Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Volkari]

And what did the Greeks do with their own philosophers? Let's go down the line shall we:

How long did it take you to browse Wikipedia to copy & paste all of that pointless information because of shifting the goal post?

foriegners ( Macedonia

[Novus America]

India was a shit and Alexander would have rekt them if his troops weren't losers who wanted to go home instead of conquering the world ;_;

Semi-related to this, is it bizarre I keep having dreams of an American Raj?

Of course not.
Manifest destiny needs a comeback
Though with more voluntary joining and less shooty stuff.

[Conserative Morality]

It was not that much lower, but still lower,
Sure the north had lots of poor too. But more opportunities and mobility.

Infrastructure and public services in the South were definitely inferior.

Sure Yeomen farmers made up most of the Army, they were still poor though.

The North still produced more agriculture overall.
And northern wheat exports to the UK were quite critical to the UK.
Which kept “king cotton” from being successful to bring the UK into the war.
More productive does not necessarily mean more production.

The north had a shorter growing season. Which likely explains the productivity difference.

Point remains the South had a few industrial (with equally bad if not worse working conditions) cities, and the north a whole lot of farms.
The (relative, not complete) shortage of manufacturing in the South was not because northern manufacturing was morally worse or whatever BS the Lost Causers pedal.

The South did want more manufacturing. It just was less effective at attracting investment.

Why bother with WNs? Feels over reals for them, my man.

[Volkari]

It was not that much lower, but still lower,
Sure the north had lots of poor too. But more opportunities and mobility.

Infrastructure and public services in the South were definitely inferior.

Sure Yeomen farmers made up most of the Army, they were still poor though.

The North still produced more agriculture overall.
And northern wheat exports to the UK were quite critical to the UK.
Which kept “king cotton” from being successful to bring the UK into the war.
More productive does not necessarily mean more production.

The north had a shorter growing season. Which likely explains the productivity difference.

Point remains the South had a few industrial (with equally bad if not worse working conditions) cities, and the north a whole lot of farms.
The (relative, not complete) shortage of manufacturing in the South was not because northern manufacturing was morally worse or whatever BS the Lost Causers pedal.

The South did want more manufacturing. It just was less effective at attracting investment.

Why bother with WNs? Feels over reals for them, my man.

I'm ashamed to admit that I believed in a lot of this Lost Cause nonsense. Even if it doesn't convince the person you're arguing with, it can move someone else in the right direction.

[Nea Byzantia]

Ah yes. I forget that modern reactionaries don't actually know anything about the past, so I shouldn't expect one to be familiar with Anaxagoras, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Lycurgus, and others. Never mind the load of medieval literature and theology that owes a great debt to many of these thinkers.

And what did the Greeks do with their own philosophers? Let's go down the line shall we:

Socrates - sentenced to death
Anaxagoras - exiled
Plato - exiled, held hostage, sold into slavery by pretty much every rule in the ancient hellenic world at some point
Aristotle - Macedonians found more use in him than his fellow Greeks ever had.

Lcyurgus by far has the happiest ending of all these men - creating the epitome of a martial society, which, in four hundred years managed to just barely beat it's far less militarist rival Athens... and then just to be defeated by Thebes two years later, never to rise again.

And that's just how the Greeks treated their own philosophers, never mind their works! From the time of Lycurgus to Phillip III, the Greeks never left their peninsula - stuck in perpetual warlordism and blood feuds.

Like I said, Greeks did far better when conquered. The works and legacies of the aforementioned philosophers were only truly appreciated by foriegners ( Macedonia, Rome, Ottomans, etc ). The Greeks never truly prospered as an Empire once they adopted Christianity under Roman law, and left their pagan past behind in the ruins which they had been crafted in.

But Makedonia IS GREEK !!!...Jk

Also, worth mentioning that by the time Constantine was building Constantinople (circa. 324 AD), most Greeks considered themselves "Roman" - the use of Greek as an ethnonym did not appear again until the final decades of the Eastern Empire. The Greek and Roman identities had fused together in some sense, as most educated Romans spoke Greek anyways. Those "uncultured" (from the Greek POV) who didn't speak Greek were called Latins, by the later Romans (who were mostly ethnic Greeks by then, and were clustered in the Eastern Empire). Of course, it bears mentioning that ethnic and cultural identity were not what they are now. The term "Byzantine" wasn't applied to the Empire in Constantinople till the 15th century. The "Franks" and other Western ethnicities used to taunt the Eastern Emperors by calling them "Emperor of the Greeks", and not "Emperor of the Romans", and naturally the Eastern Roman Emperors took very serious offence at this.

