Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Kowani]

Mate, I’m a moral Nihilist and I see the value of the rules of warfare. Blitzkreig while violating those is. Well. A bad idea, let’s call it that.

Theres no need for rules in warfare if the ultimate end goal is to genocide the human race just so the reapers let you live another century.

Right as you are, the possibility of successfully genociding the species are very low.

[Salus Maior]

So you are willing to through morality out the window so just so you can be on the winning side? Well, then you have no right to call yourself a conservative.

Morality has no place in warfare and should be discarded the moment we enter in one.

Then morality just doesn't matter to you.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Morality has no place in warfare and should be discarded the moment we enter in one.

Then morality just doesn't matter to you.

Morality is everchanging.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Ugh, the left-right tensions are becoming particularly concerning nowadays.

[Confederate States of German America]

Only in not telling these other people to fuck off, yes.

Nope. The kid didn't consent to having his makeup removed, therefore the teacher can go fuck herself.

The wants of a nine year old are entirely irrelevant, nor is their consent; the entire reason we have statutory rape laws is for the expressed purpose that children can't given consent at all to anything.

[Confederate States of German America]

Strategy for defeat.

So you are willing to through morality out the window so just so you can be on the winning side? Well, then you have no right to call yourself a conservative.

Don't care, for one because you have no right to define that based on your own views but also two because your belief of ideological purity is meaningless if the ideals are trampled into the dirt.

[Novus America]

But the concept does not mesh well with Buddhism as Eliade himself notes.
Buddhism is about breaking free of cycles, not perpetuating them.

Buddhist lore is filled with mythical golden ages, and several Buddhist leaders were motivated by the belief that this was a degenerate age where enlightenment was impossible. One of the central ideas of the Shingon school is to create Vairocana's Pure Land here in this world. Eliade wasn't well informed about Buddhism or Hinduism and he operated under a simplistic notion of those religions.

Also kokugaku rejects Buddhism and Confucianism as foreign BTW.

Some members of the kokugaku rejected Confucianism and Buddhism, but the position wasn't universal. There were Confucian followers of Kamo Mabuchi and Hirata reaffirmed Confucius' notion of social relations. Motoori himself, despite claiming to be an anti-Buddhist, converted to Amidism before he died. That's beside the fact that I don't have to agree with the kokugakusha completely to admire them. Any more than I have to agree with Itō Jinsai's criticism of Buddhism to admire his philosophy.

And why would you want to try to return society to a time a myth was first created, when most myths were created in times much worse than now?

The mythical ages described aren't synonymous with the actual time periods that took place.

Some forms of Buddhism might have mythical “golden ages”, but does not want an endless cycle of time. Sure Eliade operated under a simplistic notion of religions. His entire theory is an oversimplification of religion.

Buddhism is still about escaping, not perpetrating cycles.
If if course the mythical periods described were not synonymous with actual time periods, because the mythical time periods happened.

Eliade is talking about an attempt to return society to what it was when the myths were created.
Not actually returning society to a mythical time, as mythical times do not happen. They are stories that are grossly exaggerated if not outright fabricated.

[Uxupox]

Morality has no place in warfare and should be discarded the moment we enter in one.

Yeah, that’s a good long term strategy.
Rape of Nanking 2.0 when?

The Japanese attack on Nanking has no contribution to the war effort heck one could argue it is a testimony to a bad organization. Like Clausewitz has stated either destroy the enemy completely and utterly or wage a “quick” war in which you make the enemy doubt their leaders and in turn become your allies.

[Uxupox]

I mean if you want to wage a blitz war on utterly nightmarish proportions in the short term it might be "good".

Mate, I’m a moral Nihilist and I see the value of the rules of warfare. Blitzkreig while violating those is. Well. A bad idea, let’s call it that.

Blitzrieg doesn’t violate any moral value as much as the Soviet deep doctrine, mechanized wave, American PGM’s and shock/awe.

They are a set of doctrinal interpretations that were devised to destroy an enemy using their nations most well suited strengths.

[Novus America]

Morality has no place in warfare and should be discarded the moment we enter in one.

Yeah, that’s a good long term strategy.
Rape of Nanking 2.0 when?

Amorality does not necessitate acting like complete barbarians.
The Rape of Nanking was not only morally wrong, it was also stupid from a military and political standpoint.

Amoral people do not always commit the most heinous crimes they possibly can.

I do not entirely reject morality in warfare, if doing the moral thing does not hurt you then still do it. But I would not lose a war just to be moral.

Winning is more important than being moral in war, but the two are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Nea Byzantia]

The 4th Crusade literally did everything wrong.

Yes, but it was actually largely self inflicted.
The attack on Constantinople was actually paid for (well he promised to pay and then could not) by an ERE prince working on behalf of a insanely corrupt and incompetent ERE Emperor deposed by his equally insanely incompetent and corrupt brother. And the force attacking the city was pathetic but the ERE barely even tried to defend the city.

