Right Wing Discussion Thread X: Pol's closed

[Old Tyrannia]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5gkkj5/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-90-percent-the-solution-to-all-our-problems

> only 90%.

That is unironically still too much.

Female future? Okay, I'm down with-

>> men kept as chattel
>> dystopian ass police state
>> things will be good because it's designed =^^^)

- fuck no.

What, you don't want to live in Feminist Gilead?

[Proctopeo]

A "country" can be defined by more things than just its land.
It can be defined by its government, its people, its culture, and its foreign relations. And potentially more.

It is principally its land and nature. The rest is the country only in relation to that; the government of the land, the people of the land, the culture of the land, the relations of the land. The land and nature are the firm basis of a country; everything else, by itself, is never more than nation.

The specific definition of "country" - as in, what qualifies as one - is, well, ill. The CIA World Factbook, for example, uses it to refer to things varying from "traditional" countries and sovereign states to dependencies and uninhabited islands.

Sometimes it's land. Other times it's government. Other times still, it's claims of sovereignty.

[Rostavykhan]

Female future? Okay, I'm down with-

>> men kept as chattel
>> dystopian ass police state
>> things will be good because it's designed =^^^)

- fuck no.

What, you don't want to live in Feminist Gilead?

I'd rather live in a Trapocracy.

[The Parkus Empire]

The firm basis of a "country" is the army tbf. Didn't exist before, won't exist after.

Wrong, an army can protect, free, delineate and destroy a country, but it cannot create one. Even the Hebrews, in carving out Israel, did not create the "land of milk and honey" which proved so important to their identity.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Most people can probably predict me saying this, but I obviously think that the most important thing a nation can have is its faith.

[The Parkus Empire]

It is principally its land and nature. The rest is the country only in relation to that; the government of the land, the people of the land, the culture of the land, the relations of the land. The land and nature are the firm basis of a country; everything else, by itself, is never more than nation.

The specific definition of "country" - as in, what qualifies as one - is, well, ill. The CIA World Factbook, for example, uses it to refer to things varying from "traditional" countries and sovereign states to dependencies and uninhabited islands.

Sometimes it's land. Other times it's government. Other times still, it's claims of sovereignty.

I don't care what it says, the principle of a country is the land; the government cannot even have a particular jurisdiction without that. Neither can there be claims of sovereignty except over a particular land.

[Hammer Britannia]

Most people can probably predict me saying this, but I obviously think that the most important thing a nation can have is its faith.

Nah mate, the most import thing a nation can have is a strong military to defend itself from the outside and inside.

[Proctopeo]

The specific definition of "country" - as in, what qualifies as one - is, well, ill. The CIA World Factbook, for example, uses it to refer to things varying from "traditional" countries and sovereign states to dependencies and uninhabited islands.

Sometimes it's land. Other times it's government. Other times still, it's claims of sovereignty.

I don't care what it says, the principle of a country is the land; the government cannot even have a particular jurisdiction without that.

You're trying to insist on a personal definition in a situation where there's no single "official" definition.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The firm basis of a "country" is the army tbf. Didn't exist before, won't exist after.

Wrong, an army can protect, free, delineate and destroy a country, but it cannot create one. Even the Hebrews, in carving out Israel, did not create the "land of milk and honey" which proved so important to their identity.

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't care what it says, the principle of a country is the land; the government cannot even have a particular jurisdiction without that.

You're trying to insist on a personal definition in a situation where there's no single "official" definition.

I am insisting on the principle of all definitions.

[Ostroeuropa]

Wrong, an army can protect, free, delineate and destroy a country, but it cannot create one. Even the Hebrews, in carving out Israel, did not create the "land of milk and honey" which proved so important to their identity.

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

Prussia?

The specific definition of "country" - as in, what qualifies as one - is, well, ill. The CIA World Factbook, for example, uses it to refer to things varying from "traditional" countries and sovereign states to dependencies and uninhabited islands.

Sometimes it's land. Other times it's government. Other times still, it's claims of sovereignty.

I don't care what it says, the principle of a country is the land; the government cannot even have a particular jurisdiction without that. Neither can there be claims of sovereignty except over a particular land.

Not necessarily.
The British Empire and others for instance forced many countries to concede that European persons would be subject to European laws in their lands (Famously this happened in China, and meant British people could massively outcompete local merchants.), through martial force.

Other nations have also existed without land, such as the knights of malta and such.
Conceivably, both concepts could exist simultaneously.

A large navy sailing around and strongarming nations into allowing its people to adhere to their own laws, despite no state claiming jurisdiction over land.

A remnant UK after a nuclear attack for instance could be like that.

It's the difference between "King of the Scots" and "King of Scotland."

White Russia continued to exist and held authority over its diaspora for some time after the civil war.

[Proctopeo]

You're trying to insist on a personal definition in a situation where there's no single "official" definition.

I am insisting on the principle of all definitions.

Hm?

[Questers]

Wrong, an army can protect, free, delineate and destroy a country, but it cannot create one. Even the Hebrews, in carving out Israel, did not create the "land of milk and honey" which proved so important to their identity.

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

The Holy Sherman

[Dumb Ideologies]

Most people can probably predict me saying this, but I obviously think that the most important thing a nation can have is its faith.

Faith, and a secular government ready to torch the holy book and its priests if they try any divisive bullshit that undermines national unity.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

The Holy Sherman

And His begotten Son, FV 4011 Centurion

[The Parkus Empire]

Wrong, an army can protect, free, delineate and destroy a country, but it cannot create one. Even the Hebrews, in carving out Israel, did not create the "land of milk and honey" which proved so important to their identity.

