Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Kowani]

Wrong. There are no moral terms with which to evaluate them. And despite your claim of nobody, it works quite well for me.

If there are no moral terms to evaluate them, then there's no qualitative difference between them.

See my answer to Fahran below.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If there are no moral terms to evaluate them, then there's no qualitative difference between them.

See my answer to Fahran below.

None of what you said gives any reason to judge Hitler.

[Kowani]

See my answer to Fahran below.

None of what you said gives any reason to judge Hitler.

Yeah, I’m not looking for a reason to morally judge him, what with not believing in morality.

[Fahran]

It’s not so much an axiom as it is a conclusion, or at least in my case.

I would ask what it's based on, but I do believe we're waltzing a bit too far from the RWDT's purpose.

Oh, mostly by choice.

But seriously, to establish a working society, arguing about what is right is not necessarily helpful. Justice as well, for that matter does not actually work based on what is good, but what is societally hedonistic.

Hedonism is actually an ethical system or rather a set of ethical systems.

Should, not can. Very different things.

People choose not to behave like nihilists because, frankly, society falls apart the minute we do. Even the post-structuralists and hedonists adhere to some sort of system.

In the same way that a whale and a butterfly weigh the same thing in space, you’re correct.

The issue is what happens when we're no longer in the vacuum. The weight of the whale on your shoulder will crush you. The weight of the butterfly will not.

Yes, but that’s because I don’t like pain. And, as a secondary reason, the power of reason. If nothing has intrinsic value, there is no reason to do anything, yet in the same vein, there is no reason not to do anything. However, things are more pleasurable (that’s not really the right word, but my English could be better), so I do them. Could I choose to step in front of a train? Sure. Would I enjoy it? Nah. Should I? Nah. Should I not? Same answer. So, what choose t’enjoy life.

So you personally behave as a hedonist and do what gives you pleasure and minimizes your pain. To make that a moral system simply extend that courtesy to other people. Or continue from the starting point Ayn Rand set and lionize it a bit.

[United Muscovite Nations]

None of what you said gives any reason to judge Hitler.

Yeah, I’m not looking for a reason to morally judge him, what with not believing in morality.

Which is why Fahran and I say that nihilism cannot be right. Any theory in which killing millions of people is not qualitatively different than being a humanitarian is clearly wrong.

[Fahran]

Which is why Fahran and I say that nihilism cannot be right. Any theory in which killing millions of people is not qualitatively different than being a humanitarian is clearly wrong.

I wouldn't argue it's clearly wrong, though I would argue that it's just as baseless as it alleges every other ethical system to be.

I do believe that most people have a conscience that would make them feel sick about comparing those two actions and not observing a qualitative difference - and that we have rationalized those feelings to make them comprehensible and give us guidelines for living our lives. Nihilism is the rejection of all those emotions and reasons on quasi-logical grounds. Absurdism is the perfection of nihilism once we strip away all the angst - and Camus was an angsty one.

[Conserative Morality]

Nihilism isn't a moral philosophy. It's the absence of a moral philosophy.

Which is not something I'm often accused of.

That's what the nihilist argument is.

It's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely questioning axioms.

"Then you are a king!"

"It's you that say I am.
I look for truth,
and find that I get damned."

"And what is 'truth'?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?"

[Frievolk]

Nihilism isn't a moral philosophy. It's the absence of a moral philosophy.

Which is not something I'm often accused of.

That's what the nihilist argument is.

It's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely questioning axioms.

"Then you are a king!"

"It's you that say I am.
I look for truth,
and find that I get damned."

"And what is 'truth'?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?"

Wwait that's not the lyrics I remember.

[Conserative Morality]

Which is not something I'm often accused of.

It's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely questioning axioms.

"Then you are a king!"

"It's you that say I am.
I look for truth,
and find that I get damned."

"And what is 'truth'?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?"

Wwait that's not the lyrics I remember.

CRUCIFY HIM

[Frievolk]

Wwait that's not the lyrics I remember.

