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

[Republic of the Cristo]

Let's start an editorial, The Daily Male. We can have all sorts of interesting articles

Can't Spell Harmony without Harm: Unity and how to Avoid it

The Case for Putting Lee on the $50 Bill

Atheism: a Concern for National Security

Christopher Lee or Bruce Lee?

Is it weird that this question is probably going to keep me up at night?

[The Parkus Empire]

You will have to have a Fu-Manchu mustache and smoke a hookah to be qualified.

RIP me, too much of a puritan

Then you'll have to burn smut and card decks for the smoke

[The East Marches II]

RIP me, too much of a puritan

Then you'll have to burn smut and card decks for the smoke

Donezo!

[The Parkus Empire]

The Injustice of 'Social Justice'

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -cal-poly/

This is a very interesting article by Rod Dreher, who critiques what he sees as a very dangerous mob mentality growing on the left. But he also warns that it jeopardizes the right, and illustrates its danger by a lynching of a black that took place in his home town, and how he formerly supported the War in Iraq out of a hatred for Muslims after 9/11. It's very relevant to our current times

[Herskerstad]

Christopher Lee or Bruce Lee?

Is it weird that this question is probably going to keep me up at night?

Why not both?

[Herskerstad]

In fact just put all the Lee's on there. Given that R Lee Ermey also kicked the bucket.

[Aulus Maximus]

In fact just put all the Lee's on there. Given that R Lee Ermey also kicked the bucket.

Robert E. Lee

[Conserative Morality]

In fact just put all the Lee's on there. Given that R Lee Ermey also kicked the bucket.

Robert E. Lee

At least he recognized his mistake, unlike Lost Causers.

[Reikoku]

As long as we're talking about who to put on currency, take a note from my flag and put the Tsar on gold coins.

No thanks. Most people prefer money not to have failures on it.

[Canadensia]

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.

A great day indeed for any supporter of the Republic. :^)

Even though it ultimately caused the rise of the Second Triumvirate, and eventual death of the Republic.

But I'm sure it was all worth it just to kill an old man dying of brain parasites. :^)

Caesar absolutely and utterly destroyed the Republic. I actually have very little interest in the Empire besides a few key people, religion, and conflicts.

FYI the Rome died in 45 BC. :^)

No true son of Rome would say such a thing. Rome died in 1453 when Constantinople fell to the Turks.

Respect the legacy of your ancestors, profligate.

Do tell, which 'long dead idealists' am I pandering to?

Cato specifically, but die-hard republicans who valued ideology over patria in general.

And yet he made himself dictator at the end of the Civil War, first for 11 days in 49 BC, after crossing the Rubicon, second in 48 BC for an indefinite period, during the Civil War, and then third in 46 BC for 10 years. Likely would have extended it further had he not been assassinated.

Yes, and he was by no means the first to do so.

I don't see you lambasting Sulla for having done the same. A man who, I might add, did not extend the same mercy that Caesar gave to his political opponents.

Caesar granted clemency as a means of gaining support and political capital. He did not kill his political enemies because he would lose political capital. He didn't bother with clemency when he did not need it. Like with a certain Gaulish Tribe.

He granted clemency to his countrymen, not to rebellious Gauls he was in the process of conquering.

While being merciful was definitely part and parcel with a broader strategy of gaining popular support, claiming that's the sole reason for him doing so is a massive misrepresentation of his character.

(Image)

How is filibustering counter to republican virtue?

Willful obstruction of the gears of politics and bending of the rules to get one's way.

It's the political equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum because you're worried the republican system you claim to love might enact a policy you'd dislike. It's hypocritical as all hell, especially for a man who claimed to devote his entire life to the maintenance and virtue of said system.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This was no compromise, as Cato likely did not see Pompey as an enemy of the Republic, because Pompey had began to side with the Optimates.

I will admit Cato made many mistakes regarding Pompey.

Cato was a lot of things, but he wasn't stupid by any means.

He'd have known damn well that Pompey was just as ambitious as Caesar; perhaps even moreso. Willfully refusing to compromise with Caesar, and then about-facing and giving Pompey a free-hand, was extremely hypocritical.

Funny you say this, Caesarboo, as Cato only passed the legislation to frustrate and circumvent Caesar and the Populares, who had the same legislation in mind; so as to take from them their main source of power (the plebeian).

But if Caesar passed the legislation, you would no doubt frame him as the compassionate hero Rome needed and praise him for his wonderful legislation. :^)

Sir, you misjudge.

Yes, I'm a die-hard Caesarian, but that doesn't mean I unapologetically support the man in everything single life decision he ever made. The grain dole was a redundant temporary measure that lasted far longer than it should have, and needed to be replaced with actual land and economic reform. The failure and lack of will to replace it with actual positive changes is one of the main reasons why Rome stagnated into a city of weak self-serving narcissists who eventually killed their own empire.

[United Muscovite Nations]

As long as we're talking about who to put on currency, take a note from my flag and put the Tsar on gold coins.

No thanks. Most people prefer money not to have failures on it.

Went to heaven, ultimate success.

[Aellex]

Went to heaven, ultimate success.

Monarchs are supposed to be God's Stewards on Earth and such shoddy managementship as his isn't something one would be rewarded for.

[The Parkus Empire]

Went to heaven, ultimate success.

Monarchs are supposed to be God's Stewards on Earth and such shoddy managementship as his isn't something one would be rewarded for.

>heaven is a reward

I want Papists to go

[United Muscovite Nations]

Went to heaven, ultimate success.

Monarchs are supposed to be God's Stewards on Earth and such shoddy managementship as his isn't something one would be rewarded for.

He didn't mismanage things nearly as bad as he's labeled. It was his people that revolted against him and ruined everything.

