Right Wing Discussion Thread XI: It's Okay To Be Right

[United Muscovite Nations]

I doubt it could. Pretty much only the most diehard Orthodox (about 12% of the population) wants the autocracy back.

Russia never abandoned autocracy, bro

I mean the Tsarist Autocracy, which is ideologically very distinct.

[Herskerstad]

Derp, well of course it would be better, no Bolshevik rule, and no Cold War super capitalist reaction. None of the monarchies that WWI cost should have been scrapped. But Russia is the only one I think that could viably go back to monarchy

I doubt it could. Pretty much only the most diehard Orthodox (about 12% of the population) wants the autocracy back.

Eh, they are still pretty top-heavy in terms of powers invested in the leadership.

[Bienenhalde]

I hate Reagan and Goldwater, but I fear that populist nationalism will get very ugly. :/ Especially in Europe.

Populism is a bad idea. A healthy society is one where the common people respect their betters, and populism contradicts that principle.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I doubt it could. Pretty much only the most diehard Orthodox (about 12% of the population) wants the autocracy back.

Eh, they are still pretty top-heavy in terms of powers invested in the leadership.

Autocracy in the Russian sense of the word is distinct. I'm talking about the view where the Tsar is God's representative on Earth, anointed by God to rule over and keep its people. Most people except the Orthodox Church don't want a theocratic, caesaropapist, absolute monarchy back.

[Reikoku]

I hate Reagan and Goldwater, but I fear that populist nationalism will get very ugly. :/ Especially in Europe.

Populism is a bad idea. A healthy society is one where the common people respect their betters, and populism contradicts that principle.

And who are their betters?

[Bienenhalde]

Derp, well of course it would be better, no Bolshevik rule, and no Cold War super capitalist reaction. None of the monarchies that WWI cost should have been scrapped. But Russia is the only one I think that could viably go back to monarchy

>tfw when you hear that the kaiser of Germany will not be restored.

[Bienenhalde]

Populism is a bad idea. A healthy society is one where the common people respect their betters, and populism contradicts that principle.

And who are their betters?

The clergy, the aristocracy, and the literati, are the main groups I am thinking of.

[The Parkus Empire]

Russia never abandoned autocracy, bro

I mean the Tsarist Autocracy, which is ideologically very distinct.

Oh, yeah, well that's because they like Putin. But after he's dead and they get another Yeltsin then they will be more open to alternatives

[The Parkus Empire]

And who are their betters?

The clergy, the aristocracy, and the literati, are the main groups I am thinking of.

Whose clergy? :^)

[Herskerstad]

Eh, they are still pretty top-heavy in terms of powers invested in the leadership.

Autocracy in the Russian sense of the word is distinct. I'm talking about the view where the Tsar is God's representative on Earth, anointed by God to rule over and keep its people. Most people except the Orthodox Church don't want a theocratic, caesaropapist, absolute monarchy back.

I know what you're saying. Then again how they reconcile that with the blunders of the last Tsar as being representative must at the very least make the scepticism arise in some. Like him or not, there's a general consensus at least among historians that he was not the right man for the job.

[Canadensia]

No, the Queen of Bithynia did nothing wrong, and probably would have gone on to conquer Persia had he not been backstabbed (literally) by cowards and hypocrites.

That was a wonderful day, no? Caesar got what he deserved. But I do agree that most of those men were cowards and hypocrites.

Before his assassination, he was in the process of planning a massive invasion of Persia, swooping up through Central Asia and ravaging his way across the Pontic Steppe before crossing the Danube and returning to Rome as a conquering rivaling even the legacy of Alexander the Great. Granted, it was quite the ambitious plan, but if anyone could have pulled it off, it would have been Caesar.

It's also worth noting that he was slowly dying of a brain parasite he picked up in Egypt, and probably wasn't going to last another decade.

Even if you unconditionally despise Caesar, supporting the assassination of a man who greatly benefited the Roman state and vastly expanded its borders is both nonsensical and indicative of either a misguided sense of vengeance or blind adherence to ideology.