CRUCIFY HIM

Huh. I guess the lyric change by the version. (I mean, the one I remember has pretty much the same meaning so not that much of a problem)

[Nea Byzantia]

Revolutions - even if they start out with the most altruistic intentions; reflecting the grievances of the People against a corrupt Regime; or in some way representing the "Will of the People", they usually get co-opted by either Elite Factions within the Nation itself; or by Foreign Powers with their own agenda. Oftentimes, its some combination of the two. Revolutions usually result in the empowerment of either an "outsider" clique of the Elites (ie. an Elite Faction that could stand to benefit from overthrowing the Regime); or the Marionettes of a Foreign Power; or both. Usually, the People end up suffering under the "New Boss" as much as they did under the "Old Boss"; oftentimes more.

Spoken like a true reactionary who wants people to knuckle under and just accept their place under their 'superiors'. "If it wasn't us, it would be someone worse! =^)"

A true *Byzantine* Reactionary :

[Gohnorea]

Morning.

[Anarcho capitalist utopia]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

[Genivaria]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

Obvious bait is obvious.

[Starblaydia]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

Given your history of trolling, I'd suggest not adding flamebaiting to the list. Cut it out.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

Apparently being right-wing somehow makes you unable to be attracted to transgender people...

Fuck is this bullshit? Even my own grandfather, who is arguably the most conservative family member I know, has expressed approval at post-op transgender women at least once.

[Sicaris]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

Apparently being right-wing somehow makes you unable to be attracted to transgender people...

Fuck is this bullshit? Even my own grandfather, who is arguably the most conservative family member I know, has expressed approval at post-op transgender women at least once.

He’s trolling and already got warned, don’t acknowledge him.

[Fahran]

So I realized, after a bit of reading, that our recently departed colleague, Parkus, may well have been quoting Michael Marder, Oliver Marchart, and some of their predecessors in his analysis of Schmitt's thought, titled What Is the State For?, as a political extrapolation of Heidegger's existentialist philosophy - a form of political ontology within the framework of the total state guided by the absolute sovereign. I thought the discussion was largely underappreciated, swiftly devolving into discussions of the liberal night watchman state or various other subjects as opposed to really exploring the purpose and existence of the state and the relation of society, institutions, and people to it.

I'll preface any statements I make here by stating that I'm not an existentialist, taking rather more of my philosophy from Plato, Aristotle, and Jewish/Catholic thinkers and mixing it with a perhaps unhealthy dose of romantic pining. In discussions of the state, even conservatives are often inclined to discuss the material boons the state can impart. Its ability to afford us security from crime and protection from external enemies is one function popularly cited by the ideological heirs of classical liberals - the people who to a significant extent have come to populate the modern political right in the United States and most of Europe. Discussions of welfare and other social policies are common enough with our syndicalist and nationalist friends as well. The state is perceived as a way of mediating material conflicts between classes of people, the bourgeois and the proletariat or the wealthy and the destitute. The state is a means to an end.

My own perspective departs somewhat from the one Marder and Marchart ascribe to Schmitt, being more heavily reliant on Aristotle's conception of man as a political animal and the state as natural as well as political themes explored in Torah - which I feel is too often sanitized to fit into and match the biases of liberal theorists. The idea that one drags from Aristotle, or at least that I dragged from Aristotle, is that the state is a natural, hierarchical emanation of society that completes man as other institutions serve to complete man. There are, of course, a laundry list of differences between this and Schmitt's political theory when we begin to dig into the gritty details - not the least of which are time and place. Likewise, Parkus and I agree on next to nothing. I actually thought his original post attempted to tie together too many philosophers over too short a span of paragraphs and muddled the basic argument with excessively philosophical language.

