Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Distruzio]

If you're using the term "sovereignty" to mean political power, then sure. I guess that works.

Could be that I just wasn't clear enough in my phrasing.

Most of the Constitution has very little to do with the individual.

Erm... no. The entire document is quite explicitly:

This is the source of power - the people.

This is why power is necessary - a more perfect Union.

This is who can express that power - the Legislature.

This is who can wield that power- the Executive.

This is what can interpret that power - the Judiciary.

This is how the power is structured - Federalism.

This is how the power can be directed - Amendment process.

This is why the power is used - the Law

This is what the power cannot do - the Bill of Rights.

---

The entire document, from opening word, is a love note to the individual. It is a long form expression of the sentiment that, "sure, when people get together, they're powerful. In order to avoid being a mob, here is how they should use their power. And here are the limits of their power. Otherwise, they're a mob."

They ONLY way a person can read that document and deny the elevation of the individual is by not actually reading the document. I mean... think about it...

If what you say is true - that the Constitution does NOT recognize the individual as supreme, then why is the Bill of Rights even included? Why have limitations on the expression of the collective will of society (the government)?

[Oil exporting People]

Speaking of "people raised from birth to believe they deserve to rule by virtue of birth," how are you going to deal with Donald Trump?

We're going to establish a Jewish monarchy in the next fifty years. That's what.

Absolutely not.

[Fahran]

Moved this to the LWDT to stop clogging this thread :3

Do you want me to turn the entire LWDT into pseudo-Aristotelian hyper-conservatives?

Also, am I allowed in that thread? I feel like I have to be invited in and be wary of garlic the whole time.

[Mardla]

Most of the Constitution has very little to do with the individual.

Erm... no. The entire document is quite explicitly:

This is the source of power - the people.

This is why power is necessary - a more perfect Union.

This is who can express that power - the Legislature.

This is who can wield that power- the Executive.

This is what can interpret that power - the Judiciary.

This is how the power is structured - Federalism.

This is how the power can be directed - Amendment process.

This is why the power is used - the Law

This is what the power cannot do - the Bill of Rights.

---

The entire document, from opening word, is a love note to the individual. It is a long form expression of the sentiment that, "sure, when people get together, they're powerful. In order to avoid being a mob, here is how they should use their power. And here are the limits of their power. Otherwise, they're a mob."

They ONLY way a person can read that document and deny the elevation of the individual is by not actually reading the document. I mean... think about it...

If what you say is true - that the Constitution does NOT recognize the individual as supreme, then why is the Bill of Rights even included? Why have limitations on the expression of the collective will of society (the government)?

How the hell are you equating the Volk with the individual?

The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, included to placate fretting libs.

[Fahran]

Absolutely not.

I'm still working on assimilating you. I know your weaknesses and I have a crack team of Jewish sorority girls working to exploit them.

[Reikoku]

Speaking of "people raised from birth to believe they deserve to rule by virtue of birth," how are you going to deal with Donald Trump?

We're going to establish a Jewish monarchy in the next fifty years. That's what.

Yes please. I want an Israeli monarchy so badly, I can almost taste it.

We're going to establish a Jewish monarchy in the next fifty years. That's what.

Absolutely not.

Disregard salty Prussians. :^)

[Genivaria]

Erm... no. The entire document is quite explicitly:

This is the source of power - the people.

This is why power is necessary - a more perfect Union.

This is who can express that power - the Legislature.

This is who can wield that power- the Executive.

This is what can interpret that power - the Judiciary.

This is how the power is structured - Federalism.

This is how the power can be directed - Amendment process.

This is why the power is used - the Law

This is what the power cannot do - the Bill of Rights.

---

The entire document, from opening word, is a love note to the individual. It is a long form expression of the sentiment that, "sure, when people get together, they're powerful. In order to avoid being a mob, here is how they should use their power. And here are the limits of their power. Otherwise, they're a mob."

They ONLY way a person can read that document and deny the elevation of the individual is by not actually reading the document. I mean... think about it...

