Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The Suomi are not rightful Roman clay -- no emperor, no Rome, period --

Yes, Inquisitor, this heretic right here

Are you saying Finland isn't the heir of the Roman Empire.

Any succession chart that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor is just wrong

Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor, but the emperor in Constantinople was still the true emperor.
Also, the Carolingian Empire didn't last long enough to be a rightful heir to Rome, and the HRE was neither H, nor R, nor an E.

[Valrifell]

The Suomi are not rightful Roman clay -- no emperor, no Rome, period --

Yes, Inquisitor, this heretic right here

Any succession chart that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor is just wrong

Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor, but the emperor in Constantinople was still the true emperor.
Also, the Carolingian Empire didn't last long enough to be a rightful heir to Rome, and the HRE was neither H, nor R, nor an E.

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

[Torrocca]

Yes, Inquisitor, this heretic right here

Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor, but the emperor in Constantinople was still the true emperor.
Also, the Carolingian Empire didn't last long enough to be a rightful heir to Rome, and the HRE was neither H, nor R, nor an E.

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

As a Byzantine aestheticist I feel incredibly attacked right now.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No, I said that irreligious have no foundations for their morality.

A religious foundation for morality is not the only foundation for morality.

It's the only stable one.

Secular democratic societies have a big problem with the hollow nature of relativistic and majoritarian ethics. That said, religious-based models only work so long as the majority practise the same variant of the same religion, otherwise it collapses into "well my dude says different".

Hence why different law codes should be enforced for tys religious and irreligious.

In that sense, religious-based models are just as majoritarian as secular models, if not more.

Religiously majoritarian society is the ideal model to minimise the scope for persecution and certain political tensions.

minimise the scope for persecution

You're country has a problem if it can't treat people justly.

It gets increasingly harder to take the claim that you and Minzerland are different people seriously when you only post to defend or reinforce what he says.

That’s probably because we’re very similar people.

^This. The dudes are twins, for Pete's sake.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yes, Inquisitor, this heretic right here

Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor, but the emperor in Constantinople was still the true emperor.
Also, the Carolingian Empire didn't last long enough to be a rightful heir to Rome, and the HRE was neither H, nor R, nor an E.

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

Everybody at the time agreed that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire (the terms "Byzantine Empire" and even "Eastern Roman Empire" originated post-1453). The Pope was simply saying that "this is the better Roman Empire".
You can't be the "rightful heir to the Roman Empire" if the Roman Empire still exists, can you? :thonk:

[Hanafuridake]

Are you saying Finland isn't the heir of the Roman Empire.

No king, no Rome, yo --

Tarquin, go home, you're drunk.

[Duhon]

No king, no Rome, yo --

Tarquin, go home, you're drunk.

If I'm Tarquin, who's the Finnish king?

[Salus Maior]

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

Everybody at the time agreed that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire (the terms "Byzantine Empire" and even "Eastern Roman Empire" originated post-1453). The Pope was simply saying that "this is the better Roman Empire".
You can't be the "rightful heir to the Roman Empire" if the Roman Empire still exists, can you? :thonk:

More like Charlemagne was the rightful Western Roman Emperor.

[Genivaria]

Hot Take:

Also good morning everyone, where's my bloody coffee?

[Nea Byzantia]

Yes, Inquisitor, this heretic right here

Charlemagne was the Holy Roman Emperor, but the emperor in Constantinople was still the true emperor.
Also, the Carolingian Empire didn't last long enough to be a rightful heir to Rome, and the HRE was neither H, nor R, nor an E.

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

Ridiculous. How can the people who sacked Rome (or their descendants) be Rome?

[Totally Not OEP]

Jesus fuckin' Christ, it's like you have no idea what you're talking about. Of fucking course a well-developed defensive system is going to see a kill ratio in favor of the defenders regardless of who the fuck's running it. You don't need to be a fucking military genius or an elite 720-no-scope professional soldier to accurately fire an AT gun at a tank or a machine gun at infantry trying to cross a deliberately-flooded plain and a river.

As I said, and others likewise pointed out, if old men and boys could construct defenses sufficient to stop a fully mechanized Soviet offensive, complete with tanks, air superiority, better logistics and overwhelming numbers, that's downright embarrassing. Whether or not the Germans were in a defensive system is irrelevant to the fact that said defensive system was made by complete amateurs, who then managed to inflict a serious battle upon professionals. If the RKKA is the Ubermensch you seem convinced they are, this shouldn't have happened.

How about the simple fact that the Nazi plan for the USSR basically broke down into, "lolol if we hit Moscow the subhumans will totally give up and then we'll be free to genocide them as we please!!1!" which subsequently went tits over ass in regards to the fierce partisan resistance put up in the rear lines and the fiercer resistance put up on the frontline as soon as the Soviets stabilized the situation?

How about the fact that the moment the Nazis began to be stopped from continuing their offensives or even pushed back, they couldn't fucking recover from no longer being on the offensive and could only send stupidly suicidal and worthless attacks against their enemies, like at Kursk, Bastogne, or the Battle of Britain?

How about the fact that all the Nazis produced for vehicles and weaponry happened to be, except in a few cases, over-engineered bullshit that had the propensity to burst into transmission fires a couple of miles out of the factories and was frequently incapable of being repaired due to constant, constant changes in parts and designs on the assembly lines?

Or how about the fact that the Nazis built a notoriously shitty alliance system that was more detrimental to the war effort than helpful in any given capacity, especially compared to the alliance of the Allies?

Or what about the fact that the Nazis (and thus the Wehrmacht) lost the only war they ever significantly fought? It sure doesn't reflect well for the "most formidable army of the time" if they couldn't even win their only war of note.