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

That is Israel as a state, but that was over course entirely predicated on the land it was sovereign over.

[Ostroeuropa]

Most people can probably predict me saying this, but I obviously think that the most important thing a nation can have is its faith.

Faith, and a secular government ready to torch the holy book and it's priests if they try any divisive bullshit that undermines national unity.

Lock them in the cellar and have a parliamentary vote to steal all their shit and force them to preach what we tell them.

...
Again.

We can make out to other countries it's like the black rod thing and just a parliamentary ritual as we stuff them in the cellar over their protests.

[The Parkus Empire]

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

Prussia?

I don't care what it says, the principle of a country is the land; the government cannot even have a particular jurisdiction without that. Neither can there be claims of sovereignty except over a particular land.

Not necessarily.
The British Empire and others for instance forced many countries to concede that European persons would be subject to European laws in their lands (Famously this happened in China, and meant British people could massively outcompete local merchants.), through martial force.

Other nations have also existed without land, such as the knights of malta and such.
Conceivably, both concepts could exist simultaneously.

A large navy sailing around and strongarming nations into allowing its people to adhere to their own laws, despite no state claiming jurisdiction over land.

A remnant UK after a nuclear attack for instance could be like that.

It's the difference between "King of the Scots" and "King of Scotland."

White Russia continued to exist and held authority over its diaspora for some time after the civil war.

The British Empire wasn't a country. Great Britain is though.

[Ostroeuropa]

Prussia?




Not necessarily.
The British Empire and others for instance forced many countries to concede that European persons would be subject to European laws in their lands (Famously this happened in China, and meant British people could massively outcompete local merchants.), through martial force.

Other nations have also existed without land, such as the knights of malta and such.
Conceivably, both concepts could exist simultaneously.

A large navy sailing around and strongarming nations into allowing its people to adhere to their own laws, despite no state claiming jurisdiction over land.

A remnant UK after a nuclear attack for instance could be like that.

It's the difference between "King of the Scots" and "King of Scotland."

White Russia continued to exist and held authority over its diaspora for some time after the civil war.

The British Empire wasn't a country. Great Britain is though.

Sure, but you're ignoring the point.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Israel is perhaps the perfect example of the martial definition of a state. Biblical Israel owed its existence to military victories delivered through God, modern Israel owes its existence to the main battle tank

That is Israel as a state, but that was over course entirely predicated on the land it was sovereign over.

How do you think they acquired the land of Canaan? Through jihad.

[The Parkus Empire]

The British Empire wasn't a country. Great Britain is though.

Sure, but you're ignoring the point.

Which is one of nation, not of country.

[Old Tyrannia]

It is principally its land and nature. The rest is the country only in relation to that; the government of the land, the people of the land, the culture of the land, the relations of the land. The land and nature are the firm basis of a country; everything else, by itself, is never more than nation.

The specific definition of "country" - as in, what qualifies as one - is, well, ill. The CIA World Factbook, for example, uses it to refer to things varying from "traditional" countries and sovereign states to dependencies and uninhabited islands.

Sometimes it's land. Other times it's government. Other times still, it's claims of sovereignty.

The use of terms like "country," "nation" and "state" (more the first two than the latter) have always been somewhat inconsistent and flexible. Personally, I use the following definitions:

• "Country" refers to a geographical area defined by human cultural ideas rather than any distinctive geographical traits per se.
• "Nation" refers to a self-identifying group of people with a shared culture (generally including a shared linguistic identity) and, usually, ancestry.
• "State" refers to a governing political structure.
• "Nation-state" is a nation that is also a state; or, to put it another way, a state governing over and drawing its legitimacy from its association with a specific nation.

Most people can probably predict me saying this, but I obviously think that the most important thing a nation can have is its faith.

I would tentatively agree, but I think my idea of what constitutes "faith" in this particular context may be somewhat broader than yours.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Most people can probably predict me saying this, but I obviously think that the most important thing a nation can have is its faith.

Faith, and a secular government ready to torch the holy book and its priests if they try any divisive bullshit that undermines national unity.

What if the nation is defined largely in accordance with the faith? There are many nations for whom religion is an important part of their national identity.

[Ostroeuropa]

A nation needs a national myth and pride/adherence to that myth and its values, that can involve religion, but doesn't need to.

Absent a central authority and official telling of the myth through schooling or churches, sometimes organic versions form, though conflicting visions sow conflict and division in the nation.

It's the same for creeds. Religions are just particular myths and stories people hold as central.

We're a bunch of fuckin nerds guys. ALL of us.

You can view nations as fans of particular story or discourse.

Except anarchists i guess.

[Germanic Templars]

Here is a question for all my fellow Americans, do you think that public schools should recite the American's Creed before school starts? For those who do not know about it here it is:



The creed was originally written in 1917 by William Tyler Page and was accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.

It's a bit longer than the Pledge but it doesn't have the references to god in it. I like it

That is the main point of it, the lack of God makes it acceptable in public schools.

Here is a question for all my fellow Americans, do you think that public schools should recite the American's Creed before school starts? For those who do not know about it here it is:



The creed was originally written in 1917 by William Tyler Page and was accepted by the United States House of Representatives on April 3, 1918.

Nah, feels like BS propaganda to me....but on the other hand, kids these days need something to take them away from this trend of "post modern" lack of common sense.

Nah, propaganda is something you would see from USSR films, or Hollywood... This, in my opinion, provides a sense of belonging, unity, and identity that children can learn from.