Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Kowani]

A state is necessarily in large part an expression of the people who compose it. A democratic state doubly so. Expanding swiftly and expecting harmonization between vastly different cultures (unlike the similar ones of the US) rather than imposing a single standard of behavior or enforcing a single culture's dominance over others is a recipe for, well, Balkanization.

Start with a global confederation then. Somewhat like the modern-day UN, but with actual authority to enforce the rule of law and uphold the common weal. Over time, the world would become ready for true unification under the aforementioned federal technocracy. Does that make any sense?

Yeah, the EU’s done great so far...

[Conserative Morality]

Start with a global confederation then. Somewhat like the modern-day UN, but with actual authority to enforce the rule of law and uphold the common weal. Over time, the world would become ready for true unification under the aforementioned federal technocracy. Does that make any sense?

Only theoretically. Practically speaking there's little chance of that happening, even if an insanely popular and successful warlord imposed their will over the world all of a sudden. Slow regional confederations coalescing into continually larger and larger regional confederations, alliances, and treaty organizations is both more reliable and more likely. Think a global EU someday, only hopefully not nearly as pants-on-head retarded.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Start with a global confederation then. Somewhat like the modern-day UN, but with actual authority to enforce the rule of law and uphold the common weal. Over time, the world would become ready for true unification under the aforementioned federal technocracy. Does that make any sense?

Only theoretically. Practically speaking there's little chance of that happening, even if an insanely popular and successful warlord imposed their will over the world all of a sudden. Slow regional confederations coalescing into continually larger and larger regional confederations, alliances, and treaty organizations is both more reliable and more likely. Think a global EU someday, only hopefully not nearly as pants-on-head retarded.

Hopefully someday soon, then. Humanity must unify if civilization is to survive the coming centuries.

[Kowani]

Only theoretically. Practically speaking there's little chance of that happening, even if an insanely popular and successful warlord imposed their will over the world all of a sudden. Slow regional confederations coalescing into continually larger and larger regional confederations, alliances, and treaty organizations is both more reliable and more likely. Think a global EU someday, only hopefully not nearly as pants-on-head retarded.

Hopefully someday soon, then. Humanity must unify if civilization is to survive the coming centuries.

I vote for Mars bases and interplanetary colonization.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hopefully someday soon, then. Humanity must unify if civilization is to survive the coming centuries.

I vote for Mars bases and interplanetary colonization.

Unironically this. It will pay off in the long-term, and it is imperative that we see things in the long-term.

[Volkari]

The American Union is God, Sherman marched through Georgia putting down rebels enslaving their fellow Americans in the name of the Union. Ergo, Sherman was an avatar of God.

This is a meme, and not an especially insightful one either. It perverts the complexity and beauty of a multitude of institutions and traditions - and appears to fundamentally misconstrue the telos of the state/nation and the essential characteristics of religion.

In regard to the multiplicity of institutions, I've stated that the corporations are the bedrock for my concept of what the state should be, and in regard to traditions, they're little better than scraps of paper. I've yet to see any of these mythical "Southern traditions." besides the glorification of a heinous slave-owning oligarchy which treated my ancestors like dirt while they raped their slaves' wives and sold their children into slavery.

Your whole post = "I don't like what you said, therefore it's wrong." it's rhetorical, has no substance. But that's all conservatism is in a nutshell. The blind belief that vague institutions and traditions are good for no reason other than because.

[Joohan]

What about the unionists in Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri who were enslaving their fellow Americans?

What about Grant? The slave owning savior of the Union?

>> ignoring the fact that Grant was a lifelong abolitionist, unlike Sherman, who only became an abolitionist after seeing the horrors of slavery in the South
>> ignoring the fact that Grant's only slave was a gift from his father-in-law, and he freed said man almost immediately

Didn't know that about Grant.

Event still, slavery was legally practiced in the Union during the confederacy.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

This is a meme, and not an especially insightful one either. It perverts the complexity and beauty of a multitude of institutions and traditions - and appears to fundamentally misconstrue the telos of the state/nation and the essential characteristics of religion.

In regard to the multiplicity of institutions, I've stated that the corporations are the bedrock for my concept of what the state should be, and in regard to traditions, they're little better than scraps of paper. I've yet to see any of these mythical "Southern traditions." besides the glorification of a heinous slave-owning oligarchy which treated my ancestors like dirt while they raped their slaves' wives and sold their children into slavery.

