicus]

This applies to classical liberal states, which are now in decay post-neoliberalism.

[@bazah23]

Yeah I’m from Iraq and overthrowing the Hashemite kingdom of Iraq was the biggest mistake😔💔

[@rezahades6071]

I do love my failed revolutionary states of the Republic of France, the United States of America, the PRC, Czechia, Slovakia, and Turkey. Damn, revolutions sure have a tendency to fail amiright?

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

France and US are revolutionary states. The others were secessionist movements from other countries. We are yet to see what will come of the PRC experiment.

[@krism.6598]

>France Ah yes, the Republic, which became an Empire, which became a monarchy, which became a republic, which became an empire, which became a republic, which became a puppet republic, which became a republic. One unbroken string of success since the revolution. >USA Best example on this list, but the Founding Fathers clamped down on Revolutionary ideals once they established themselves nation, the better example of 100% revolutionary state in the US would be the Confederacy, and we see how that went. >The PRC “Successful” in the same way the USSR was successful, I.e. intimidate everyone around you into saying you’re successful or else >Czechoslovakia Velvet “Revolution” wasn’t really a Revolution as much as it was a transfer of power back to something resembling the old Czechoslovak Republic, which then broke into the states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The People’s Republic of Czechoslovakia was, along with the Nazi puppet Slovak Republic, better examples of “revolutionary” Czechoslovak states.

[@onemoreminute0543]

​@@froggy2247I'd argue that the US ISN'T a revolutionary state. It fought an independence war, not a revolutionary war.

[@kingofcards9516]

1. Which Republic of France?, it's so unstable they change government every few decades or so. 2. America has a lot of religious elements intertwined in its founding documents, giving it a source of divine legitimacy, and a source of stability. (Also civil war happened). 3. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are entirely new states, with new governments after the previous communist one collapsed. They are too young to claim any success. 4. Turkey is also far from being a completely secular nation, with religion being a major and influential factor, not to mention the increasingly autocratic president. 5. Communist China is also not even 100 years old yet, and is currently run by a corrupt dictator (again), I wouldn't hold that up as the pinicle of a stable revolutionary government.

[@ImperialSenpai]

The only successful one is America. Which even so America is breaking down because of leftist “revolutionaries.” The rest are completely tyrannical and corrupt.

[@omerkaya545]

The American Revolution was good and cool.

[@vetarlittorf1807]

That was more of an independence struggle than a revolution.

[@luigiwithabeard98]

​@@vetarlittorf1807What do you think? A revolution is my dude. It's a struggle for Independence

[@luigiwithabeard98]

​@@vetarlittorf1807actually wait. I think I get what you mean like there's a difference between a country we're revolting from another Nation and an internal revolution is this correct

[@rarescevei8268]

​@@luigiwithabeard98The revolution this video talks about is clearly the type meant to change a nation's rule and society, not rebellion against a state with the goal of establishing a new nation.

[@theshakhrayist7649]

@@vetarlittorf1807 No, it was a civil war based on strife between interests (the king didn't want the merchants to expand westward, since he wished to maintain alliances with Indigenous groups against potential French or Spanish attacks).

[@Seb420-u7s]

I may speak not in a name of a country or people. But here, in Romania the status quo is a aftermath of a revolutionary state. I also , maybe foolishly or ration, want rapid chage to create something new with old remnants, our principes is in all but name. As the state does not for some reason burn the abdication papers of Michael the first. I want something that maybe a short term idea to resist russuan aggression but also leave good changes, a tradion of what made the modern Romania not the post communist nomenclature and cretinism.

[@sempersuffragium9951]

Lavader really should do a video on how to RE-establish traditional society, once a revolutionary state has taken it over

[@lochmana1176]

This same line of reasoning can be used to describe "democracies" that try and separated the founding people from the system.

[@crusader2112]

That Kaiser Wilhelm quote hits so hard. Hail the Kaiser! ✊🏻

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

Hail Kaiser!

