NationStates

I'd say The Republic is the most influential Right Wing book.

Plato was OG.

Conserative Morality wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:As I said, they use those aspects for entirely different reasons. SocDems and Fascists do it as a third position between socialism and capitalism. The others do it in an effort to protect traditions that are older than capitalism. They represent entirely different movements.

I think you're making an entirely arbitrary distinction that ignores the continuity between SocDems, Fascists, and past ideologies.

Not really. I'm making the point that Social Democracy and Fascism not only share distinctive political policies, but are of the same lineage of movements.

Jochizyd Republic wrote:I'd say The Republic is the most influential Right Wing book.

Plato was OG.

I specifically excluded any works from prior to 1789.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Jochizyd Republic wrote:I'd say The Republic is the most influential Right Wing book.

Plato was OG.

I specifically excluded any works from prior to 1789.

I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Jochizyd Republic wrote:I'd say The Republic is the most influential Right Wing book.

Plato was OG.

I specifically excluded any works from prior to 1789.

Ahhh.

Nusaresa wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I specifically excluded any works from prior to 1789.

I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

Tbh, I think many aspects of the Enlightenment were mistakes in the long-run.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

Tbh, I think many aspects of the Enlightenment were mistakes in the long-run.

However, in the context of immediate relevance and for the sake of this poll (and OT's choice) the Enlightenment shaped many aspects of the world regardless of stance.

Nusaresa wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Tbh, I think many aspects of the Enlightenment were mistakes in the long-run.

However, in the context of immediate relevance and for the sake of this poll (and OT's choice) the Enlightenment shaped many aspects of the world regardless of stance.

That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:However, in the context of immediate relevance and for the sake of this poll (and OT's choice) the Enlightenment shaped many aspects of the world regardless of stance.

That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

This kills the Nusa.

And time travel back is a shit. Consequences be dammed.

Nusaresa wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I specifically excluded any works from prior to 1789.

I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

Monarchy ain't free. The Tree of Tradition gotta be littrd with the blood of Revolutionaries. Maximillien "Mordechai" Robespierre AKA JACOBIN JERKOFF is not my leader. He is Modernist Atheist and probbly a Freemason as well : DD. TRADITION and monarchy not revolution and republic ok? Praise le Ancien Régime.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:However, in the context of immediate relevance and for the sake of this poll (and OT's choice) the Enlightenment shaped many aspects of the world regardless of stance.

That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

Wouldn't Locke be a better target?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:However, in the context of immediate relevance and for the sake of this poll (and OT's choice) the Enlightenment shaped many aspects of the world regardless of stance.

That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

He kind of precedes the age of enlightenment. If you really want the world to be in a backwards state, I'd recommend Francis Bacon.

The Princes of the Universe wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

Wouldn't Locke be a better target?

Perhaps, but getting rid of mind-body dualism is important.

The Princes of the Universe wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

Wouldn't Locke be a better target?

PS: Kill Luther and you win the war.

Jochizyd Republic wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

Monarchy ain't free. The Tree of Tradition gotta be littrd with the blood of Revolutionaries. Maximillien "Mordechai" Robespierre AKA JACOBIN JERKOFF is not my leader. He is Modernist Atheist and probbly a Freemason as well : DD. TRADITION and monarchy not revolution and republic ok? Praise le Ancien Régime.

...

nu u c:

Nusaresa wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

This kills the Nusa.

And time travel back is a shit. Consequences be dammed.

Eh, likely you'd be in a closed timeloop until you re-arrived at the initial point of divergence. So, the rest of us would be fine.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

The Princes of the Universe wrote:Wouldn't Locke be a better target?

Perhaps, but getting rid of mind-body dualism is important.

So Aristotle then?

Nusaresa wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I specifically excluded any works from prior to 1789.

I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

I'm not exactly an enthusiastic proponent of Enlightenment concepts, but the left-right divide in politics begins with the French Revolution, so it seemed a logical cut-off point. Works like Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Confucius' Analects and Machiavelli's Il Principe can all be considered as having an influence on right-wing thought, but it would be anachronistic to refer to them as right-wing.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:However, in the context of immediate relevance and for the sake of this poll (and OT's choice) the Enlightenment shaped many aspects of the world regardless of stance.