If what you say is true - that the Constitution does NOT recognize the individual as supreme, then why is the Bill of Rights even included? Why have limitations on the expression of the collective will of society (the government)?

How the hell are you equating the Volk with the individual?

The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, included to placate fretting libs.

Nowhere in that post does he use the word Volk.

[Mardla]

We're going to establish a Jewish monarchy in the next fifty years. That's what.

Absolutely not.

Why not a Soros dynasty? :^)

[Mardla]

How the hell are you equating the Volk with the individual?

The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, included to placate fretting libs.

Nowhere in that post does he use the word Volk.

Volk is German for "people", which is what "people" means in the Constitution, an articled people, "the" people, a people. He seems be equating "people" here with just an alternative form of persons.

[Fahran]

Why not a Soros dynasty? :^)

Why are you like this?

[Bienenhalde]

I thought you were gonna say something controversial
The value of samurai was shooting up peasants while on horseback, until swordplay became a trendy hobby because the rest of their time was devoted to being petty bureaucrats and figuring out zany ways to fight off the westerners.
If only they had their way on the last part, we'd have seen turtle ships trying to go up against the british navy.

You're selling the samurai rather short here. It's true that they were less heavily armoured than European knights in the Late Medieval Period, but the Japanese army's performance in the Imjin War makes it clear that Japanese military tactics during the feudal period were extremely effective. Naturally their edge was rather blunted by the centuries of isolation and internal peace Japan experienced under the Tokugawa. This does not mean that the samurai were only good for "shooting up peasants."

Well, you are mostly right about the samurai. But on the other hand, the samurai started many pointless civil wars that destabilized Japanese government and society. If anything Japan was better off when they quit fighting and became bureaucrats instead. Anyway, that is another reason the Chinese system of government was superior: that is, because the state was controlled by civilian civil servants instead of the military.

[Torrocca]

Moved this to the LWDT to stop clogging this thread :3

Do you want me to turn the entire LWDT into pseudo-Aristotelian hyper-conservatives?

Also, am I allowed in that thread? I feel like I have to be invited in and be wary of garlic the whole time.

As the Anarchist Queen of that thread, you're most definitely allowed in there. ^_^ (I mean anyone is anyway since NS has rules on thread ownership in NSG but I digress )

[Oil exporting People]

Why not a Soros dynasty? :^)

It'd be time to follow Edmund Ruffin in such a case.

Disregard salty Prussians. :^)

Superior artillery and excellent beards.

Absolutely not.

I'm still working on assimilating you. I know your weaknesses and I have a crack team of Jewish sorority girls working to exploit them.

No.

[Reikoku]

You're selling the samurai rather short here. It's true that they were less heavily armoured than European knights in the Late Medieval Period, but the Japanese army's performance in the Imjin War makes it clear that Japanese military tactics during the feudal period were extremely effective. Naturally their edge was rather blunted by the centuries of isolation and internal peace Japan experienced under the Tokugawa. This does not mean that the samurai were only good for "shooting up peasants."

Well, you are mostly right about the samurai. But on the other hand, the samurai started many pointless civil wars that destabilized Japanese government and society. If anything Japan was better off when they quit fighting and became bureaucrats instead. Anyway, that is another reason the Chinese system of government was superior: that is, because the state was controlled by civilian civil servants instead of the military.

The number of civil wars started by the samurai were significantly fewer than the sort which plagued the Chinese government, and the Ōnin War, noticeably the worst, happened because Ashikaga Yoshimasa didn't have the courage to intervene, and preferred to seclude himself away. Which was, in some ways, a blessing, because his cultural contributions were much more valuable than his rulership.

[Genivaria]

So this happened.

NYPD makes arrest in connection with violent Proud Boys brawl

A man believed to be a member of the far-right group the Proud Boys was arrested Thursday in connection to a brawl last week in New York City after a speech by the group's founder. Geoffrey Young, 38, has been charged with riot and attempted assault, the New York Police Department said.