[@Nordbon1523]

Heil dir im Siegerkranz!

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

I pray all these kids will grow up without aucoustism but you already seem infected

[@crusader2112]

@@daseapickleofjustice7231 What Gibberish are you talking about?

[@daseapickleofjustice7231]

@@crusader2112 youll look back at this when youre older and your face will contort and you will pray for forgiveness

[@amoussouericlaurel9762]

Japan after the meiji revolution ?

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

Meiji restoration*

[@National-Democrat.Ukrainian]

USA after American revolutionary war.

[@chongjunxiang3002]

Not really. Emperor still exist. And emperor has been out of the political system for so long at that point, it is very easy for both the new bourgeois and old samurai class to form a constitutional monarchy.

[@amoussouericlaurel9762]

@@StarsBarsAndCheese With the abolition of the 1000 years-old samurai class and the adoption of the Western style of constitutional monarchy it was a revolution. Feudalism was abolished. Sure the emperor was still in power but after Emperor Meiji, ( although it can be discussed how much power he had during his reign ) he never had much actual power even before the American occupation. Japan went from being ruled by a warrior elite to being ruled by a Westernized bourgeoisie; who were at the bottom of the previous social hierarchy; even lower than peasants. So yeah, from a civilizational point of view, it was a revolution for Japan

[@amoussouericlaurel9762]

@@chongjunxiang3002 And where did the idea of constitutional monarchy come from? Not the English revolution? It is a revolutionary idea. Not as radical as communism but still. See how much the tsar resists the idea. As long as they were not forced by their bourgeoisie monarch never accepted to become constitutional monarchs. As for the samurai class; they quickly lost their power and regretted the restoration. They rebelled but were crushed. Very few succeed in the new system.

[@oolooo]

Mentioning the Nationalist side as being the Traditional one when it literally got taken over by Franquism , which was essentially Revolutionary and fucked over the Monarchy , is a bit disingenous , to be honest .

[@_NO_ONE_410]

He says all this while completely ignoring America

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

Yes, thank you! America wasn’t mentioned once!

[@martoncross3606]

America is more like an independence Revolution, it's goals were never to subvert but to separate from the crown.

[@nolancer5974]

The United States is a unique exception, because the secession of the thirteen colonies was more of an Independence War rather than the complete societal overhaul of an existing independent state. Not to mention that the US was never that Ideologically radical compared to the likes of the Jacobites, Communists and Fascists. The only one of the founding fathers who really wanted to go through with the whole Revolution thing was Jefferson, all the other founding fathers were pretty moderate.

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

@@nolancer5974 Check our other strand.

[@_NO_ONE_410]

@@HappyGuy-cn9po that’s why I said he ignored it silly

[@GregHuffman1987]

i like what marquis de sade said about revolutions: theyre fun to participate in, but nothing ever good came from afterwards when the smoke cleared

[@lukasvillar9328]

Brazil is a great example of the downward spiral that is revolution, the nation experienced what ? more or less 7 republics already I think...

[@tefky7964]

Which revolution?

[@joaopedro82465]

@@tefky7964 I don't even know we can call this a revolution. It was much more of a military coup without popular support that overthrew the monarchy - with the support of the slave aristocracy -. This caused the country, since 1889, to go through political instability and/or other military coups. For example, Getulio Vargas was the Brazilian leader during the Second World War, he was basically a fascist, but he supported the allies in exchange for American commercial support.

[@tefky7964]

@@joaopedro82465 I know, thats why I asked, the revolution is usually led by massive amount of people of general population, the most successful coups should be so quiet that the general population doesn´t even know that it happened until the coup leaders literally say that they did it. As such the Brazilian "revolution" was pretty much great example of coup and so I was confused if he doesn´t mean some other event, because I wasn´t aware of actual Brazilian revolution he could mean.