It was not really a crusade as much as the Venetians turning the crusaders into mercenaries and then selling those mercenaries to fight in an internal ERE political conflict.

Of course then the mercenaries went rogue when they were not paid and murdered, raped and pillaged. Like mercenaries tend to do when not paid.

It was certainly FUBAR though.

While I'll be the first one to admit that the Angelid Emperors were as good for Byzantium as Mugabe was for Zimbabwe, this doesn't give the Latins and Franks a pass to come in, sack our capital and then divy up our lands among them and subjugate our people for centuries.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Ugh, the left-right tensions are becoming particularly concerning nowadays.

Fully aware that I go on about this enough that it's now probably very boring, but...

Profound technological change is often accompanied by social and political crises through unintended consequences. I don't think the influence of social media on what's happening can be overestimated. It has expanded the public sphere while eroding the gap between public and private.

Extremism tends to attract very committed individuals and social media offers people who would previously have never got themselves a political foothold an opportunity for a mass audience and a personal following - the internal mechanisms of many sites "reward" controversial content that just stays within the ToS. People who in the past would never have encountered venomous political discourse now have it served up to them daily, and that can only have a radicalising effect. The conflict is a simplistic and easily understood form of competition, full of thrills and spills. Sure you don't agree completely with either side, but one of them is less like you, right?

If you'll forgive the slightly forced analogy, antifa and neo-nazis have built a virtual Circus Maximus on our public space and even as we roll our eyes, semi-ironically pick blue or green, and pretend we're not really invested, our semi-ironic memey chants and slogans attract other people over to have a look. Before you know it, we're all cheering wildly even when our guys are not being great sports because they're beating the other side who we've now declared our existential enemy (own the libs, bash the fash). T-this crowd of hundreds of thousands of people is still ironic right?

[Novus America]

Yes, but it was actually largely self inflicted.
The attack on Constantinople was actually paid for (well he promised to pay and then could not) by an ERE prince working on behalf of a insanely corrupt and incompetent ERE Emperor deposed by his equally insanely incompetent and corrupt brother. And the force attacking the city was pathetic but the ERE barely even tried to defend the city.

It was not really a crusade as much as the Venetians turning the crusaders into mercenaries and then selling those mercenaries to fight in an internal ERE political conflict.

Of course then the mercenaries went rogue when they were not paid and murdered, raped and pillaged. Like mercenaries tend to do when not paid.

It was certainly FUBAR though.

While I'll be the first one to admit that the Angelid Emperors were as good for Byzantium as Mugabe was for Zimbabwe, this doesn't give the Latins and Franks a pass to come in, sack our capital and then divy up our lands among them and subjugate our people for centuries.

Agreed. Obviously the 4th Crusaders were not right to become Venetian mercenaries, rape, murder pillage and destroy.

But mercenaries tend to do fucked up shit. While this does not make said mercenaries right, this also why you have to very careful using them.
Again it was after all two Angelid’s who asked the crusaders to attack the city (to fight another Angelid).

And had the Angelids not left the city almost completely defenseless and not preferred stealing and fleeing over fighting the 4th Crusaders/Venetian Mercenaries would have been easily beaten.

There were only some 20,000 of them. Whereas previous sieges against the city using 100,000 or more men had failed.

While it absolutely was still wrong, leaving your country and capital basically defenseless in that era was basically suicide.

Enrico Dandolo, Boniface of Montferrat and Baldwin of Flanders were absolutely corrupt and ruthless men, and more than ready to steal what they could take.

And the 4th Crusaders and Venetian troops absolutely commited some of the worst atrocities, Rape of Nanking like shit.
They were absolutely disgusting.

But in a world full of men like that, hiring men like that/leaving your country almost completely undefended is still basically suicide.

And had it not been for the corruption, incompetency and generally idiocy of the Angelids it would have never happened.
They had largely destroyed the ERE before the 4th Crusaders finished it off.

[The South Falls]

Theres no need for rules in warfare if the ultimate end goal is to genocide the human race just so the reapers let you live another century.

Right as you are, the possibility of successfully genociding the species are very low.

Accidental genocide through accelerated climate change due to war, though, is.

[Sirocca]

Is extremism or radical political opinion really inherently bad? In fact, do you think moderate or centrism is really automatically "better" than radicalism?

[Conserative Morality]

While I'll be the first one to admit that the Angelid Emperors were as good for Byzantium as Mugabe was for Zimbabwe, this doesn't give the Latins and Franks a pass to come in, sack our capital and then divy up our lands among them and subjugate our people for centuries.