Nonetheless, I felt this might be a worthwhile subject to discuss given the recent surge in popularity enjoyed by Schmitt's writings and theory across the political spectrum and his status as one of the preeminent political theorists of the nineteenth century. How should conservatives describe the purpose and function of the state and other societal institutions? What is the approach we should take to individualism, personalism, and society - since those three things are at times wholly divorced from each other? How would you begin to describe the purpose and existence of society and of man?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

So I realized, after a bit of reading, that our recently departed colleague, Parkus, may well have been quoting Michael Marder, Oliver Marchart, and some of their predecessors in his analysis of Schmitt's thought, titled What Is the State For?, as a political extrapolation of Heidegger's existentialist philosophy - a form of political ontology within the framework of the total state guided by the absolute sovereign. I thought the discussion was largely underappreciated, swiftly devolving into discussions of the liberal night watchman state or various other subjects as opposed to really exploring the purpose and existence of the state and the relation of society, institutions, and people to it.

I'll preface any statements I make here by stating that I'm not an existentialist, taking rather more of my philosophy from Plato, Aristotle, and Jewish/Catholic thinkers and mixing it with a perhaps unhealthy dose of romantic pining. In discussions of the state, even conservatives are often inclined to discuss the material boons the state can impart. Its ability to afford us security from crime and protection from external enemies is one function popularly cited by the ideological heirs of classical liberals - the people who to a significant extent have come to populate the modern political right in the United States and most of Europe. Discussions of welfare and other social policies are common enough with our syndicalist and nationalist friends as well. The state is perceived as a way of mediating material conflicts between classes of people, the bourgeois and the proletariat or the wealthy and the destitute. The state is a means to an end.

My own perspective departs somewhat from the one Marder and Marchart ascribe to Schmitt, being more heavily reliant on Aristotle's conception of man as a political animal and the state as natural as well as political themes explored in Torah - which I feel is too often sanitized to fit into and match the biases of liberal theorists. The idea that one drags from Aristotle, or at least that I dragged from Aristotle, is that the state is a natural, hierarchical emanation of society that completes man as other institutions serve to complete man. There are, of course, a laundry list of differences between this and Schmitt's political theory when we begin to dig into the gritty details - not the least of which are time and place. Likewise, Parkus and I agree on next to nothing. I actually thought his original post attempted to tie together too many philosophers over too short a span of paragraphs and muddled the basic argument with excessively philosophical language.

Nonetheless, I felt this might be a worthwhile subject to discuss given the recent surge in popularity enjoyed by Schmitt's writings and theory across the political spectrum and his status as one of the preeminent political theorists of the nineteenth century. How should conservatives describe the purpose and function of the state and other societal institutions? What is the approach we should take to individualism, personalism, and society - since those three things are at times wholly divorced from each other? How would you begin to describe the purpose and existence of society and of man?

If I am to describe the most basic function of the state in layman's terms, it is: the societal institution(s) which prevent the proverbial "war of all against all". Does that basic definition make any sense? Should I elaborate upon it?

[Conserative Morality]

A true *Byzantine* Reactionary :

Greeklings out, remember the SPQR!

[Fahran]

Greeklings out, remember the SPQR!

I don't want you to leave though, CM!

We can't remove pita. We have to defend pita.

[Diopolis]

Yeah, I’m not looking for a reason to morally judge him, what with not believing in morality.

Which is why Fahran and I say that nihilism cannot be right. Any theory in which killing millions of people is not qualitatively different than being a humanitarian is clearly wrong.

Which itself points to a (limited)form of natural law.

[Bienenhalde]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

I do not think a good person would watch porn at all, transgender or not.

[Conserative Morality]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

I do not think a good person would watch porn at all, transgender or not.

Man, you are just surrounded by sinners.

[Hanafuridake]

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

Most people rejected his message.

A true *Byzantine* Reactionary :

Greeklings out, remember the SPQR!

That includes you, Athenian.

If you people claim to be 'right' wing then you should stop jerking off to trangender porn

Just because 88% of 4chan does it doesnt mean it's ok

I do not think a good person would watch porn at all, transgender or not.

Oh come on, even your most idealized periods of world history was filled with lecherous aristocrats viewing erotic art. In a world where millions of animals are slaughtered to make unhealthy meat that we can afford to live without, this is apparently the metric that determines whether or not someone is a bad person.