[@lukasvillar9328]

@@joaopedro82465 You are confused, a revolutionary movement don't need a civilian revolt to be a revolution, to begin with, there's very little cases of revolutionary movements being mainly backed by the people in it's early stages.

[@matts8791]

The United States is a revolutionary state.

[@antman2826]

Good point. I don’t think they were entirely without tradition and binding principles. Keen to hear others chime in on this one.

[@glorioustigereye]

The first government made by the articles of confederation was a failure replaced by the Constitution

[@hofnarrtheclown]

No thier a Post-Organic State which is Quite Similar to Revolutionary States but still Majority Different.

[@diamondfighter7711]

When you included Fascism in the video, were you referring to only Italy and Germany, or all of the movements in Europe? For example, the Iron Guard was revolutionary nationalist, but it's values were heavily based on Romanian culture and traditions, and Codreanu was a staunch monarchist as well: "At the head of peoples, above the elite, one finds the monarchy. I reject the republic. ...Not all of the monarchs were good. Monarchy itself, however, has always been good. One must not confuse the man with the institution and draw false conclusions. There can be bad priests; but can we, because of this, conclude that the Church must be abolished and God stoned to death? There are weak and bad monarchs, certainly, but we cannot renounce monarchy because of this. To each nation God has traced a line of destiny. A monarch is great and good when he stays on that line; he is small or bad, to the extent that he wanders away from this line of destiny or opposes it. This then, is the law of monarchy. There are also other lines that may tempt a monarch: the line of personal interest or that of a class of people or group; the line of alien interests (domestic or foreign). He must avoid all these lines and follow that of his people.” *― Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, The Prison Notes* Me personally, I think it's impossible to establish an anti-liberal system by working within the system. You are a Third Positionist (Corporatist) and Monarchist, but you're against revolutionary means to actualize your beliefs, how are you going to convince people to support you in this current political climate? throughout history, coups, revolutions, etc have been kicked off by a small, fanatical group of people, and being followed by the normal people since it's beneficial to them. To use the Iron Guard as an example again, I know that people view it as "another fascist failure" and I didn't know much about their struggle before, but they had to endure constant persecution and hardship, as they started off fighting against the infiltration of their universities by marxists and bolshevists, and later on these same people would be considered the protectors of Romania, while the Legionnaries were hunted down like rats. They were revolutionary nationalists in the sense they wanted to destroy the old Liberal order, and create a spiritually reborn society. Though they were also Corporatists, (also agrarians) and they wanted an organic state.

[@thenamesianna]

This is a very interesting thought and one which I think makes lots of sense and with which I can agree. After all, building something from scratch is much harder than continuing to build upon what's already been done ! The only thing I have to add is that perfection in state-building can never be achieved, and if it is, it won't last long since times change costantly. Because of this, I believe states not only should have a strong foundation, but they should never stop building upon it, or else the state becomes backwards and static and people will begin to believe in revolutionary bullcrap ! Countries such as the Russian Empire, the Qing Empire and to a degree also the Two Sicilies, are examples of why a state should never stop building upon what's already been built.

[@petergriffintv8315]

American is doing pretty well

[@theuniverse5173]

Revolution bros...

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

;(

[@Epic_Gamer222]

It’s Joever

[@DonPedroman]

For this topic the better Spanish example is the 1868 revolution, that caused 6 years of conflict and then open war, until the previous order was restored by generals Pavia, Martínez Campos and Francisco Serrano.

[@tabinekoman]

This is very narrow minded and praise tradition to the extreme. A reductionist point of view. Should people of Han China adhere to Manchu imperial tradition? Or what about their tradition of Dynastic revolutions? How about restoration meiji? Should people loyal to Shogunate and deny restorations? There is complexity within the question and if we avoid complexities we miss the big picture. I agree ideology is dangerous. But to loyal to traditions is also ideology. Revolution forced because such tradition cannot cope for radical change in economy, politics, or geopolitics.