All this to say that there should be no dialectical tension between Classical Greece, the unified Roman Empire, or the later Eastern Roman Empire...as far as I'm concerned, these were all part of the same civilization. The modern split between "Greek" and "Latin" has more to do with the split between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the cultural divide between the Frankish-influenced West vs the Old Roman/Greek East. I'd even go so far as to say that the rivalry and Cold War of more recent times between the Anglo-American Power, and the Russian Empires (be they Tsarist or Soviet or Putinist) reflect this same historical tension, and is linked to it somehow.

[Volkari]

We need to create a new American republican religion dedicated to civic virtue, veneration of heroes, and a progressive theology centered around man being God. The French Revolution cults had the right idea, there needs to be a new revolutionary religion to replace the old forms of dogma.

[Conserative Morality]

All this to say that there should be no dialectical tension between Classical Greece, the unified Roman Empire, or the later Eastern Roman Empire...as far as I'm concerned, these were all part of the same civilization.

Roman writers want a word with you.

Speaking Greek does not make one a Greek. Reading Roman accounts during the Principate makes it clear that the Romans still saw themselves and their culture as very different from the Greeks, and rightfully so.

[Conserative Morality]

We need to create a new American republican religion dedicated to civic virtue, veneration of heroes, and a progressive theology centered around man being God. The French Revolution cults had the right idea, there needs to be a new revolutionary religion to replace the old forms of dogma.

I disagree. Our current republican civic religion is more than adequate for the task. To create a new religion wholesale would run contrary to the principles of America.

[Nea Byzantia]

All this to say that there should be no dialectical tension between Classical Greece, the unified Roman Empire, or the later Eastern Roman Empire...as far as I'm concerned, these were all part of the same civilization.

Roman writers want a word with you.

Speaking Greek does not make one a Greek. Reading Roman accounts during the Principate makes it clear that the Romans still saw themselves and their culture as very different from the Greeks, and rightfully so.

I'm not talking about the time of Augustus (ruled: 27 BC - 14 AD)...It took centuries for the cultural fusion to occur. That goes without saying. Notice, I mentioned the time of Constantine I the Great (ruled: 312 AD - 337 AD)

[Conserative Morality]

I'm not talking about the time of Augustus (ruled: 27 BC - 14 AD)...It took centuries for the cultural fusion to occur. That goes without saying. Notice, I mentioned the time of Constantine I the Great (ruled: 312 AD - 337 AD)

My apologies.

[Nea Byzantia]

I'm not talking about the time of Augustus (ruled: 27 BC - 14 AD)...It took centuries for the cultural fusion to occur. That goes without saying. Notice, I mentioned the time of Constantine I the Great (ruled: 312 AD - 337 AD)

My apologies.

No worries, no hard feelings...Just clarifying.

Remember, Diocletian (ruled: 284 AD - 305 AD) had no problem moving the Imperial Capital to Nikomedia, in Asia Minor, a very Greek region. By that time, the Roman Identity was no longer an ethnically Italian prerogative.

[Conserative Morality]

No worries, no hard feelings...Just clarifying.

Remember, Diocletian (ruled: 284 AD - 305 AD) had no problem moving the Imperial Capital to Nikomedia, in Asia Minor, a very Greek region. By that time, the Roman Identity was no longer an ethnically Italian prerogative.

>> mentioning Diocletian

I would say that it was no longer ethnically Italian long before that - but also that it was separate from the identities of Greeks and other provincials it existed alongside. A Roman colonia or municipium in Greece was very different, after all, than a free city in Greece, in terms of law and culture.

[Nea Byzantia]

No worries, no hard feelings...Just clarifying.

Remember, Diocletian (ruled: 284 AD - 305 AD) had no problem moving the Imperial Capital to Nikomedia, in Asia Minor, a very Greek region. By that time, the Roman Identity was no longer an ethnically Italian prerogative.

>> mentioning Diocletian

I would say that it was no longer ethnically Italian long before that - but also that it was separate from the identities of Greeks and other provincials it existed alongside. A Roman colonia or municipium in Greece was very different, after all, than a free city in Greece, in terms of law and culture.

Politically, very different. Culturally, not as much as is often imagined or believed.

[Volkari]

We need to create a new American republican religion dedicated to civic virtue, veneration of heroes, and a progressive theology centered around man being God. The French Revolution cults had the right idea, there needs to be a new revolutionary religion to replace the old forms of dogma.

I disagree. Our current republican civic religion is more than adequate for the task. To create a new religion wholesale would run contrary to the principles of America.