The fight, which was caught on surveillance video, occurred near the Metropolitan Republican Club around 8:23 p.m. following a speech by Proud Boys leader Gavin McInnes. Anti-fascist protesters had gathered outside the building, prompting police to escort some of those inside the club in the opposite direction following the event.

An altercation broke out about a block away when six people dressed in black and wearing masks confronted that group, NYPD's Chief of Detectives Dermot Shea said Monday. One of those dressed in black threw a bottle at the Proud Boys group and a fight ensued for about 38 seconds until uniformed officers intervened.

Slurs and expletives can be heard in video showing the fight, as men kicked and punched several protesters on the sidewalk. The NYPD released footage Monday showing the altercation from an alternate angle in hopes of identifying the participants.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proud-boys ... 018-10-18/

[Bienenhalde]

Cosmopolitanism, inevitably, leads to one world government (of a sort).

That requires either the relative suppression of other cultures by one culture or an egalitarian perspective that all cultures are equally viable. I'm not inclined to look favorably on the war of domination. The West may be superior in my view, but that doesn't mean it should be domineering.

Moreover, the Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of the individual at the expense of the collective. This is why collectivists in America always always always push to either amend or repeal it. It is also why an American cooperation with a World Government/State could not happen - if other cultures are equal to American culture, collectivism is equal to individualism. That simply isn't possible.

I see what you mean, but what I had in mind was more the idea of Western values becoming dominate through soft power, that is, through culture or economics, which would hypothetically lead to the peaceful acceptance of Western cultural mores and political values, including individualism. Of course, you might say that is unlikely given widespread anti-imperialist and anti-Western sentiment in non-Western countries, but the United States conquering the entire world by force does not seem very likely either.

[Oil exporting People]

Also, on the note of beards, what is the thread opinion on such? I know it's a minor issue, but you tend to see a lot of debate on it given the various religious and political implications of such.

[Genivaria]

Cosmopolitanism, inevitably, leads to one world government (of a sort).

That requires either the relative suppression of other cultures by one culture or an egalitarian perspective that all cultures are equally viable. I'm not inclined to look favorably on the war of domination. The West may be superior in my view, but that doesn't mean it should be domineering.

Moreover, the Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of the individual at the expense of the collective. This is why collectivists in America always always always push to either amend or repeal it. It is also why an American cooperation with a World Government/State could not happen - if other cultures are equal to American culture, collectivism is equal to individualism. That simply isn't possible.

I see what you mean, but what I had in mind was more the idea of Western values becoming dominate through soft power, that is, through culture or economics, which would hypothetically lead to the peaceful acceptance of Western cultural mores and political values, including individualism. Of course, you might say that is unlikely given widespread anti-imperialist and anti-Western sentiment in non-Western countries, but the United States conquering the entire world by force does not seem very likely either.

This would be a Good Thing.

[Reikoku]

Superior artillery and excellent beards.

Please don't remind me how you infected Emperor Meiji with your awful fashion advice.

[Bienenhalde]

Do you all think cosmopolitanism will take over as a system in the future?

No. Not all cultures are equal. The West is clearly superior (with certain westernized Far Eastern nations being included). Not unless Americans can be convinced to toss the constitution, either (which is unlikely).

Seems rather odd for you to be saying the West is superior when you yourself follow a non-western religion.

[Distruzio]

Erm... no. The entire document is quite explicitly:

This is the source of power - the people.

This is why power is necessary - a more perfect Union.

This is who can express that power - the Legislature.

This is who can wield that power- the Executive.

This is what can interpret that power - the Judiciary.

This is how the power is structured - Federalism.

This is how the power can be directed - Amendment process.

This is why the power is used - the Law

This is what the power cannot do - the Bill of Rights.

---

The entire document, from opening word, is a love note to the individual. It is a long form expression of the sentiment that, "sure, when people get together, they're powerful. In order to avoid being a mob, here is how they should use their power. And here are the limits of their power. Otherwise, they're a mob."