[@williemherbert1456]

There's no use in critisizing him with this, he's defiantly stood on his ground where he feels right, I mean preserving tradition of which being a militaristic state and society is a sickening excuse as worst of all.

[@_greenrunner_]

two outliers don’t debunk the general trend presented in the works of burke and the others

[@hydrolifetech7911]

Burke's work is a piece of British propaganda meant to uphold British monarchy. This video's arguments are very shallow attempts at praising monarchist ideology

[@_greenrunner_]

@@hydrolifetech7911 is it truly Shallow or are you merely just refusing to see valid critiscm? (Every system is flawed)

[@crusader2112]

@@hydrolifetech7911 This is a Monarchist channel. What did you expect?

[@darkaxel1991]

The USA is a revolutionary state, too.

[@kingdragonthefirst4686]

Yeah and we’ve been succeeding for over 2 centuries so I don’t really understand the title of this video

[@PresidentWashingtonFounder]

Emperor Napoleon Saved Europe

[@nestor1907]

He destroyed Europe, what do you mean

[@_greenrunner_]

@@froggy2247cause he failed

[@seneca983]

From what?

[@horacioelconserjeopina3956]

No, Napoleon destroyed Europe. The continent was full with organic, corporatist feudal states before his rise. After his defeat and the concert of Vienna, absolute monarchism establish complete reign, creating centralization, nationalism and bourgeois liberalism.

[@PresidentWashingtonFounder]

@@seneca983 From The Courrpt Order That it was Before

[@KingRichardDeLeonheart]

Haiti succeeded though it’s a utopian state we even have vibranium

[@ogerpinata1703]

That's all good and well. However. In most of Europe, we have to finance old people via taxes. We are comparatively few and they are comparatively many. A fuck ton be quite honest. If that money were to finance infrastructur [housing, rail, energy (research)], education and the military instead... I wouldn't object to that and that is quite revolutionary. Today not feasible, but in ten years.

[@ironzombie39]

18:18 Minor mistake, the Syrian Civil War still hasn't ended and Bashar al-Assad is still in power.

[@suleyman8696]

When he meant Revolutionnary republics he meant the regimes of Assad in Syria or Gaddafi in Libya since both of them took power in the 60/70s during the Arab socialist era where many military men overthrew respective monarchy to form Arab republics. Gaddafi for instance was once considered a revolutionnary

[@ironwolf99999]

So Americans are just built different then

[@hamobu]

What are you talking about? Soviet union lasted over 70 years after the Revolution. Communist china is still around as is communist Cuba. Then there is also the American revolution, etc. Romania had a revolution against their communist dictator which worked.

[@crusader2112]

The Soviet Union in the end ultimately failed and didn’t even last 100 years, China opened up to the West, the American Revolution was led by men who were split on whether or not they were truly revolutionary. Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists being revolutionary and John Adams, Hamilton, and the Federalists were the “conservatives”, some even wanted a new aristocracy.

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

Communism fell in one generation while America fell into degenerate debauchery.

[@xSAINTPERKx]

It is said that they will fall eventually. Which the USSR did, which China probably will, and America as well in all honesty, but due to the revolution in america being so individualistic it may be the exception.

[@hamobu]

@@xSAINTPERKx everything fails eventually.

[@bulkax303]

Does 70 years seem like a lot to you? Bernadotte dynasty has ruled Sweden for 3 times longer and it still hasnt collapsed. PRC has abandoned Maoism and moved towards capitalism - basing your country on an ideology doesnt work. Cuba is a prime example of a revolutionary state as after the death of its dictator it has been in decline, especially now. The American Revolution didnt include extreme ideas, it had amazing geography and Washington safeguarded many traditions and rules that were taken into the constitution.

[@AntonioBrandao]

10:55 well you didn’t account for the denazification program that was implemented across Germany.

[@kenchannel7296]

soo if revolutionary states are doomed to fail then what about indonesia?, it was born due to the indonesian national revolution.

