There has been some confusion about this, so let me explain:...
eugyppius@eugyppius1
13 views
Jul 23, 2025
~1 min read
Advertisement
1
There has been some confusion about this, so let me explain:
Political parties or factions that appear to share power peacefully and in an orderly fashion among themselves, are actually collaborators, and in broad terms each sharer-in-power agrees to countenance the political programmes proposed by all the others. In this way, the factions collaborate in defining the range of acceptable political options, and thus the political direction, of the state.
The only secure means of diagnosing real opposition, is the resort to violence, judicial exclusion, lawfare or skullduggery against other pretenders to power. These tactics indicate a genuine political rift, rather than the mere pretence of one.
Political parties or factions that appear to share power peacefully and in an orderly fashion among themselves, are actually collaborators, and in broad terms each sharer-in-power agrees to countenance the political programmes proposed by all the others. In this way, the factions collaborate in defining the range of acceptable political options, and thus the political direction, of the state.
The only secure means of diagnosing real opposition, is the resort to violence, judicial exclusion, lawfare or skullduggery against other pretenders to power. These tactics indicate a genuine political rift, rather than the mere pretence of one.
eugyppius@eugyppius1
The primary upside of liberal democracy is very often alleged to be the peaceful transfer of power. This is such a towering load of fuckwaddery, it makes me want to shit upon the head of whoever came up with it.
If you are in a political system in which power can be transferred PeAcEfUlLY among political factions, you exist in a single-party political system, and the factions are only apparent.
When the uniparty cartel breaks down and actual politics re-emerge, the whole criminal justice system gets turned on opposition candidates. They try to shoot opposition candidates in the head. They turn domestic spy agencies loose on opposition candidates. And so on.
These tactics are how you can recognise real politics, as opposed to fake politics: The instrumentalisation of state security services or criminal justice apparatus or random telegram-actrivated crazy people against the opposition is real politics. Trying to kill enemies is real politics. There are game-theoretical reasons for this. If you take the high road of non-skullduggery in conditions of Realpolitik, you're not going to win.
If you are in a political system in which power can be transferred PeAcEfUlLY among political factions, you exist in a single-party political system, and the factions are only apparent.
When the uniparty cartel breaks down and actual politics re-emerge, the whole criminal justice system gets turned on opposition candidates. They try to shoot opposition candidates in the head. They turn domestic spy agencies loose on opposition candidates. And so on.
These tactics are how you can recognise real politics, as opposed to fake politics: The instrumentalisation of state security services or criminal justice apparatus or random telegram-actrivated crazy people against the opposition is real politics. Trying to kill enemies is real politics. There are game-theoretical reasons for this. If you take the high road of non-skullduggery in conditions of Realpolitik, you're not going to win.
2
Professional sports is the best analogy I can think of here. Rival football teams are not actually enemies; in fact they are entertainment industry collaborators. They compete only in domesticated harmless ways.
Hostile armies, however, are actual enemies – and the things that professional sports teams are intended to emulate (this is why they are interesting).
Hostile armies, however, are actual enemies – and the things that professional sports teams are intended to emulate (this is why they are interesting).
3
There is no 'outside' to politics, but there is an outside to professional sports, so to perfect the analogy, imagine a league of villages that collaborate on grain production, and then hold football games to decide how the harvest should be divided. you might call them eccentrics, but nobody would say they were enemies. they are not enemies until one of the villages attempts an armed raid on a grain silo after their team loses a match.