Also what Parkus said.

[Reikoku]

No thanks. Most people prefer money not to have failures on it.

Went to heaven, ultimate success.

The same place that a homeless drunk can, assuming he prays right. That's not much of an accomplishment.

[Aellex]

He didn't mismanage things nearly as bad as he's labeled. It was his people that revolted against him and ruined everything.

No, he mismanaged them even worse than that. There are times when things can be blamed on circumstances rather than incompetence of the leaders, this was not one of them. Not one of them at all.

>heaven is a reward

I want Papists to go

Also what Parkus said.

What do you think Heaven is then, Chrislamists? A punishment?

[United Muscovite Nations]

He didn't mismanage things nearly as bad as he's labeled. It was his people that revolted against him and ruined everything.

No, he mismanaged them even worse than that. There are times when things can be blamed on circumstances rather than incompetence of the leaders, this was not one of them. Not one of them at all.

>heaven is a reward

I want Papists to go

Also what Parkus said.

What do you think Heaven is then, Chrislamists? A punishment?

Heaven is a state of union with God which is granted my mercy. If it were a reward, you would earn it. You can't earn Heaven.

And if the mismanagement was so horrible, surely you can name some specific instances?

[Hakons]

Went to heaven, ultimate success.

Monarchs are supposed to be God's Stewards on Earth and such shoddy managementship as his isn't something one would be rewarded for.

Daily reminder that it was the Bolsheviks that ruined Russia, and not the Tsars

[Pilarcraft]

Monarchs are supposed to be God's Stewards on Earth and such shoddy managementship as his isn't something one would be rewarded for.

Daily reminder that it was the Bolsheviks that ruined Russia, and not the Tsars

Daily reminder that had it not been for the Tsars ruining russia, Belsheviks wouldn't get power in the first place to 'ruin it'

[Hakons]

Daily reminder that it was the Bolsheviks that ruined Russia, and not the Tsars

Daily reminder that had it not been for the Tsars ruining russia, Belsheviks wouldn't get power in the first place to 'ruin it'

The Tsars expanded Russia into a great power that was well on its way to becoming a world power. The Bolsheviks were sell outs and their ideology couldn't even last a century before it collapsed.

[Pilarcraft]

Daily reminder that had it not been for the Tsars ruining russia, Belsheviks wouldn't get power in the first place to 'ruin it'

The Tsars expanded Russia into a great power that was well on its way to becoming a world power. The Bolsheviks were sell outs and their ideology couldn't even last a century before it collapsed.

The Tsars couldn't contain the rebellion that led to their downfall. They couldn't even make sure it wouldn't happen in the first place. They were either really bad at being dictators, or really, really bad at being a 19-20th century European Monarch. Russia wasn't the only country that Socialism visited. They were the first to actually fall to it. That alone makes them the ones who ruined Russia.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The Tsars expanded Russia into a great power that was well on its way to becoming a world power. The Bolsheviks were sell outs and their ideology couldn't even last a century before it collapsed.

The Tsars couldn't contain the rebellion that led to their downfall. They couldn't even make sure it wouldn't happen in the first place. They were either really bad at being dictators, or really, really bad at being a 19-20th century European Monarch. Russia wasn't the only country that Socialism visited. They were the first to actually fall to it. That alone makes them the ones who ruined Russia.

The Provisional Government was the one that fell to Socialism, not the Tsars.

[The East Marches II]

The Tsars expanded Russia into a great power that was well on its way to becoming a world power. The Bolsheviks were sell outs and their ideology couldn't even last a century before it collapsed.

The Tsars couldn't contain the rebellion that led to their downfall. They couldn't even make sure it wouldn't happen in the first place. They were either really bad at being dictators, or really, really bad at being a 19-20th century European Monarch. Russia wasn't the only country that Socialism visited. They were the first to actually fall to it. That alone makes them the ones who ruined Russia.

No, it was those infected with ideological rabies and saw fit to spread it, by hook or crook. If anything the failing of the Tsar was that he was prone to mercy. The Bolshevists and their Anarchist friends never suffered from an abundance of mercy.

Edit: Though I suppose if you are going to blame people for their own weakness, I'd be happy to hold you to that standard in the future.

[Hakons]

The Tsars expanded Russia into a great power that was well on its way to becoming a world power. The Bolsheviks were sell outs and their ideology couldn't even last a century before it collapsed.

The Tsars couldn't contain the rebellion that led to their downfall. They couldn't even make sure it wouldn't happen in the first place. They were either really bad at being dictators, or really, really bad at being a 19-20th century European Monarch. Russia wasn't the only country that Socialism visited. They were the first to actually fall to it. That alone makes them the ones who ruined Russia.

Failing to contain a rebellion doesn't mean the Tsars ruined Russia. If a man murdered a different man, would we not call the first man a murderer and the second man a victim? If a rebellion destroys a nation, it is the fault of the rebellion, and not the government that was trying to stop the rebellion from destroying the nation. The Bolsheviks were the murderers and the Tsar, along with all of Russia, was the victim.

[Aellex]

Heaven is a state of union with God which is granted my mercy. If it were a reward, you would earn it. You can't earn Heaven.

In other words, you're just purposefully bickering on the wording so to get a way to show how holier-than-thou you are; got it. Little advice tho, don't forget that false modesty is uglier than pride in the eyes of man and the almighty alike.

And if the mismanagement was so horrible, surely you can name some specific instances?

His fuckery with Germany prior to the Nippo-Russian War where he single-handedly destroyed decades of work of his foreign affairs bureau and almost caused a World War when he tried to play the diplomatic mastermind seems like a good example tho it's only one out many, many, MANY more.