[@menem2347]

I think he means more of "ideological revolution" something that heavily changes the status quo, and isnt an independance movement

[@kenchannel7296]

@@menem2347 ohh i thought he was talking about independence revolutions

[@simonpetrikov3992]

@@kenchannel7296not necessarily but often they’re intertwined

[@kenchannel7296]

@@simonpetrikov3992 how?

[@simonpetrikov3992]

@@kenchannel7296like with a lot of the revolutions in Africa they were independence revolutions and ideological revolutions because oftentimes after independence they would fundamentally reshape how their government operated rather than just reforming the old system they had to suit the new paradigm

[@timmyturner327]

"Nothing is more conservative than a successful revolution"

[@hofnarrtheclown]

Counter-Revolution*

[@leesnotbritish5386]

There must be a continuity to avoid collapse yes, but organic states can find themselves in equilibrium so that they have complete stability and total stagnation. Maybe this is the desirable condition for man, maybe not, but regardless a state that stagnates completely will eventually come into contact with another state with a history of instability and conflict. That conflict will evolve a state stronger than a stagnant state that can easily subjugate it. Historically look at China, warlord period bred the first bureaucratic state, but once China reached equilibrium it stopped development and stagnated. In contrast after Rome Europe became a constant brawl between states. States grew and died and the only way to have a chance was to constantly seek a new advantage even if was disruptive to the political structure. This incentive for innovation eventually leads to capitalism and industrialization. China stagnated and Europe fought itself until eventually the former could be subjugated by the expeditionary armies of the latter. Complete order can only last if it happens on the entirety of humanity at once, so that no one can come to disrupt it, otherwise there must be a constant drive for disruption. The revolutionary state is the result of an excess of this drive, but it is usually caused by the ruling group attempting to enforce complete lack of change, until discontent and potential energy builds to such an extent that its outburst completely sweeps away the previous structure. TLDR: stagnation is death

[@philosophisnt5148]

Edmund Burke' putting in work!

[@TheNightWatcher1385]

Every state is fated to fail eventually. Rome itself was a revolutionary state.

[@nickferraro5775]

Great video

[@bacepesho]

What if a state is half organic and half revolutionary.

[@Tiogar60]

You're so fuking smart

[@hofnarrtheclown]

Complaint Accepted by Both of Us

[@aguspuig6615]

It would be interesting if you could go over the revolutionary states that did and did not fall. Like the USSR compared to the French republic

[@doctordoggo8604]

The French Republic did fall? It fell multiple times? The current incarnation is radically different than the original(s) and has been largely reconnected to the old.

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

@@doctordoggo8604 I think he meant the USSR didn't immediately collapse, though whether it failed is another matter.

[@doctordoggo8604]

@@KaiHung-wv3ul I'd honestly argue that the stuff talked about in the video needs an update in the form of an add-on about revolutionary states which successfully manage to transition to an organic state. The USSR did this between 1942 and 1960 largely, the USA arguable did so just after gaining independence with the exchanging of the articles of confederation, whilst other revolutionary states failed to make the change and subsequently where replaced with something wholly different at least in function(British Republic, 1st French Republic, etc)

[@angryveteran8585]

"The will of the people is neither rational nor based"

[@NapoleanBlown-aparte]

It's so irrational that the novgorod had to be invaded in order to collapse and a majority of countries today don't have a king

[@elgato71]

It's just flat out wrong, revolutionary states do survive, USA is one, the French revolution in the end after many upheavals succeeded, after two Napoleons and a Bourbon. China is still standing, and USSR's fall was more due to economics and internal political strife rather than peoples rising up. Germany & Italy under Fascism, which consider themselves revolutionaries, only fell due to a loss in war. So no not really, they are not doomed to fail anymore than any other states, the revolutionary fevour just dies down and you get a much more moderate class of rulers overtime, "oppression" is a thing that has always existed to a degree, but current day people around the world all have access to the internet, with a scant few exceptions like NK, France nor China rules mainly through oppression but legitimacy.

