Right-Wing Discussion Thread

[Jochistan]

Was just wondering, what do you think will happen if Singapore tries to colonise Syria?

Trump would embrace Multiculturalism, Serbia will apologize for war crimes, Satan would take a sled to work, and Richard Dawkins would become a born again Christian.

[New Kattslant]

Conservatism is opposed to both the expanding state sphere and the expanding market sphere. Conservatism is about expanding the Church, family and community spheres (also the worker guild sphere, for more anti-capitalist conservatism), the main purpose of the state from a conservative point of view is to protect those spheres.

The idea of solving loss of sentiment and traditional value through technology is a bit ridiculous. Conservatism isn't inherently opposed to technology, but it definitely doesn't think technology holds the key to things like the decline of morality.

Conservatism is opposed to the expansion of the market sphere? Hmmmm, it seems to be somewhat debatable, but you can say that the "pro-capitalist" conservative (the majority of conservatives in Western countries, and some pseudo-Western countries like the ones in Latin America) are misguided. Maybe you want to say that conservatism is opposed to the expansion of the economic predominance over non-economic values? Even in this case, most conservatives will prefer a bigger amount of market in the small economic sphere that remains...
After all, the West is capitalist since a couple or two of centuries at least, and the results are not so bad, so wanting to preserve it seems to be a natural desire for many conservatives.

About expanding the Church sphere, an irreligious conservative, who is conservative due to skepticism about radical change and the needs of defending civilization against the "barbarians", will necessarily need to want that? I'm not saying he'll want to attack the Church, but maybe he'll think that the size of the Church is not a governmental issue.

Well, I admit that it's a bit hard too fuse transhumanism and conservatism, so this fusion will probably need "sacrifices'' from both sides of the wall, and a less strict definitions for both "ideologies". A conservative who hold a very negative view of human nature (Hobbesian of even more dark) can believe there's no other way.
However, the second, less "Brave New World"-like transhumanist idea I suggested - the one about improving your own abilities through technology - seems not to be necessarily against conservative values. We humans are doing that during all our history - increasing our memory through registration in paper, increasing our force through tools, or correcting our physical problems through surgical operations or even things like glasses or wooden legs. And these are not a threat to conservative values (ok, maybe my "morality pill" is, but not the ability suggestions)

[Morr]

Conservatism is opposed to both the expanding state sphere and the expanding market sphere. Conservatism is about expanding the Church, family and community spheres (also the worker guild sphere, for more anti-capitalist conservatism), the main purpose of the state from a conservative point of view is to protect those spheres.

The idea of solving loss of sentiment and traditional value through technology is a bit ridiculous. Conservatism isn't inherently opposed to technology, but it definitely doesn't think technology holds the key to things like the decline of morality.

Conservatism is opposed to the expansion of the market sphere? Hmmmm, it seems to be somewhat debatable, but you can say that the "pro-capitalist" conservative (the majority of conservatives in Western countries, and some pseudo-Western countries like the ones in Latin America) are misguided. Maybe you want to say that conservatism is opposed to the expansion of the economic predominance over non-economic values? Even in this case, most conservatives will prefer a bigger amount of market in the small economic sphere that remains...
After all, the West is capitalist since a couple or two of centuries at least, and the results are not so bad, so wanting to preserve it seems to be a natural desire for many conservatives.

About expanding the Church sphere, an irreligious conservative, who is conservative due to skepticism about radical change and the needs of defending civilization against the "barbarians", will necessarily need to want that? I'm not saying he'll want to attack the Church, but maybe he'll think that the size of the Church is not a governmental issue.

Well, I admit that it's a bit hard too fuse transhumanism and conservatism, so this fusion will probably need "sacrifices'' from both sides of the wall, and a less strict definitions for both "ideologies". A conservative who hold a very negative view of human nature (Hobbesian of even more dark) can believe there's no other way.
However, the second, less "Brave New World"-like transhumanist idea I suggested - the one about improving your own abilities through technology - seems not to be necessarily against conservative values. We humans are doing that during all our history - increasing our memory through registration in paper, increasing our force through tools, or correcting our physical problems through surgical operations or even things like glasses or wooden legs. And these are not a threat to conservative values (ok, maybe my "morality pill" is, but not the ability suggestions)

When I say, "conservative", I mean traditional conservative.