The current civic religion has done a fairly good job, but it's too abstract and susceptible to manipulation from Christian fundamentalists.

[Nea Byzantia]

I disagree. Our current republican civic religion is more than adequate for the task. To create a new religion wholesale would run contrary to the principles of America.

The current civic religion has done a fairly good job, but it's too abstract and susceptible to manipulation from Christian fundamentalists.

How do YOU define a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

[Joohan]

We need to create a new American republican religion dedicated to civic virtue, veneration of heroes, and a progressive theology centered around man being God. The French Revolution cults had the right idea, there needs to be a new revolutionary religion to replace the old forms of dogma.

No. No on so many levels.

Larping degeneracy

[Nea Byzantia]

We need to create a new American republican religion dedicated to civic virtue, veneration of heroes, and a progressive theology centered around man being God. The French Revolution cults had the right idea, there needs to be a new revolutionary religion to replace the old forms of dogma.

No. No on so many levels.

Larping degeneracy

PREACH!

[Volkari]

The current civic religion has done a fairly good job, but it's too abstract and susceptible to manipulation from Christian fundamentalists.

How do YOU define a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

The Christian right.

We need to create a new American republican religion dedicated to civic virtue, veneration of heroes, and a progressive theology centered around man being God. The French Revolution cults had the right idea, there needs to be a new revolutionary religion to replace the old forms of dogma.

No. No on so many levels.

Larping degeneracy

Neo-reactionaries don't get to accuse other people of LARPing, especially not American ones.

[Nea Byzantia]

How do YOU define a "Christian Fundamentalist"?

The Christian right.

What do you define as the "Christian Right"?

[Volkari]

The Christian right.

What do you define as the "Christian Right"?

The Christian right or the religious right are conservative Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and to public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.[1]

[Nea Byzantia]

What do you define as the "Christian Right"?

The Christian right or the religious right are conservative Christian political factions that are characterized by their strong support of socially conservative policies. Christian conservatives principally seek to apply their understanding of the teachings of Christianity to politics and to public policy by proclaiming the value of those teachings or by seeking to use those teachings to influence law and public policy.[1]

Lol...guilty as charged...but I'm not a cringy Evangelical...I'm more of an Orthodox Christian right-winger. As such, I look more to the Eastern Roman Empire or Tsarist Russia as models, rather than Anglo-American Liberalism.

Just being honest about where I'm coming from.

[Conserative Morality]

Politically, very different. Culturally, not as much as is often imagined or believed.

I disagree very strongly. As Frontinus once wrote, "With such an array of indispensable structures carrying so many waters, compare, if you will, the idle Pyramids or the useless, though famous, works of the Greeks!" The Romans had a very different character to the Greeks they ruled over. Compare the practice of isolating women in the home to the comparative freedom of Roman women, the glorification of public performance by the Greeks and its denigration by Rome, the differing attitudes towards philosophy, art, family, nudity...

[Nea Byzantia]

Politically, very different. Culturally, not as much as is often imagined or believed.

I disagree very strongly. As Frontinus once wrote, "With such an array of indispensable structures carrying so many waters, compare, if you will, the idle Pyramids or the useless, though famous, works of the Greeks!" The Romans had a very different character to the Greeks they ruled over. Compare the practice of isolating women in the home to the comparative freedom of Roman women, the glorification of public performance by the Greeks and its denigration by Rome, the differing attitudes towards philosophy, art, family, nudity...

Ok...and what era is Frontinus writing from? What era of the Roman Imperium? Is he from the Pax Romana (27 BC - 180 AD), cause if so, he still doesn't count. Again, I'm referring to post- Pax. Crisis of the Third Century (192 AD - 284 AD) and on.

[Conserative Morality]

Ok...and what era is Frontinus writing from? What era of the Roman Imperium?

Late 1st century. Such attitudes persisted at least until the reign of Septimius Severus. As I said,

I would say that it was no longer ethnically Italian long before [Diocletian] - but also that it was separate from the identities of Greeks and other provincials it existed alongside.

[Nea Byzantia]

Ok...and what era is Frontinus writing from? What era of the Roman Imperium?

Late 1st century. Such attitudes persisted at least until the reign of Septimius Severus. As I said,

I would say that it was no longer ethnically Italian long before [Diocletian] - but also that it was separate from the identities of Greeks and other provincials it existed alongside.

That makes sense. If I recall correctly, Severus extended citizenship to all Imperial free men, right? And yeah, Frontinus was way before the time I'm referring to.