Your whole post = "I don't like what you said, therefore it's wrong." it's rhetorical, has no substance. But that's all conservatism is in a nutshell. The blind belief that vague institutions and traditions are good for no reason other than because.

Now I'm not a conservative by any means, but I do see value in traditional institutions, if only in the practical sense of being beneficial to the common weal of society when utilized properly. In the realm of political theory however, I find the concept of what could bluntly be described as "muh tradition" to be absurd. I hold that traditional societal institutions (a rather broad category, if I say so myself) are not inherently better than alternative institutions. Thus, each tradition must be judged on a case-by-case basis to determine if it benefits the common weal (the practical concern) and reflects the nature of what is Good (the philosophical concern).

EDIT: As to the institution of slavery... well, slavery is detrimental to society and doesn't reflect what is Good. This should be patently obvious to anyone of decent conscience.

[Valrifell]

God’s providence right here.

Not necessarily; the problem with the Cult of Reason, from what I've read, is that it tried to replace established/entrenched societal institutions too rapidly. A better solution would've been a gradual shift.

Well, that and it was run by Robespierre's political rivals and the Montagnards had their own Cult of the Supreme Being.

[Novus America]

Only theoretically. Practically speaking there's little chance of that happening, even if an insanely popular and successful warlord imposed their will over the world all of a sudden. Slow regional confederations coalescing into continually larger and larger regional confederations, alliances, and treaty organizations is both more reliable and more likely. Think a global EU someday, only hopefully not nearly as pants-on-head retarded.

Hopefully someday soon, then. Humanity must unify if civilization is to survive the coming centuries.

Global Unification would invetibly lead to stagnation and internal conflicts.
Humans are competive and tribal by nature, we need outside threats to stay unified and give us something to compete against.

The end of the Cold War was a disaster for the US. It lead to a nihilistic lack of purpose, increased political polarization, and a dangerous complacency that may have ruined us.
Hopefully it is not too late to recover (through a new Cold War with China).

Unless we find a alien civilization the struggle against we cannot unite into fewer than two groups.

More unification in larger unions not necessarily a bad thing. Complete unification would be.

Besides it is politically impossible to have a democracies and dictatorships in the same Union, getting all the world to agree on one form of government is impossible.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hopefully someday soon, then. Humanity must unify if civilization is to survive the coming centuries.

Global Unification would invetibly lead to stagnation and internal conflicts.
Humans are competive and tribal by nature, we need outside threats to stay unified and give us something to compete against.

The end of a term Cold War was a disaster for the US. It lead to a nihilistic lack of purpose, increased political polarization, and a dangerous complacency that may have ruined us.
Hopefully it is not too late to recover.

Unless we find a alien civilization the struggle against we cannot unite into fewer than two groups.

More unification in larger unions not necessarily a bad thing. Complete unification would be.

Besides it is politically impossible to have a democracies and dictatorships in the same Union, getting all the world to agree on one form of government is impossible.

I do concur that humans are competitive and tribal by nature, and although I love humanity and seek for it to flourish, this tribalism is nevertheless contrary to my knowledge of the Good. I suppose that human nature would need to change, perhaps? I understand that that is a radical sentiment, but I merely seek for the nobler sense of unity and brotherhood to prevail against the base instincts of tribalism and strife.

This is why I sometimes wish that I was a morality automaton, tbh.

Not necessarily; the problem with the Cult of Reason, from what I've read, is that it tried to replace established/entrenched societal institutions too rapidly. A better solution would've been a gradual shift.

Well, that and it was run by Robespierre's political rivals and the Montagnards had their own Cult of the Supreme Being.

While I'm of the view that the French Revolution was ultimately a good thing, I'm disappointed by the infighting among the Republic's leadership.

[Genivaria]

Hopefully someday soon, then. Humanity must unify if civilization is to survive the coming centuries.

Global Unification would invetibly lead to stagnation and internal conflicts.
Humans are competive and tribal by nature, we need outside threats to stay unified and give us something to compete against.

The end of a term Cold War was a disaster for the US. It lead to a nihilistic lack of purpose, increased political polarization, and a dangerous complacency that may have ruined us.
Hopefully it is not too late to recover.