As for irreligious conservatives, to quote Peter Hitchens, "I'm not saying you can't be a conservative without being a theist – it seems much more difficult, I'm not certain I can work out why you would want to be." The only major irreligious conservatives that comes to mind are Hume and Hobbes, and I think they both need to be seriously reexamined as conservatives, because Hume supported Adam Smith, who advocated rational self-interest as a fundamental driving force of human nature, and Hobbes thought human nature to be innately selfish, and was actually overall a liberal despite being against democracy. The conservative view of human nature is that we are fundamentally social beings who need something bigger than ourselves to identify as in order to be truly fulfilled, like the family, community, nation, Church and class (but conservatives are also about intersecting spheres of loyalty, and any one of these spheres from a conservative viewpoint shouldn't try to eclipse the rest, as class does with Marxism and nation does with nationalism, but should function harmoniously with it).

[Dinake]

Conservatism is opposed to the expansion of the market sphere? Hmmmm, it seems to be somewhat debatable, but you can say that the "pro-capitalist" conservative (the majority of conservatives in Western countries, and some pseudo-Western countries like the ones in Latin America) are misguided. Maybe you want to say that conservatism is opposed to the expansion of the economic predominance over non-economic values? Even in this case, most conservatives will prefer a bigger amount of market in the small economic sphere that remains...
After all, the West is capitalist since a couple or two of centuries at least, and the results are not so bad, so wanting to preserve it seems to be a natural desire for many conservatives.

About expanding the Church sphere, an irreligious conservative, who is conservative due to skepticism about radical change and the needs of defending civilization against the "barbarians", will necessarily need to want that? I'm not saying he'll want to attack the Church, but maybe he'll think that the size of the Church is not a governmental issue.

Well, I admit that it's a bit hard too fuse transhumanism and conservatism, so this fusion will probably need "sacrifices'' from both sides of the wall, and a less strict definitions for both "ideologies". A conservative who hold a very negative view of human nature (Hobbesian of even more dark) can believe there's no other way.
However, the second, less "Brave New World"-like transhumanist idea I suggested - the one about improving your own abilities through technology - seems not to be necessarily against conservative values. We humans are doing that during all our history - increasing our memory through registration in paper, increasing our force through tools, or correcting our physical problems through surgical operations or even things like glasses or wooden legs. And these are not a threat to conservative values (ok, maybe my "morality pill" is, but not the ability suggestions)

When I say, "conservative", I mean traditional conservative.

As for irreligious conservatives, to quote Peter Hitchens, "I'm not saying you can't be a conservative without being a theist – it seems much more difficult, I'm not certain I can work out why you would want to be." The only major irreligious conservatives that comes to mind are Hume and Hobbes, and I think they both need to be seriously reexamined as conservatives, because Hume supported Adam Smith, who advocated rational self-interest as a fundamental driving force of human nature, and Hobbes thought human nature to be innately selfish, and was actually overall a liberal despite being against democracy. The conservative view of human nature is that we are fundamentally social beings who need something bigger than ourselves to identify as in order to be truly fulfilled, like the family, community, nation, Church and class (but conservatives are also about intersecting spheres of loyalty, and any one of these spheres from a conservative viewpoint shouldn't try to eclipse the rest, as class does with Marxism and nation does with nationalism, but should function harmoniously with it).

Certain forms of Confucianism are quite conservative without being Theistic(well, at least necessarily theistic).

[Morr]

When I say, "conservative", I mean traditional conservative.

As for irreligious conservatives, to quote Peter Hitchens, "I'm not saying you can't be a conservative without being a theist – it seems much more difficult, I'm not certain I can work out why you would want to be." The only major irreligious conservatives that comes to mind are Hume and Hobbes, and I think they both need to be seriously reexamined as conservatives, because Hume supported Adam Smith, who advocated rational self-interest as a fundamental driving force of human nature, and Hobbes thought human nature to be innately selfish, and was actually overall a liberal despite being against democracy. The conservative view of human nature is that we are fundamentally social beings who need something bigger than ourselves to identify as in order to be truly fulfilled, like the family, community, nation, Church and class (but conservatives are also about intersecting spheres of loyalty, and any one of these spheres from a conservative viewpoint shouldn't try to eclipse the rest, as class does with Marxism and nation does with nationalism, but should function harmoniously with it).

Certain forms of Confucianism are quite conservative without being Theistic(well, at least necessarily theistic).

Different culture.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because Singapore colonizing Syria is just as likely.

Is it unlikely that a first world nation would be able to colonise a war-torn one?

Singapore is a fucking city-state. They aren't colonizing anywhere. They've got their own little space to burn to the ground with capitalism, I'd rather they not expand.