I like how you completely failed to defend your original points, and attempted to obfuscate quite badly with showing how little you actually know about the course of the Second World War. You're going to have a very fun time in College, Torrocca.

[Genivaria]

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

Ridiculous. How can the people who sacked Rome (or their descendants) be Rome?

Let's be honest here The Romans were a bunch of degenerate, slaving, perverts obsessed with wealth.
So obviously the Venetians are the true heirs to Rome.

[Nea Byzantia]

Ridiculous. How can the people who sacked Rome (or their descendants) be Rome?

Let's be honest here The Romans were a bunch of degenerate, slaving, perverts obsessed with wealth.
So obviously the Venetians are the true heirs to Rome.

Lagoon-Dwellers

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Hot Take:

(Image)

Also good morning everyone, where's my bloody coffee?

Good afternoon (It's currently 13:46 in my time zone), Genivaria. I have a hot take of my own.

Hot take: the United States is the current inheritor of the mantle of "Roman Empire".

[Genivaria]

Hot Take:

(Image)

Also good morning everyone, where's my bloody coffee?

Good afternoon (It's currently 13:46 in my time zone), Genivaria. I have a hot take of my own.

Hot take: the United States is the current inheritor of the mantle of "Roman Empire".

That's not a hot take, that's reality.

[Baltenstein]

The Emperor in Constantinople was a greek pretender, Charlemagne had the support of the Pontifex Maximus in Rome. Since the Emperor is the protector of the Christian faithful, his appointee is the rightful heir to Rome.
...
So what if this argument implies the Orthodox Christians are heretics.

Everybody at the time agreed that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire (the terms "Byzantine Empire" and even "Eastern Roman Empire" originated post-1453).

Actually, Western European and/or Catholic scholars of the Middle Ages did like to throw around the terms "Greece", "Greek Empire" etc when referring to the Byzantine Empire. The implication being that the guys in Constantinople weren't reeeaally the Roman Empire, the guys in Germany were.

[Nea Byzantia]

Everybody at the time agreed that the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire (the terms "Byzantine Empire" and even "Eastern Roman Empire" originated post-1453).

Actually, Western European and/or Catholic scholars of the Middle Ages did like to throw around the terms "Greece", "Greek Empire" etc when referring to the Byzantine Empire. The implication being that the guys in Constantinople weren't reeeaally the Roman Empire, the guys in Germany were.

Despite the fact that the guys in Germany were descended from the guys who sacked Rome in the first place.

[Fahran]

Good afternoon (It's currently 13:46 in my time zone), Genivaria. I have a hot take of my own.

Hot take: the United States is the current inheritor of the mantle of "Roman Empire".

That's not a hot take, that's reality.

I agree. Reality has a pro-American bias.

[Genivaria]

That's not a hot take, that's reality.

I agree. Reality has a pro-American bias.

Shameful that the only reason we didn't annex Mexico is because of racism.

[Hanafuridake]

The idea that the monarch should serve the nation or state is weird. How do you serve yourself?

I get the monarch being conflated with the state since that logically follows from absolutism and the old adages of rulers like Louis XIV, but, with regard to the nation, is this the result of viewing the monarch as an incarnation of the national spirit?

“Incarnation of the national spirit” implies that there is some duality between the nation and the Emperor. There is no distinction. The Emperor is the nation as a living person.

[Genivaria]

I get the monarch being conflated with the state since that logically follows from absolutism and the old adages of rulers like Louis XIV, but, with regard to the nation, is this the result of viewing the monarch as an incarnation of the national spirit?

“Incarnation of the national spirit” implies that there is some duality between the nation and the Emperor. There is no distinction. The Emperor is the nation as a living person.

What an odd notion, that completely goes against the meaning of the word nation.
A nation can't be one person.

[Baltenstein]

Actually, Western European and/or Catholic scholars of the Middle Ages did like to throw around the terms "Greece", "Greek Empire" etc when referring to the Byzantine Empire. The implication being that the guys in Constantinople weren't reeeaally the Roman Empire, the guys in Germany were.

Despite the fact that the guys in Germany were descended from the guys who sacked Rome in the first place.

Nah, those were other Germans, bad ones (from the Pope's point of view). The Franks were good boi Germans who saved the Papacy from the bad gai Lombards.

[Teveen]

Are you saying Finland isn't the heir of the Roman Empire.

Any succession chart that doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Charlemagne as Roman Emperor is just wrong

Charlamains "Holy Roman Empire" was neither Holy or Roman, in fact, it wasn't much of an empire either. The last of the Roman empires holdouts fell with Constantinople, all others who lay claim to it are Liars hoping to either gain legitimacy through the prestige of a better nation or bolster their hubris as they lay claim to a legacy that was never theirs to claim.

[Novus America]

I'm pretty sure that Finland had a far more efficient military machine than the Nazis did by basically every metric. The kill:death ratio in the Winter War is something like 5:1 in favor of the Finns. That doesn't mean that Finland is any kind of superpower, nor does it mean that it was the most powerful nation of WW2.

Tbf it does say some really questionable things about Stalin's military planning skills, especially when you look into why Finland did so well early in the Winter War

Stalin or military planning and skills. Pick one and only one.

Seriously Stalin was an idiot when it came to military matters.
The only thing he did right was after he totally screwed everything up he finally realized it and let generals like Zhukov handle it.

[Genivaria]

Tbf it does say some really questionable things about Stalin's military planning skills, especially when you look into why Finland did so well early in the Winter War

Stalin or military planning and skills. Pick one and only one.

Seriously Stalin was an idiot when it came to military matters.
The only thing he did right was after he totally screwed everything up he finally realized it and let generals like Zhukov handle it.

Huh overly centralizing command and not allowing ANY fucking initiative at the local level makes for an inflexible and weak military, who knew?