RWDT XII - 12 Step program to get Right.

[Genivaria]

If you aren't an immigrant, you are UNAMERICAN. Sorry, not sorry.

If you aren't of the divine bloodline of the founding fathers then the holy documents don't cover you so get out.

Alot of them had slave children, so there's gonna be alot of descendants somewhere.

[The Portland Territory]

American's "national" loyalty is mediated through loyalty to documents or religious faith rather than to the people and social solidarity. The primary value is "every man for himself", an inherently anti-nationalist position.

DI's hot take emporium presents:

America is a cult, not a nation.

> or religious faith

Christian Nationalism is a thing, yknow

[Ceolophysia]

Going back a few pages...

if you aren't an individualist, you are UNAMERICAN. Sorry, not sorry.

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

[The Portland Territory]

Going back a few pages...

if you aren't an individualist, you are UNAMERICAN. Sorry, not sorry.

Ok

[Dumb Ideologies]

American's "national" loyalty is mediated through loyalty to documents or religious faith rather than to the people and social solidarity. The primary value is "every man for himself", an inherently anti-nationalist position.

DI's hot take emporium presents:

America is a cult, not a nation.

> or religious faith

Christian Nationalism is a thing, yknow

Religious nationalism is complicated and a bit wonky imo unless you're an Israel or perhaps a Russia where your country has a special role or at least represents a large percentage of believers. There's certainly significant tensions.

Loyalties are complicated in some cases by commitments to foreign religious leaders, and the possibility of feeling greater commonality and solidarity with outsiders of the same religion than other people in the same nation with different or no religious belief. Pushing a national identity based excessively on religion may also not "stick" with non-adherents.

[Cekoviu]

Going back a few pages...

if you aren't an individualist, you are UNAMERICAN. Sorry, not sorry.

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

kek

[Republic of the Cristo]

A fascism developing in the modern times probably would, but fascism originated in a setting where democracy was more of an intellectual idea and the working classes did not understand it.

Does fascism not require a dictator and total state control? I believe that is contradictory to the concept of democracy or even to the concept of a democratic republic.

Populism is about popular demands controlling the agenda of the government. With that in mind, democracy ( more accurately, republicanism ) is not intrinsic to that message. As we see in our current system, national politics are often quite detached from the desires of the common man.

[The East Marches II]

Unpopular opinion, the British Royal Family is a foreign object imposed upon Anglo-Saxons by Dutch bankers and German aristocrats. And they just replaced a bunch of French papists.

There is nothing wrong with this as you can trust the word of an honest Dutchman. The Dutch are basically English anyway.

[The East Marches II]

American's "national" loyalty is mediated through loyalty to documents or religious faith rather than to the people and social solidarity. The primary value is "every man for himself", an inherently anti-nationalist position.

DI's hot take emporium presents:

America is a cult, not a nation.

It is actually "fuck you pay me" thank you very much.

[The East Marches II]

American's "national" loyalty is mediated through loyalty to documents or religious faith rather than to the people and social solidarity. The primary value is "every man for himself", an inherently anti-nationalist position.

DI's hot take emporium presents:

America is a cult, not a nation.

Listening to the GOP again I see.

It is much better than self-flagellating in the name of curing our original sin. Herr Professor is a shining example of your school of thought in the other thread :^)

[Republic of the Cristo]

Going back a few pages...

if you aren't an individualist, you are UNAMERICAN. Sorry, not sorry.

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

[Ceolophysia]

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

Alexander Hamilton was an exception. I do not see him in a positive light whatsoever, nor do I see FDR in a positive light. Most of the founding fathers were in fact real liberals and not just monarchists posing as liberals.

[Republic of the Cristo]

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

Alexander Hamilton was an exception. I do not see him in a positive light whatsoever, nor do I see FDR in a positive light. Most of the founding fathers were in fact real liberals and not just monarchists posing as liberals.

Okay, you might not like them, but millions of Americans do. Compound this then with the fact these men and their compatriots helped to shape American history. America has plenty of positive ( subjective ) authoritarianism to look back upon.

[Canadensia]

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

I think the point is that at its core, American identity is largely individualist and decentralized. Which makes sense considering how Hamilton was largely shafted from actual power, and never advanced much further in his political career than a couple of cabinet postings under the Washington and Adams' governments.

Even later centralizing figures like FDR never went so far as to try and turn the US into a unitary state.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

You know, when looking back on Rome, and then upon Australia, I have to say, Australia truely is the successor of Rome. Gallipoli? The Gallipoli campaign was nothing more than an attempt to reconquest our rightful clay. It should be noted that it is well known that Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos, after having thrown off his royal ornaments, traveled to what we know as England. He remarried and moved on, eventually his descendants (who surely kept their heritage in mind) became convicts, they were among the first to establish the Australian colonies. They have, in fact, played a part in all major political events in Australian history, behind the scenes of course, carefully planning the rise of the Australian-Roman Empire.

[Herskerstad]

You know, when looking back on Rome, and then upon Australia, I have to say, Australia truely is the successor of Rome. Gallipoli? The Gallipoli campaign was nothing more than an attempt to reconquest our rightful clay. It should be noted that it is well known that Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos, after having thrown off his royal ornaments, traveled to what we know as England. He remarried and moved on, eventually his descendants (who surely kept their heritage in mind) became convicts, they were among the first to establish the Australian colonies. They have, in fact, played a part in all major political events in Australian history, behind the scenes of course, carefully planning the rise of the Australian-Roman Empire.