[@jjhh320]

Neither France nor the US are stable today, they just have massive industries that allow them to convince everyone they aren't fragmenting at the seams and they pour in tons of resources to uphold such notions.

[@hofnarrtheclown]

U.S is a Post-Organic State so Not a Revolutionary State despite a Couple of Similarities.

[@adenjones1802]

All revolutionary states fail USA:

[@horacioelconserjeopina3956]

The US is in decline...

[@Kevin-oh9hu]

thats not a revolution like whats described in the video, the usa was an independence movement not an ideological one

[@adenjones1802]

@@Kevin-oh9hu Lol. Yeah, the US revolution definitly was not built on any ideology at all. All independence movements are ideological. All traditions are ideological. All beliefs are ideological. The US revolution was based on many of the same elightenment principles as the french revolution. Liberty equality and fraternaty. Not to mention democracy on the grounds of God given natural equality. Yeah no ideology at all.

[@adenjones1802]

@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 So was Rome. All states do eventually.

[@Kevin-oh9hu]

@@adenjones1802 lol total bollocks. traditions aren't ideological, some idependent movements either. it depends on what grounds you build and the end goal of it. there is nothing "ideologicaly new" about the amercan revolution. It expands on the english liberal tradition (hobbes,locke) and the original bill of rights (the english one) and fit all of it in a model of a presidency. Thats all to it.

[@marukatsuro9731]

Austria-Hungary wasn't the most organic country/state either. The 1967 mainly happened due to fear of another Hungarian revolution and because the empress loved the Hungarians. Even the integration is not really that of what you've described. Maybe on the Austrian side it was less noticeble but in the Hungarian side you would be lucky to recieve complete education (from primary school to University) in your mother tounge.

[@hofnarrtheclown]

Yet he has More Sources and Evidence to Prove his Case of his Supported Points being the Truth.

[@JasonGoodfellow]

What exactly are a states foundations? It's... constitutions and rules? These can be changed, and enforced selectively to suit those in power. Who's in power? Those who control the resources, with which they pay their guards. Who controls the resources? In slave societies, the slave owners/masters. In feudal times, lords, kings and monarchs. In current times? Capitalists. The mechanism used to rip off working people (who actually produce stuff) is determined by ownership. The masters owned actual people, lords owned land, capitalists own capital (machines, loaned money, stuff for rent, IP, companies). That's the basis of a society. Source: Look around

[@antman2826]

This was a really good video and well reasoned. Your videos seem to make good sense. Subbed.

[@joshuawadsworth6417]

"The perfect revolution is absolute obediance" - ex pop

[@hofnarrtheclown]

W Pope of the Time

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

G-d, Country, and Kaiser.

[@xSAINTPERKx]

G-d?

[@pinklinecabs3967]

​@@xSAINTPERKx God

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

@@xSAINTPERKx It's Jewish tradition.

[@xSAINTPERKx]

@@StarsBarsAndCheese are you Jewish?

[@KingRichardDeLeonheart]

@@StarsBarsAndCheese your Jewish?

[@willemvanstaden3292]

I am sad you did not include the fall of Rhodesia and pre-ANC South Africa.

[@anthonyruby2668]

I do like the argument that Austria-Hungary was a proto-EU

[@andreastiefenthaler3811]

3 Hurrays for Austria-Hungary! Bravo, prijatelju! Viribus Unitis!

[@Carmiel_Balfont]

In all of this it should be stated that, obviously, Edmund is extremely biased. Beside him being part of the cultural angloshphere and all, he lived to see one of the most brutal, hypocritical, with autocratic results revolution of his time(and maybe of all time). His "organic" state isn't necessarily the natural state of humans, for we see more democratic forms of administration preceding it that evolved naturally, and even if that weren't the case, the natural state doesn't have to be the best option for humanity. The problem with all of this is that we have an extremely biased person, with limited experience on the topic of revolutions, being educated and raised in a society that influences certain notions like tradition and continuity, trying to comment on revolution. Burke's work proves more about himself and about the world he lived in rather than the essence of revolutions and revolutionary states. At best his work is a case of "spot-on about what's wrong, far cry from what's NOT wrong"

[@romanempire8370]

Bro forgot that Integralism and the Organic state are Fascist ideologies.