Because he thought those men would destroy Rome, which is exactly what happened with Caesar!

Right, the man who was one of the greatest net contributors to Rome was also the man who destroyed it. Spare me your pandering to the legacy of long dead idealists. Caesar was never going to become king, and made little effort to pursue that end. Hell, for a man who was apparently a megalomaniacal threat to the republic, he made no attempt whatsoever to destroy his political enemies, even when he had the perfect opportunities to do so.

Also, Filibustering is fine by me. :^)

So much for republican virtue.

What a blatant lie. Cato had many qualms with allying with Pompey: despite Pompey idolising Cato, Cato treated him coldly on their first meeting, and then Cato denied him his daughter in marriage. He chose to ally with Pompey because Caesar was marching on Rome.

Compromising with a man he considered a threat to the republic after refusing to compromise with another man he considered a threat to the republic.

So much for being a perfect idealization of republican virtue.

You mean the Cato that passed vital anti-corruption legislation, and passed the single greatest expansion of the grain dole for the Plebeians? That Cato? Cato obstructed people, like Caesar, because he thought they were dangerous to the Republic, using popular reform to boost their popularity and thus subvert the Republic in that fashion. He was everything that was great about the Late Republic. The corrupt were who ultimately brought down the Republic and not Cato.

The same Cato who chose expanding a bloated and unsustainable state-run charity service, rather than supporting much-needed land and tax reform that would have seen the republic survive.

He was no better than the die-hard conservative individualists of the 1930's who figured endless soup kitchen lines were preferable to actually doing something about their dying economies.

If anything, Caesar is who is lionised by historians, not Cato. Caesar is mostly known, whereas Cato is mostly forgotten. You see Kaiser and Czar as titles; you see people praise Caesar for his accomplishment, but then also willfully ignore his corruption because 'h-he expanded the R-republics territory, g-guys, just ignore h-his corruption and subsequent d-destruction of the R-republic ;('

Y'know, on that note you're right.

Caesar is remembered far more fondly than Cato, and rightfully so.

[The Parkus Empire]

Autocracy in the Russian sense of the word is distinct. I'm talking about the view where the Tsar is God's representative on Earth, anointed by God to rule over and keep its people. Most people except the Orthodox Church don't want a theocratic, caesaropapist, absolute monarchy back.

I know what you're saying. Then again how they reconcile that with the blunders of the last Tsar as being representative must at the very least make the scepticism arise in some. Like him or not, there's a general consensus at least among historians that he was not the right man for the job.

As opposed to?

[Herskerstad]

I mean the Tsarist Autocracy, which is ideologically very distinct.

Oh, yeah, well that's because they like Putin. But after he's dead and they get another Yeltsin then they will be more open to alternatives

Eh that's hard to say. I mean we'd welcome a post Putinist mini-thaw to be sure, but there's no guarantee the next person to take over will be a Yeltsin. The only thing that feels certain is Ukraine got fucked as any sort of rapprochement is likely to end in Russia's favour in regards to Crimea, and that's presuming if it only ends in Crimea.

[Canadensia]

That would inherently involve attempts to restore the Soviet Union.

Which, frankly, isn't desirable for us Westerners. In all honesty, I prefer a weak Russia that's dominated by self-serving oligarchs and is economically dependent on oil and gas exports.

Dumb foreign policy advice of the week.

Y'know, it's a shame when the social liberals are more patriotic about foreign policy than the conservatives.

Reagan is turning in his grave.

Truth be told, I'd say United Russia is more run-of-the-mill nationalist than anything. They're a mix between the LDPR's full-on "let's restore the Russian Empire" ultra-nationalism and the Communist Party's desire to bring back the USSR. Granted, most of the party hierarchy is ex-KGB, but that's pretty much a staple of Russian politics.