(Image)

(Image)

[Republic of the Cristo]

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

I think the point is that at its core, American identity is largely individualist and decentralized. Which makes considering how Hamilton was largely shafted from actual power, and never advanced much further in his political career than a couple of cabinet postings under the Washington and Adams' governments.

Even later centralizing figures like FDR never went so far as to try and turn the US into a unitary state.

Hamilton was our nation's first secretary of the treasury and founder of our national bank. Sure he wasn't the president... but that's some serious power right there. FDR didn't try and create a unitary system, but that wasn't really a topic of debate at the time. He was an authoritarian leader regardless though.

Edit: more than an individualist nation, I would say that we are a nation which advocates for independence. Throughout our nation's history, we have had expectations of our citizens: industry, duty, family, etc. What we have pushed for since our very beginning though was our idea of every man being independent in his own right. The pioneers claiming a plot of land our west; immigrants coming to America, the land of opportunity; the pauper pulling up his boot straps to become a millionaire, all intrinsic American ideas which all revolve around independence - not necessarily individualism.

[Ceolophysia]

Alexander Hamilton was an exception. I do not see him in a positive light whatsoever, nor do I see FDR in a positive light. Most of the founding fathers were in fact real liberals and not just monarchists posing as liberals.

Okay, you might not like them, but millions of Americans do. Compound this then with the fact these men and their compatriots helped to shape American history. America has plenty of positive ( subjective ) authoritarianism to look back upon.

Authoritarianism is never positive.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

FDR was literally a traitor who should have been killed. AMA.

[The East Marches II]

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

Do you live in the same country as me? Hamilton never got power because many of the founding fathers saw a discount Napoleon in him and rightfully so.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

You know, when looking back on Rome, and then upon Australia, I have to say, Australia truely is the successor of Rome. Gallipoli? The Gallipoli campaign was nothing more than an attempt to reconquest our rightful clay. It should be noted that it is well known that Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos, after having thrown off his royal ornaments, traveled to what we know as England. He remarried and moved on, eventually his descendants (who surely kept their heritage in mind) became convicts, they were among the first to establish the Australian colonies. They have, in fact, played a part in all major political events in Australian history, behind the scenes of course, carefully planning the rise of the Australian-Roman Empire.

(Image)

(Image)

It’s true I tell you!

[Herskerstad]

It’s true I tell you!

In fairness it beats the Italian hypothesis by a good margin. There is no way a nation that bred and was led by Mussolini could be it's successor.

[The Portland Territory]

You know, when looking back on Rome, and then upon Australia, I have to say, Australia truely is the successor of Rome. Gallipoli? The Gallipoli campaign was nothing more than an attempt to reconquest our rightful clay. It should be noted that it is well known that Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos, after having thrown off his royal ornaments, traveled to what we know as England. He remarried and moved on, eventually his descendants (who surely kept their heritage in mind) became convicts, they were among the first to establish the Australian colonies. They have, in fact, played a part in all major political events in Australian history, behind the scenes of course, carefully planning the rise of the Australian-Roman Empire.

(Image)

(Image)

It all makes sense............ the Aussies were fighting the emus (goths) north-west of their main territories. These emus were voracious and fought in tribes, crossing over borders and walls to attack each end every farm

Folks this is not a shitpost

[Minzerland II]

You know, when looking back on Rome, and then upon Australia, I have to say, Australia truely is the successor of Rome. Gallipoli? The Gallipoli campaign was nothing more than an attempt to reconquest our rightful clay. It should be noted that it is well known that Constantine XI Dragases Palaiologos, after having thrown off his royal ornaments, traveled to what we know as England. He remarried and moved on, eventually his descendants (who surely kept their heritage in mind) became convicts, they were among the first to establish the Australian colonies. They have, in fact, played a part in all major political events in Australian history, behind the scenes of course, carefully planning the rise of the Australian-Roman Empire.

(Image)

(Image)

This is correct according to history, and anyone who disagrees ought to open a history book, tbh.

No one will tell you this, but Aeneas was NOT the Prince of Troy in Anatolia, but the Prince of Canberra, Australia. In fact, Remus and Romulus had suckled on the milk of a dingo and not of a wolf.

[Sovaal]

Which makes American non-ethnic fascism an oxymoron, as American cultural or civic nationalism is incompatible with authoritarianism. America's culture and founding principles were/are libertarian, and thus there has to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved to be both an American nationalist and an authoritarian.

I wouldn't say so.

America's founding principles were liberal, first of all. Now, to begin with, America has authoritarian examples leaders which we view in a positive light. Alexander Hamilton, for one, essentially advocated for our current government - only with a Unitarian system. Reading over his contributions to the Federalist papers reveals that he was quite the authoritarian and anti-populist. FDR, during peace time, created massive social programs which involved the state directly not only into the economy but also the lives of common civilians - and then during war time censored the press through the OWI and controlled large swaths of the US economy.

And illegally imprisoned thousands of US citizens.