[@TheGahta]

Then step up and bring more then "trust me bro" to the table 😂

[@romanempire8370]

@@TheGahta Look up Brazilian Integralism and i don't see you bringing anything to the table yourself.

[@TheGahta]

@@romanempire8370 look up "source your own argument yourself" And what i brought to you was criticism in the impotancy of your point 😉

[@romanempire8370]

@@TheGahta Are you really unable to type " Brazilian Integralism" into Google? And why don't you provide a counter argument? Are you unable to do this too?

[@dapperbunch5029]

@@romanempire8370There are similarities but to call them the same is like calling socialism and communism the same.

[@chinchillaruby4170]

Austria did have a revolution in Hungary, though that failed.

[@rarescevei8268]

The revolutions this video is reffering to are those that result in revolutionary states. A newly independent nation isnt a revolutionary state.

[@chinchillaruby4170]

@@rarescevei8268 who is to say that Hungary would or would not have been a revolutionary state?

[@rarescevei8268]

@@chinchillaruby4170 Because it was a war of independence launched by an already governing noble class who didnt seek to make radical societal change.

[@Ondonol_]

Lavader what do you think about ubersoys theary of power?

[@akmon3490]

To solidify a new state you need a life time, when the American revolution happened the ones that lead it were twenty year olds. We saw with the Soviet revolution what happens when the revolutionaries are to old as they had to lottle time till tge status quo was changed with the death of Lenin. While the Americans had over half a century to shape the nation. You need two or more generations to create and consolidate the new norm. The soviets never recovered from the top heavy way the Russian empire was run so there nevere was hard opposition when they just switched nack to a similar relationship with the government. When they sent political opponents to a camp there wasn't such an opposition like when in USA Aaron Burr killed in a duel Alexander Hamilton. Whole Stalin sent to the work camps upper management of the country.

[@methinc.5294]

btw are you ever gonna make a video about the bosnian genocide?

[@klub7justin]

Didn’t happen

[@NapoleanBlown-aparte]

​@@klub7justin😐😐😐😐😐

[@entropino9928]

So what do we do with revolutionary thought that has been inbeded in culture and tradition? Can I only revolt once more to root it out?

[@syd4952]

Bro didn’t even mention America

[@hofnarrtheclown]

Cuz the U.S isn't Even a Revolutionary State despite thier Rebellion of Independence being Today Reffered as the American Revolution.

[@enoughothis]

Kaiser Wilhelm was based!

[@hofnarrtheclown]

Hell Yeah

[@Brendonforgoop]

Wasn’t American born out of revolution 🤔

[@panapolyEpirus]

What's your opinion on the Greek revolution?

[@gregoriodesatado]

My biggest issue with Burke's ideas is that, by his standards, he would have to accept many progressive democracies. Why is that the case? Because revolutionaries and subversives have realized that a radical revolution is not desirable, and so they basically have infiltrated and corrupted many social and political institutions over time in order to give the appearance that the changes are "gradual and measured", mostly under the freedom of speech flag which Burke will have to defend because it has been a natural development of his own country. Some right wingers know this, but many that are on the normies sphere don't, and that's how much of the classical conservative parties end up being сuскеd. Another example is how Skittles have been normalized in western societies, with "gradual changes".

[@makuballz6516]

cool

[@ikengaspirit3063]

I wonder if this explains the issues in Africa cuz all those states had revolutionary ideal.

[@gabogc88]

I have a question: is USA revolutionary state?