Thankfully, the country has been fairly isolated geopolitically, and NATO is sufficiently expanded to a point where Russia's only viable means of expansion are in the Ukraine, the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia. Which, frankly, they can only do in small portions without running the risk of being sanctioned up their ass.

I unironically think restoring the monarchy would be best for Russia

Are there even any Romanovs left?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I hate Reagan and Goldwater, but I fear that populist nationalism will get very ugly. :/ Especially in Europe.

Populism is a bad idea. A healthy society is one where the common people respect their betters, and populism contradicts that principle.

Populism can lead to anti-intellectualism and unbalanced budget and some mob rule. However, it's still miles above elitism. The "respect your betters" thing relies upon them actually being your betters, which they are often not. Elitism also relies upon power not corrupting, which goes against reality.

[Republic of the Cristo]

and what has appealing to them over the last 30 years done for us?

I don't know what you mean by appealing to them. If you mean actually heading their positions and advice, we certainly haven't been doing that over the last thirty years. In fact Burke has been totally bastardized into meaning "slow surrender".

This is the Burke I know

Novelty is not the only source of zeal. Why should not a Maccabeus and his brethren arise to assert the honour of the ancient law, and to defend the temple of their forefathers, with as ardent a spirit as can inspire any innovator to destroy the monuments of the piety and the glory of ancient ages? It is not a hazarded assertion, it is a great truth, that when once things are gone out of their ordinary course, it is by acts out of the ordinary course they can alone be re-established. Republican spirit can only be combated by a spirit of the same nature: of the same nature, but informed with another principle, and pointing to another end. I would persuade a resistance, both to the corruption and to the reformation that prevails. It will not be the weaker, but much the stronger, for combating both together. A victory over real corruptions would enable us to baffle the spurious and pretended reformations. I would not wish to excite, or even to tolerate, that kind of evil spirit which invokes the powers of hell to rectify the disorders of the earth. No! I would add my voice with better, and I trust, more potent charms, to draw down justice and wisdom and fortitude from heaven, for the correction of human vice, and the recalling of human error from the devious ways into which it has been betrayed. I would wish to call the impulses of individuals at once to the aid and to the control of authority. By this, which I call the true republican spirit, paradoxical as it may appear, monarchies alone can be rescued from the imbecility of courts and the madness of the crowd. This republican spirit would not suffer men in high place to bring ruin on their country and on themselves. It would reform, not by destroying, but by saving, the great, the rich, and the powerful. Such a republican spirit, we perhaps fondly conceive to have animated the distinguished heroes and patriots of old, who knew no mode of policy but religion and virtue. These they would have paramount to all constitutions; they would not suffer monarchs, or senates, or popular assemblies, under pretences of dignity, or authority, or freedom, to shake off those moral riders which reason has appointed to govern every sort of rude power. These, in appearance loading them by their weight, do by that pressure augment their essential force. The momentum is increased by the extraneous weight. It is true in moral, as it is in mechanical science. It is true, not only in the draught, but in the race. These riders of the great, in effect, hold the reins which guide them in their course, and wear the spur that stimulates them to the goals of honour and of safety. The great must submit to the dominion of prudence and of virtue, or none will long submit to the dominion of the great.

"Dis te minorem quod geris imperas."

This is the feudal tenure which they cannot alter.

Sounds rather anti-liberal ( classic ) to me. Judging strictly from this excerpt alone, I would almost say he was in the same boat as Hamilton - someone I recall you not liking.

Does the speech have context?

[Reikoku]

And who are their betters?

The clergy, the aristocracy, and the literati, are the main groups I am thinking of.

I think you're a few hundred years too late. We don't live in a world of Estates any more.

[The Parkus Empire]

Oh, yeah, well that's because they like Putin. But after he's dead and they get another Yeltsin then they will be more open to alternatives

Eh that's hard to say. I mean we'd welcome a post Putinist mini-thaw to be sure, but there's no guarantee the next person to take over will be a Yeltsin. The only thing that feels certain is Ukraine got fucked as any sort of rapprochement is likely to end in Russia's favour in regards to Crimea, and that's presuming if it only ends in Crimea.