[Unnamed island state]

Is it unlikely that a first world nation would be able to colonise a war-torn one?

Singapore is a fucking city-state. They aren't colonizing anywhere. They've got their own little space to burn to the ground with capitalism, I'd rather they not expand.

As critical as I am of Singapore, it doesn't look as if Singaporeans are displeased with their current situation, or that it faces any big problems in the future that may destabilize it.

They're pretty pleased with capitalism.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Is it unlikely that a first world nation would be able to colonise a war-torn one?

Singapore is a fucking city-state. They aren't colonizing anywhere. They've got their own little space to burn to the ground with capitalism, I'd rather they not expand.

*looks out the window* Yes surely the Singaporean city-state is even now burning itself down under the excesses of teh ebul capitalismus. Riots, poverty, disease and crime run rampant even now. Soon the lumpen proletariat will start throwing off their shackles and start slaughtering every single member of the bourgeois elite muahahahaha.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Singapore is a fucking city-state. They aren't colonizing anywhere. They've got their own little space to burn to the ground with capitalism, I'd rather they not expand.

*looks out the window* Yes surely the Singaporean city-state is even now burning itself down under the excesses of teh ebul capitalismus. Riots, poverty, disease and crime run rampant even now. Soon the lumpen proletariat will start throwing off their shackles and start slaughtering every single member of the bourgeois elite muahahahaha.

Income inequality, poverty, authoritarianism, and idolization of capital are running rampant. Singapore needs a few good riots.

[Unnamed island state]

*looks out the window* Yes surely the Singaporean city-state is even now burning itself down under the excesses of teh ebul capitalismus. Riots, poverty, disease and crime run rampant even now. Soon the lumpen proletariat will start throwing off their shackles and start slaughtering every single member of the bourgeois elite muahahahaha.

Income inequality, poverty, authoritarianism, and idolization of capital are running rampant. Singapore needs a few good riots.

No, they need to elect the Workers' Party.

[Morr]

*looks out the window* Yes surely the Singaporean city-state is even now burning itself down under the excesses of teh ebul capitalismus. Riots, poverty, disease and crime run rampant even now. Soon the lumpen proletariat will start throwing off their shackles and start slaughtering every single member of the bourgeois elite muahahahaha.

Income inequality, poverty, authoritarianism, and idolization of capital are running rampant. Singapore needs a few good riots.

Do you support the PKK? Seeing as how they are virtually anarchists and belittle the idea of a Kurdish state as "Kurdish Zionism".

[The Greater Aryan Race]

*looks out the window* Yes surely the Singaporean city-state is even now burning itself down under the excesses of teh ebul capitalismus. Riots, poverty, disease and crime run rampant even now. Soon the lumpen proletariat will start throwing off their shackles and start slaughtering every single member of the bourgeois elite muahahahaha.

Income inequality, poverty, authoritarianism, and idolization of capital are running rampant. Singapore needs a few good riots.

Right, where are the bread riots? The mass incidences of homeless and starving people? Where are the long queues at store? The mass lines of unemployed poor souls?

Pretty cute to be wishing for a riot when you're not the person who has to deal with the aftermath and clean up other people's shit.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

No, they need to elect the Workers' Party.

What they need is a coalition government made up of the PAP and the WP to keep out the rest of the political duds and nutjobs.

[Unnamed island state]

Income inequality, poverty, authoritarianism, and idolization of capital are running rampant. Singapore needs a few good riots.

Do you support the PKK? Seeing as how they are virtually anarchists and belittle the idea of a Kurdish state as "Kurdish Zionism".

Why are you so crazy about the PKK?

And Rojava will never become a stateless society, I assure you.

[Kubra]

Singapore is a fucking city-state. They aren't colonizing anywhere. They've got their own little space to burn to the ground with capitalism, I'd rather they not expand.

*looks out the window* Yes surely the Singaporean city-state is even now burning itself down under the excesses of teh ebul capitalismus. Riots, poverty, disease and crime run rampant even now. Soon the lumpen proletariat will start throwing off their shackles and start slaughtering every single member of the bourgeois elite muahahahaha.

It'd be the only fun thing to happen in that snoozeville there in a while

[Unnamed island state]

No, they need to elect the Workers' Party.

What they need is a coalition government made up of the PAP and the WP to keep out the rest of the political duds and nutjobs.

I actually think the Reform Party looks good. I'm not overly familiar with Singaporean politics though.

[Morr]

Do you support the PKK? Seeing as how they are virtually anarchists and belittle the idea of a Kurdish state as "Kurdish Zionism".