That's why I plan to go back in time to assassinate Rene Descartes.

B-b-but.... I need to use Cartesian coordinates for my dissertation research project...

Not to mention that the development of the scientific method and empiricism in general are key factors in making Europe so successful during the modern era. Science is good.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

The Princes of the Universe wrote:Wouldn't Locke be a better target?

Perhaps, but getting rid of mind-body dualism is important.

Mind-body dualism existed anyways through spirituality. Descartes just formalized it.

Besides, why do you hate the man who basically kick started investigations and inquiries such as neuroscience, computer science, and psychology among others? you wound me ;-;

Lady Scylla wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:This kills the Nusa.

And time travel back is a shit. Consequences be dammed.

Eh, likely you'd be in a closed timeloop until you re-arrived at the initial point of divergence. So, the rest of us would be fine.

quantum fuckery pls go my brain is not fortitude

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

I'm not exactly an enthusiastic proponent of Enlightenment concepts, but the left-right divide in politics begins with the French Revolution, so it seemed a logical cut-off point. Works like Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Confucius' Analects and Machiavelli's Il Principe can all be considered as having an influence on right-wing thought, but it would be anachronistic to refer to them as right-wing.

Hm... Well said actually.

Fine, I won't kill Descartes, I'll kill Locke. Getting rid of 'muh rights' should come first anyway.

Old Tyrannia wrote:

Nusaresa wrote:I can hear the dissatisfied woes of those that bash the Enlightenment uwu

I'm not exactly an enthusiastic proponent of Enlightenment concepts, but the left-right divide in politics begins with the French Revolution, so it seemed a logical cut-off point. Works like Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Confucius' Analects and Machiavelli's Il Principe can all be considered as having an influence on right-wing thought, but it would be anachronistic to refer to them as right-wing.

Maybe so. But Some Reactionaries want to return to their values, no?

United Marxist Nations wrote:Yeah, it's more like Russia is trying to draw a line where they won't let anymore Western influence in. They are trying to keep things out of their historical sphere, not necessarily attempting to expand.

Well they are expanding, but into areas they lost control of in the 90s. Though even there they lack the strength to fully re-integrate what they lost and can only settle for tearing off bits and pieces of them. They certainly are not going to be rolling into Warsaw anytime soon, let alone Berlin.

People tend to forget just how much military power the Soviet Union had though. They really could have made a credible effort at driving straight to the Atlantic if they had wanted too. A big part of the reason Russia has such a monomaniacal fixation on nuclear weapons in their rhetoric is because it is the only way they can rise to an existential threat to NATO, the Soviet Union didn't sound nearly as trigger happy when they rattled their sabre because the Soviet Union didn't need to. 60,000 tanks was more than enough to make NATO break out in a cold sweat, but Russia today could not produce that many tanks (let alone all the other stuff the USSR had) in a century.

The Cold War was a military standoff with an ideological dimension. And without the military power the USSR once had, there can be no "second" Cold War.

United Marxist Nations wrote:Fine, I won't kill Descartes, I'll kill Locke. Getting rid of 'muh rights' should come first anyway.

Why do you hate philosophical inquiry into how the mind works, which greatly influenced many areas of research in science like neuroscience, psycholinguistics, psychology, etc :c

Jochizyd Republic wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:I'm not exactly an enthusiastic proponent of Enlightenment concepts, but the left-right divide in politics begins with the French Revolution, so it seemed a logical cut-off point. Works like Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics, Confucius' Analects and Machiavelli's Il Principe can all be considered as having an influence on right-wing thought, but it would be anachronistic to refer to them as right-wing.

Maybe so. But Some Reactionaries want to return to their values, no?

Some reactionaries include this one, right here. Confucius and Aristotle especially have been influential in shaping my own views. But they're still not going in the poll.

Nusaresa wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Fine, I won't kill Descartes, I'll kill Locke. Getting rid of 'muh rights' should come first anyway.

Why do you hate philosophical inquiry into how the mind works, which greatly influenced many areas of research in science like neuroscience, psycholinguistics, psychology, etc :c

Because it led to scientism.