Unless we find a alien civilization the struggle against we cannot unite into fewer than two groups.

More unification in larger unions not necessarily a bad thing. Complete unification would be.

Besides it is politically impossible to have a democracies and dictatorships in the same Union, getting all the world to agree on one form of government is impossible.

The UNSC from Halo is my dream society, for is there any more noble calling than killing aliens in humanities defense?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Global Unification would invetibly lead to stagnation and internal conflicts.
Humans are competive and tribal by nature, we need outside threats to stay unified and give us something to compete against.

The end of a term Cold War was a disaster for the US. It lead to a nihilistic lack of purpose, increased political polarization, and a dangerous complacency that may have ruined us.
Hopefully it is not too late to recover.

Unless we find a alien civilization the struggle against we cannot unite into fewer than two groups.

More unification in larger unions not necessarily a bad thing. Complete unification would be.

Besides it is politically impossible to have a democracies and dictatorships in the same Union, getting all the world to agree on one form of government is impossible.

The UNSC from Halo is my dream society, for is there any more noble calling than killing aliens in humanities defense?

Convincing the xenos to join your civilization for the Greater Good, perhaps?

[Genivaria]

The UNSC from Halo is my dream society, for is there any more noble calling than killing aliens in humanities defense?

Convincing the xenos to join your civilization for the Greater Good, perhaps?

Only after they submit to human society will they be.....allowed....

for the Greater Good

TAU!!!! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Convincing the xenos to join your civilization for the Greater Good, perhaps?

Only after they submit to human society will they be.....allowed....

for the Greater Good

TAU!!!! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

I propose that, shortly after first contact, we appoint the best and brightest moral philosophers, religious scholars, psychologists, historians, economists, etc. among both Humanity and our newly-discovered Xeno brothers, in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of what is Good through reasoned dialectic, debate, and discussion. There is no need for violence, provided that the Xenos are willing to cooperate with said proposal.

[Novus America]

Global Unification would invetibly lead to stagnation and internal conflicts.
Humans are competive and tribal by nature, we need outside threats to stay unified and give us something to compete against.

The end of a term Cold War was a disaster for the US. It lead to a nihilistic lack of purpose, increased political polarization, and a dangerous complacency that may have ruined us.
Hopefully it is not too late to recover.

Unless we find a alien civilization the struggle against we cannot unite into fewer than two groups.

More unification in larger unions not necessarily a bad thing. Complete unification would be.

Besides it is politically impossible to have a democracies and dictatorships in the same Union, getting all the world to agree on one form of government is impossible.

I do concur that humans are competitive and tribal by nature, and although I love humanity and seek for it to flourish, this tribalism is nevertheless contrary to my knowledge of the Good. I suppose that human nature would need to change, perhaps? I understand that that is a radical sentiment, but I merely seek for the nobler sense of unity and brotherhood to prevail against the base instincts of tribalism and strife.

This is why I sometimes wish that I was a morality automaton, tbh.

Well, that and it was run by Robespierre's political rivals and the Montagnards had their own Cult of the Supreme Being.

While I'm of the view that the French Revolution was ultimately a good thing, I'm disappointed by the infighting among the Republic's leadership.

But the point is humanity cannot flourish under unifed rule.

Had humanity been unified the space race would have never happened.
Nuclear power probably never developed.

We cannot flourish without conflict and competition.
The key is keeping the conflict from getting out of hand.

Preventing conflict is not only impossible, it is not desirable.

Conflict management is good. Conflict avoidance is bad.

[Novus America]

Only after they submit to human society will they be.....allowed....

TAU!!!! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

I propose that, shortly after first contact, we appoint the best and brightest moral philosophers, religious scholars, psychologists, historians, economists, etc. among both Humanity and our newly-discovered Xeno brothers, in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of what is Good through reasoned dialectic, debate, and discussion. There is no need for violence, provided that the Xenos are willing to cooperate with said proposal.

But that defeats the purpose. Humanity NEEDS an enemy. Humans only flourish under the pressure of an enemy.

If we face no outside threats we get lazy, nihilistic and turn on each other.
If we make all the aliens our friends that is what would happen.

Humanity is dualistic by nature.

There must be the enemy, the other, something to both fear and fight. Something to overcome.
But the fear and fight must be carefully managed to prevent outright war and genocide.