Why are you so crazy about the PKK?

And Rojava will never become a stateless society, I assure you.

There is a Turkish civil war breaking out and I strongly back the PKK in what I think will become a major conflict that could radically alter the geopolitics of both Europe and the Middle East.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

What they need is a coalition government made up of the PAP and the WP to keep out the rest of the political duds and nutjobs.

I actually think the Reform Party looks good. I'm not overly familiar with Singaporean politics though.

Nah it's not. It's a cesspool chock full of "activists" and hanger-ons good only for shouting catchy slogans centered on "PAP bad, RP good!" but has no real substantive party programme. Most Singaporeans here don't take them seriously.

[Unnamed island state]

Why are you so crazy about the PKK?

And Rojava will never become a stateless society, I assure you.

There is a Turkish civil war breaking out and I strongly back the PKK in what I think will become a major conflict that could radically alter the geopolitics of both Europe and the Middle East.

How will it effect the geopolitics of Europe?

Though you are wrong to think that the PKK is actually a genuine leftist movement bent on creating some kind of stateless anti-capitalist Kurdish society.

[Morr]

There is a Turkish civil war breaking out and I strongly back the PKK in what I think will become a major conflict that could radically alter the geopolitics of both Europe and the Middle East.

How will it effect the geopolitics of Europe?

Though you are wrong to think that the PKK is actually a genuine leftist movement bent on creating some kind of stateless anti-capitalist Kurdish society.

It could potentially stop Turkish support for Islamic extremism as well as their closeness with Saudi Arabia. The Hagia Sophia might even end up returned and restoration work can begin on it. The politics of Turkey, however it is divided or whatever is running it, could alter drastically.

[Unnamed island state]

How will it effect the geopolitics of Europe?

Though you are wrong to think that the PKK is actually a genuine leftist movement bent on creating some kind of stateless anti-capitalist Kurdish society.

It could potentially stop Turkish support for Islamic extremism as well as their closeness with Saudi Arabia. The Hagia Sophia might even end up returned and restoration work can begin on it. The politics of Turkey, however it is divided or whatever is running it, could alter drastically.

what?

I'm hoping that the conflict with the PKK will get rid of Erdogan, but it's not going to destabilize the country to that extent. If Russia attacks they'll actually get the punishment they deserve, so they are not going to conquer Istanbul. It confuses me that you'd think that's a positive thing.

[The Republic of American Freedom]

It could potentially stop Turkish support for Islamic extremism as well as their closeness with Saudi Arabia. The Hagia Sophia might even end up returned and restoration work can begin on it. The politics of Turkey, however it is divided or whatever is running it, could alter drastically.

what?

I'm hoping that the conflict with the PKK will get rid of Erdogan, but it's not going to destabilize the country to that extent. If Russia attacks they'll actually get the punishment they deserve, so they are not going to conquer Istanbul. It confuses me that you'd think that's a positive thing.

Restore Constantinople! Remove Kebab!

[Unnamed island state]

what?

I'm hoping that the conflict with the PKK will get rid of Erdogan, but it's not going to destabilize the country to that extent. If Russia attacks they'll actually get the punishment they deserve, so they are not going to conquer Istanbul. It confuses me that you'd think that's a positive thing.

Restore Constantinople! Remove Kebab!

Yeah, it's on that level of craziness.

[Morr]

I'm hoping that the conflict with the PKK will get rid of Erdogan, but it's not going to destabilize the country to that extent. If Russia attacks they'll actually get the punishment they deserve, so they are not going to conquer Istanbul.

But they will support the heck out of PKK. And if Greece ends up with a more right-wing government, they might intervene.

It confuses me that you'd think that's a positive thing.

Because I dislike Turkey and I dislike NATO and I dislike Saudi Arabia and I dislike what that whole circle of friends is trying to accomplish.

[Unnamed island state]

I'm hoping that the conflict with the PKK will get rid of Erdogan, but it's not going to destabilize the country to that extent. If Russia attacks they'll actually get the punishment they deserve, so they are not going to conquer Istanbul.

But they will support the heck out of PKK. And if Greece ends up with a more right-wing government, they might intervene.

You're really buying in to the Russian mentality of "the people whose countries we annex love us."

Russia is not stronk enough to go against NATO though.

It confuses me that you'd think that's a positive thing.

Because I dislike Turkey and I dislike NATO and I dislike Saudi Arabia and I dislike what that whole circle of friends is trying to accomplish.

And what are they trying to accomplish?...