A rare point of agreement. While the Franks were, objectively, cooler, they also had a tendency to be grade-A ignorant shitheads when loosed on a country, and who were not only fine with, but eager to commit atrocities of both the selfish and pointless kind.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Is extremism or radical political opinion really inherently bad? In fact, do you think moderate or centrism is really automatically "better" than radicalism?

Sometimes cracking your knuckles is the only solution.

[Novus America]

Right as you are, the possibility of successfully genociding the species are very low.

Accidental genocide through accelerated climate change due to war, though, is.

Nuclear Winter theory is garbage though.

[Nea Byzantia]

While I'll be the first one to admit that the Angelid Emperors were as good for Byzantium as Mugabe was for Zimbabwe, this doesn't give the Latins and Franks a pass to come in, sack our capital and then divy up our lands among them and subjugate our people for centuries.

A rare point of agreement. While the Franks were, objectively, cooler, they also had a tendency to be grade-A ignorant shitheads when loosed on a country, and who were not only fine with, but eager to commit atrocities of both the selfish and pointless kind.

So what makes them cooler?

[Fahran]

Strategy for defeat.

While I value pragmatism and political realism, a victory actually has to mean something. If a political enemy engages in mud-raking, dig through their old comments and destroy them in a similar fashion. You can at least claim reciprocity as a moral defense when they whine overly much about being taken out of context or nailed for a joke. I want political victories as much as anyone, but those are secondary to intellectual, social, and cultural victories that will revive conservatism as a widespread movement and mode of thought.

I'm not even sure of your angle here.

It's not so much of an angle as describing various phenomena that might be culpable for the decline in happiness among women since the seventies. I'm a feminist, but I'll be the first to admit that the movement has a lot of problems and that women's happiness has not really increased due to the social changes effected by second and third-wave feminists. We're less happy than we were fifty years ago. The question is why.

People in their 90s, particularly in Europe, are far more likely to have engaged in genocide than 20 years olds; that's the central hole in that line. What it fails to take into account is that each of these different age brackets are different generations. This shows that by the modern day people at our age have seen the tables completely turn with regards to affairs.

That's a fair point. However, that would mean that, at the moment, married couples are less likely to cheat on one another than at any point in the past. It seems that we have fewer marriages but that the marriages that we do have are more faithful and less prone to divorce than in the past. We can't really say whether that statistical will hold though. There's a decent amount of evidence suggesting that people are more likely to cheat in middle age.

It's not nearly just enough to aid in marriages occurring, you have to aid in them remaining. In an American context, even if its financial more possible to get married, there is salient fact that it could not work and thus the possible ramifications of that. Abuse and infidelity rates are basically equal leaning more towards women while 80% of custody cases, alimony and other such lean towards women in court. As I said, you need to do reform the court system and begin social engineering if you truly want to make a dent.

Hungary's policies seem to have had an impact across the board, really. Hence why I'm so keen to implement them even if they're not conservative in a strictly American sense. I do believe that cultural and legal changes are required to adequately address the problems that have been created by the tumults and challenges of the twentieth century. A mind should be given especially to preventing the worst abuses that bar parents, principally fathers, from seeing and bonding with their children. And infidelity should carry larger repercussions than it currently does, specifically the complete surrender of all legal claims to alimony if concretely demonstrated as well as potential court-imposed fines for breach of contract.

[Fahran]

A rare point of agreement. While the Franks were, objectively, cooler, they also had a tendency to be grade-A ignorant shitheads when loosed on a country, and who were not only fine with, but eager to commit atrocities of both the selfish and pointless kind.

Roger de Flor, do it again!

Is extremism or radical political opinion really inherently bad? In fact, do you think moderate or centrism is really automatically "better" than radicalism?

No, but opposition to the pinkos is almost always the most wholesome option. :^)

[Conserative Morality]

A rare point of agreement. While the Franks were, objectively, cooler, they also had a tendency to be grade-A ignorant shitheads when loosed on a country, and who were not only fine with, but eager to commit atrocities of both the selfish and pointless kind.

So what makes them cooler?

[Salus Maior]

While I'll be the first one to admit that the Angelid Emperors were as good for Byzantium as Mugabe was for Zimbabwe, this doesn't give the Latins and Franks a pass to come in, sack our capital and then divy up our lands among them and subjugate our people for centuries.

A rare point of agreement. While the Franks were, objectively, cooler, they also had a tendency to be grade-A ignorant shitheads when loosed on a country, and who were not only fine with, but eager to commit atrocities of both the selfish and pointless kind.

Honestly that's just people. The Chinese in the late 19th century weren't much different when they flayed Japanese POW's and displayed their torn apart bodies publically during the first Sino-Japanese war.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

So what makes them cooler?

"We droppin’ on Cuzco, boys?"

[Salus Maior]

"We droppin’ on Cuzco, boys?"

Tbh, how Spain and the Conquistadors subjugated and treated the Incas is probably one of the greatest black spots in Christian history.