[@hofnarrtheclown]

The U.S is a Post-Organic State meaning it's Doomed to De-Evolution in Societal Standards and Value Fabric Current-State through Various Generations due to Careless Expansion of Mob-Ruling Policies by the Directorial Senior of Society.

[@user-cy5db1gz6u]

After the french revolution it was disaster and chaos and hunger

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

Same with America, but things eventually worked out.

[@tefky7964]

So same as before the revolution?

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

@@tefky7964 If we’re joking here, I guess you could say chaos is the organic state of France. 😅

[@Corey_Brandt]

The United States is a revolutionary state technically… 😁

[@Erucus]

He goes through that in the video

[@chongjunxiang3002]

Since a lot of imagery about China features Mao or CCP. This makes me wonder, who does OP stans for? Revolutionary Sun Yat-sen try to start a new Chinese Republic or Chinese Emperor Yuan Shikai take the throne from rotting Qing Dynasty for a new Han Dynasty?

[@danshakuimo]

Definitely not Sun Yat-Sen (who was actually inspired by the French Revolution), he would probably say it would be better to support the reformist factions within the Qing court and transition the country similar to Meiji Japan which the Qing were taking inspiration from. And after the Qing fell, probably Yuan Shikai (though will probably say he needs to do more research on him) but Yuan was endorsed by the Qing and said things about Republicanism that Lavader would likely agree with and in retrospect, he was probably right about. I'm not sure but I think he had a reputation for being corrupt but that is kind of to be expected. But as someone of Chinese heritage myself I think I agree with Yuan that China was not ready for democracy.

[@iloveamerica1776]

"Why revolutionary states are doomed to fail" The USA surviving for 250 years (I didnt watch the video and he probably addresses this somewhere

[@crusader2112]

America didn’t fight a revolution for a new ideology, they simply fought to break away from a nation. Only Jefferson was really revolutionary. Most of the founding fathers were pretty anti-revolution.

[@noname18305]

​@@crusader2112are you restarted

[@crusader2112]

@@noname18305 I'm sorry. I can't see what I said because it shadowbanned. Can you repeat? Judging by what I responded to. I think I said America fought a War for Independence, not a true revolution. I don't see what's r-word about that.

[@noname18305]

@@crusader2112 😭

[@closegripbenchpress489]

whos your favorite monarch

[@hofnarrtheclown]

Most Definitely the One and Only..Kaiser Wilhelm II.

[@diegoferioli9840]

What are your opinions about the british monarchy?

[@horacioelconserjeopina3956]

Cringe and gay

[@David_Box]

The examples of states that are supposedly not revolutionary but are successful are very bad. Austria-Hungary was a predetory decadant state that never actually had any real unifying tradition to begin with. And the stable countries of the middle east are definitely not organic, Saudi Arabia should've never existed by that logic, it only survives now becuase of what is effectivly a bizare historical anomaly.

[@revanofkorriban1505]

Austria-Hungary was more tolerant than any of its successor states. As many ethnic minorities found, nation-states aren't good at giving "outsiders" their due rights.

[@HEZAMOTOSPORTswag]

The french revolution analysis is so unhinged and contradictory to the entirety of the video its crazy that you chose to include it. Democracy as an idea is by the very definition an oxymoron to whatever you describe in the "ideological state"

[@GreyWolfLeaderTW]

Should be noted that the Will of the People/Rights of the People and Divine Right of Kings are *both* abstract principles, and *both* (at least in the Scottish Enlightenment tradition) appeal to God as the source of their authority and legitimacy. The Will of the People/Rights of the People, ironically enough, was developed as a counter to claims of Divine Right of Kings, as a direct response to abuses by multiple generations of kings.

[@hofnarrtheclown]

If the Notion of the Divine Right to Rule of Monarchs which is a Supernatural Supported Belief is also a Abstract "Principle" then How has It been Existing since the Dawn of Man while the Concept of the Will of the People came Around only 2 Centuries and a Half ago then huh?