We NEED a Cold War. And so we need someone to wage one against.

[Valrifell]

Human nature is such an esoteric topic that I refuse to say I know anything about. In fact, it's very tempting to say it doesn't exist at all. It's very much a philosophical question and not a scientific one.

I mean, humans have mechanisms that allow for reconsideration of basic instinct, it's why we refrain from gorging ourselves on junk food at every conceivable opportunity.

[Novus America]

Human nature is such an esoteric topic that I refuse to say I know anything about. In fact, it's very tempting to say it doesn't exist at all. It's very much a philosophical question and not a scientific one.

I mean, humans have mechanisms that allow for reconsideration of basic instinct, it's why we refrain from gorging ourselves on junk food at every conceivable opportunity.

Based on empiricism we still know what works, and what does not though.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I do concur that humans are competitive and tribal by nature, and although I love humanity and seek for it to flourish, this tribalism is nevertheless contrary to my knowledge of the Good. I suppose that human nature would need to change, perhaps? I understand that that is a radical sentiment, but I merely seek for the nobler sense of unity and brotherhood to prevail against the base instincts of tribalism and strife.

This is why I sometimes wish that I was a morality automaton, tbh.



While I'm of the view that the French Revolution was ultimately a good thing, I'm disappointed by the infighting among the Republic's leadership.

But the point is humanity cannot flourish under unifed rule.

Had humanity been unified the space race would have never happened.
Nuclear power probably never developed.

We cannot flourish without conflict and competition.
The key is keeping the conflict from getting out of hand.

Preventing conflict is not only impossible, it is not desirable.

Conflict management is good. Conflict avoidance is bad.

I'd agree with you... provided I viewed human nature as hard essentialist, which I don't. This age of destruction and strife that we've lived in since the beginning of human sapience needn't last forever; all that we must do is re-engineer the human psyche and soul to enhance the pro-social and altruistic (in a broad sense) aspects of our psychology and behavior and diminish the tribalistic and egoistic (in a broad sense) aspects. The tyranny of Dunbar's number must end as we begin to venture into the depths of space. I mean, it seems sensible enough to me. Perhaps a bit authoritarian initially, but worth it nonetheless. What are your thoughts on the matter? Perhaps I'm being too optimistic? I'm not sure, tbh.

I propose that, shortly after first contact, we appoint the best and brightest moral philosophers, religious scholars, psychologists, historians, economists, etc. among both Humanity and our newly-discovered Xeno brothers, in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of what is Good through reasoned dialectic, debate, and discussion. There is no need for violence, provided that the Xenos are willing to cooperate with said proposal.

But that defeats the purpose. Humanity NEEDS an enemy. Humans only flourish under the pressure of an enemy.

If we face no outside threats we get lazy, nihilistic and turn on each other.
If we make all the aliens our friends that is what would happen.

Humanity is dualistic by nature.

There must be the enemy, the other, something to both fear and fight. Something to overcome.
But the fear and fight must be carefully managed to prevent outright war and genocide.

We NEED a Cold War. And so we need someone to wage one against.

Then the problem is a neurological and psychological one, nothing that a bit of social engineering and... erm… neurological engineering (is that even a thing yet?) can't solve. Do I make any sense, or do I sound like a supervillain or something? I frequently receive the "supervillain" comment, btw. I don't understand why; I seek to better the world, to better my fellow humans. I love humanity and I seek the common weal. How does that make my mindset that of a "supervillain"? Am I impolite? I apologize if I am...

[Valrifell]

Human nature is such an esoteric topic that I refuse to say I know anything about. In fact, it's very tempting to say it doesn't exist at all. It's very much a philosophical question and not a scientific one.

I mean, humans have mechanisms that allow for reconsideration of basic instinct, it's why we refrain from gorging ourselves on junk food at every conceivable opportunity.

Based on empiricism we still know what works, and what does not though.

Sure, you could argue that a united Earth government or communism would fail for other reasons but do note that the default and singular nature of mankind (if such a thing exists) is an awful justification for your premise.

[Novus America]

But the point is humanity cannot flourish under unifed rule.

Had humanity been unified the space race would have never happened.
Nuclear power probably never developed.

We cannot flourish without conflict and competition.
The key is keeping the conflict from getting out of hand.

Preventing conflict is not only impossible, it is not desirable.