They ONLY way a person can read that document and deny the elevation of the individual is by not actually reading the document. I mean... think about it...

If what you say is true - that the Constitution does NOT recognize the individual as supreme, then why is the Bill of Rights even included? Why have limitations on the expression of the collective will of society (the government)?

How the hell are you equating the Volk with the individual?

The Bill of Rights was an afterthought, included to placate fretting libs.

Volk? Just what "people" are you invoking here? Colonial era Georgians were not colonial era Virginians, or New Yorkers, or anything of the sort.

And, yes, the Bill of Rights was added to secure the anti-federalists. So what? Are you suggesting that a representative organ should NOT be representative of the people over whom it wields authority?

[Reikoku]

Also, on the note of beards, what is the thread opinion on such? I know it's a minor issue, but you tend to see a lot of debate on it given the various religious and political implications of such.

As someone who sees the need to bring back the effeminate courtly style, decidedly negative.

[Distruzio]

Cosmopolitanism, inevitably, leads to one world government (of a sort).

That requires either the relative suppression of other cultures by one culture or an egalitarian perspective that all cultures are equally viable. I'm not inclined to look favorably on the war of domination. The West may be superior in my view, but that doesn't mean it should be domineering.

Moreover, the Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of the individual at the expense of the collective. This is why collectivists in America always always always push to either amend or repeal it. It is also why an American cooperation with a World Government/State could not happen - if other cultures are equal to American culture, collectivism is equal to individualism. That simply isn't possible.

I see what you mean, but what I had in mind was more the idea of Western values becoming dominate through soft power, that is, through culture or economics, which would hypothetically lead to the peaceful acceptance of Western cultural mores and political values, including individualism. Of course, you might say that is unlikely given widespread anti-imperialist and anti-Western sentiment in non-Western countries, but the United States conquering the entire world by force does not seem very likely either.

I mean... yeah, soft power would be preferable if cosmopolitanism was at all inevitable. I just don't think it is. Hegemony is fine, for now but political realities don't give me much faith in the potential for soft power winning over other cultures.

[Fahran]

Also, on the note of beards, what is the thread opinion on such? I know it's a minor issue, but you tend to see a lot of debate on it given the various religious and political implications of such.

Full and/or well-groomed beards are attractive in my view and tend to make a man look more dominant and masculine. It's a religious issue as well. All in all, I'm happy that beards are coming back into fashion, though, admittedly, a younger Fahran hated beards quite deeply because they were "icky" and "scratchy." I was a child.

As someone who sees the need to bring back the effeminate courtly style, decidedly negative.

Rei: Heian Japan was best Japan, and Prince Genji is the model of what a ruler should be and did absolutely nothing wrong.

[Bienenhalde]

So this happened.

NYPD makes arrest in connection with violent Proud Boys brawl

A man believed to be a member of the far-right group the Proud Boys was arrested Thursday in connection to a brawl last week in New York City after a speech by the group's founder. Geoffrey Young, 38, has been charged with riot and attempted assault, the New York Police Department said.

The fight, which was caught on surveillance video, occurred near the Metropolitan Republican Club around 8:23 p.m. following a speech by Proud Boys leader Gavin McInnes. Anti-fascist protesters had gathered outside the building, prompting police to escort some of those inside the club in the opposite direction following the event.

An altercation broke out about a block away when six people dressed in black and wearing masks confronted that group, NYPD's Chief of Detectives Dermot Shea said Monday. One of those dressed in black threw a bottle at the Proud Boys group and a fight ensued for about 38 seconds until uniformed officers intervened.

Slurs and expletives can be heard in video showing the fight, as men kicked and punched several protesters on the sidewalk. The NYPD released footage Monday showing the altercation from an alternate angle in hopes of identifying the participants.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/proud-boys ... 018-10-18/

Very unfortunate. Also, it is sad that the progressive media equates such violent thugs with the political right. As a conservative, I find their actions abhorrent and contrary to my principles.