By "Yeltsin" I mean someone hated by the Russian people

[United Muscovite Nations]

Autocracy in the Russian sense of the word is distinct. I'm talking about the view where the Tsar is God's representative on Earth, anointed by God to rule over and keep its people. Most people except the Orthodox Church don't want a theocratic, caesaropapist, absolute monarchy back.

I know what you're saying. Then again how they reconcile that with the blunders of the last Tsar as being representative must at the very least make the scepticism arise in some. Like him or not, there's a general consensus at least among historians that he was not the right man for the job.

Generally its reconciled that the Soviet Union was God's punishment of Russia for trying to overthrow God's order.

Because he was Tsar, Tsar by the Grace of God. He was the bearer and incarnation of the Orthodox world-view that the Tsar is the servant of God, the Anointed of God, and that to Him he must give an account for the people entrusted to him by destiny, for all his deeds and actions, not only those done personally, but also as Tsar … he was the bearer of the consciousness that the Supreme authority should be obedient to God, should receive sanctification and strength from Him to follow God’s commandments. He was a living incarnation of faith in the Divine Providence that works in the destinies of nations and peoples and directs Rulers faithful to God into good and useful actions. Therefore he was intolerable for the enemies of faith and for those who strive to place human reason and human faculties above everything.
- St John, Bishop of Shanghai and San Francisco.

[Herskerstad]

Eh that's hard to say. I mean we'd welcome a post Putinist mini-thaw to be sure, but there's no guarantee the next person to take over will be a Yeltsin. The only thing that feels certain is Ukraine got fucked as any sort of rapprochement is likely to end in Russia's favour in regards to Crimea, and that's presuming if it only ends in Crimea.

By "Yeltsin" I mean someone hated by the Russian people

Fair enough, I thought you meant a political softballer.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Dumb foreign policy advice of the week.

Y'know, it's a shame when the social liberals are more patriotic about foreign policy than the conservatives.

Reagan is turning in his grave.

I unironically think restoring the monarchy would be best for Russia

Are there even any Romanovs left?

There are, though there are none who are legitimate. It's not a matter of the house though, they can always call a Zemsky Sobor and choose a new dynasty.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Dumb foreign policy advice of the week.

Y'know, it's a shame when the social liberals are more patriotic about foreign policy than the conservatives.

Reagan is turning in his grave.

Define "patriotism" and pray tell, would it involve the U.S attacking nations that didn't attack first? If so, no "patriotism" for me thanks.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I hate Reagan and Goldwater, but I fear that populist nationalism will get very ugly. :/ Especially in Europe.

Populism is a bad idea. A healthy society is one where the common people respect their betters, and populism contradicts that principle.

Populism is just a means to an end. When our betters do not respect those whom they represent, it is occasionally necessary to light fire underneath them.

A much more polite tree of liberty if you will...

[United Muscovite Nations]

Oh, yeah, well that's because they like Putin. But after he's dead and they get another Yeltsin then they will be more open to alternatives

Eh that's hard to say. I mean we'd welcome a post Putinist mini-thaw to be sure, but there's no guarantee the next person to take over will be a Yeltsin. The only thing that feels certain is Ukraine got fucked as any sort of rapprochement is likely to end in Russia's favour in regards to Crimea, and that's presuming if it only ends in Crimea.

Honestly the Ukrainians can only blame themselves. They and Moldova are the only post-Soviet states that have such terrible economies. For perspective, Transnistria has higher GDP per capita than either of them.

[Canadensia]

Y'know, it's a shame when the social liberals are more patriotic about foreign policy than the conservatives.

Reagan is turning in his grave.



Are there even any Romanovs left?

There are, though there are none who are legitimate. It's not a matter of the house though, they can always call a Zemsky Sobor and choose a new dynasty.

Yeah, but those generally involved selecting someone from the upper nobility. Which... as far as I'm aware, is almost entirely extinct.