Conflict management is good. Conflict avoidance is bad.

I'd agree with you... provided I viewed human nature as hard essentialist, which I don't. This age of destruction and strife that we've lived in since the beginning of human sapience needn't last forever; all that we must do is re-engineer the human psyche and soul to enhance the pro-social and altruistic (in a broad sense) aspects of our psychology and behavior and diminish the tribalistic and egoistic (in a broad sense) aspects. The tyranny of Dunbar's number must end as we begin to venture into the depths of space. I mean, it seems sensible enough to me. Perhaps a bit authoritarian initially, but worth it nonetheless. What are your thoughts on the matter? Perhaps I'm being too optimistic? I'm not sure, tbh.

But that defeats the purpose. Humanity NEEDS an enemy. Humans only flourish under the pressure of an enemy.

If we face no outside threats we get lazy, nihilistic and turn on each other.
If we make all the aliens our friends that is what would happen.

Humanity is dualistic by nature.

There must be the enemy, the other, something to both fear and fight. Something to overcome.
But the fear and fight must be carefully managed to prevent outright war and genocide.

We NEED a Cold War. And so we need someone to wage one against.

Then the problem is a neurological and psychological one, nothing that a bit of social engineering and... erm… neurological engineering (is that even a thing yet?) can't solve. Do I make any sense, or do I sound like a supervillain or something? I frequently receive the "supervillain" comment, btw. I don't understand why; I seek to better the world, to better my fellow humans. I love humanity and I seek the common weal. How does that make my mindset that of a "supervillain"? Am I impolite? I apologize if I am...

Your mistake is assuming it is a problem in the first place.
Creation requires destruction.

We cannot reach the stars if we stagnate. Only with two separate competing groups trying to colonize the more star systems than the other will we do so.

And if if we had a single civilization it would tear itself apart with internal conflicts.

Again conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. It can in fact be a good thing (managed properly).

[Genivaria]

Based on empiricism we still know what works, and what does not though.

Sure, you could argue that a united Earth government or communism would fail for other reasons but do note that the default and singular nature of mankind (if such a thing exists) is an awful justification for your premise.

'Human Nature' has always been a poor argument for pretty much anything.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I'd agree with you... provided I viewed human nature as hard essentialist, which I don't. This age of destruction and strife that we've lived in since the beginning of human sapience needn't last forever; all that we must do is re-engineer the human psyche and soul to enhance the pro-social and altruistic (in a broad sense) aspects of our psychology and behavior and diminish the tribalistic and egoistic (in a broad sense) aspects. The tyranny of Dunbar's number must end as we begin to venture into the depths of space. I mean, it seems sensible enough to me. Perhaps a bit authoritarian initially, but worth it nonetheless. What are your thoughts on the matter? Perhaps I'm being too optimistic? I'm not sure, tbh.



Then the problem is a neurological and psychological one, nothing that a bit of social engineering and... erm… neurological engineering (is that even a thing yet?) can't solve. Do I make any sense, or do I sound like a supervillain or something? I frequently receive the "supervillain" comment, btw. I don't understand why; I seek to better the world, to better my fellow humans. I love humanity and I seek the common weal. How does that make my mindset that of a "supervillain"? Am I impolite? I apologize if I am...

Your mistake is assuming it is a problem in the first place.
Creation requires destruction.

We cannot reach the stars if we stagnate. Only with two separate competing groups trying to colonize the more star systems than the other will we do so.

And if if we had a single civilization it would tear itself apart with internal conflicts.

Again conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. It can in fact be a good thing (managed properly).

But why do you assume that conflict is the only reason why one desires to reach the stars? Why do you assume that a single civilization would tear itself apart? Would we all not be as brothers and sisters striving ever onward towards excellence, towards the eternities of the heavens, but most importantly towards the Good? Why do you assume that brotherhood would lead to stagnation? Humanity could achieve wonders if we are united under a singular, glorious vision, if we are united in pursuit of the noble truths of what is Good.

[Valrifell]

Sure, you could argue that a united Earth government or communism would fail for other reasons but do note that the default and singular nature of mankind (if such a thing exists) is an awful justification for your premise.

'Human Nature' has always been a poor argument for pretty much anything.

Usually people say "it's just human nature" in the same way they say "it's a free country"

That is, to justify asshole behavior.