Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Minzerland II]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

[Hammer Britannia]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

*Cough*

DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. IT IS THE SONG OF A PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE SLAVES AGAIN.

[Duhon]

The most virtuous and publicly-minded.

Weak. Their monarchy is flawed and growing weaker, it might as well be overthrown.

A good emperor resigns.

True, but a better emperor would abolish his position.

Meh. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

[North German Realm]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

*Cough*

DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. IT IS THE SONG OF A PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE SLAVES AGAIN.

>Reinstates slavery less than 8 years later

[Nea Byzantia]

They both pretended to be Rome even though they obviously weren't?

Then you have the Ottoman Empire

They weren't even declared the heir to the Roman Empire by some Pope or something, they just conquered a city and said: "Fuck you, I'm Roman".

They didn't even hold the city of Rome, they just declared themselves Roman.

The Ottomans had literally ZERO relationship to the Greco-Roman Empire they conquered. They were nomadic Turkic hordes from the plains of Central Asia; who dressed like the Persians, worshipped like the Arabs, and ruled their Empire with all the cruelty and eye for extortion of the Mongol Khans. Calling the Ottoman Sultans the "successors of the Eastern Roman Empire" is the same as calling Alaric and the Goths "Roman", which is utterly ridiculous.

And its not the Pope who declares someone an heir of Rome; sorry Charlemagne - its continuity from the beginning that counts, and the only ones who can truly claim that is the Eastern Roman ( Byzantine) Empire. It was never about controlling the city of Rome; but about maintaining the Greco-Roman/Classical Civilization; and the Franks had nothing to do with that (at least not until Charlemagne's time). Only Constantinople did that from the very beginning; there was no break in continuity from the Augustan Principate even to the Palaiologos Emperos of the 13th - 15th centuries.

Tsarist Russia can trace itself as the "successor" of Constantinople, and that's more in terms of being the vanguard of the Orthodox Christian Civilization (stuck eternally between the Catholic-Protestant West, and the Islamic East) and the continuation of the Byzantine Legacy.

The way I see it, Western Europe and North America - which we broadly call the West is based off of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire (which is in turn based off Rome), and Russia is the descendant (in terms of culture, spirituality and mentality) of Byzantium (which is the continuation of Rome). Thus both trace themselves to the Mother Civilization of Classical Antiquity, and both claim it as their Birthright, and that the other is a bastard civilization. I think when one peels back all the politics and rhetoric, that is what is going on, if we're being honest.

To lay all my cards on the table, being Greek and being Orthodox, I'm naturally going to be arguing in favour of the Russo-Byzantine side. Because that's the side I'm coming from. Plus, I do genuinely believe they have the best case.

[Diopolis]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

*Cough*

DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. IT IS THE SONG OF A PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE SLAVES AGAIN.

TURN ON THE FIREHOSES!

[Nea Byzantia]

*Cough*

DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. IT IS THE SONG OF A PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE SLAVES AGAIN.

TURN ON THE FIREHOSES!

SEND IN THE DRAGOONS!

[Dumb Ideologies]

The most virtuous and publicly-minded.

Weak. Their monarchy is flawed and growing weaker, it might as well be overthrown.

He felt that he was unable to perform his role to a sufficient standard and chose to step aside. Such actions hardly bring the institution into disrepute - it should strengthen an institution when it produces individuals of good, unselfish character so unlike most democratic politicians of today.

[Minzerland II]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

*Cough*

DO YOU HEAR THE PEOPLE SING? SINGING THE SONG OF ANGRY MEN. IT IS THE SONG OF A PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE SLAVES AGAIN.

You gone an’ marched yourself into the wrong Vendée fool

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

[Minzerland II]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

[Hammer Britannia]

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

Are you trying to argue for Anarchism?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

Oligarchs cannot exist under full democracy and taxation in democracy is legitimate.

[Nea Byzantia]

>when the republicans are let out of their cages

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

(Note: Those cowering on the floor before Emperor Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" are all the corrupt oligarchs and politicians who got rich off the People. Basil used corporal punishment - blinding, torture and expropriation of property - to root out corruption and make sure the Government ran efficiently; he also protected the rights of the People; by which I mean the Peasants, Artisans, ordinary working folk. He stabilized the Empire during a time of crisis, and his reign was something of a Golden Age; not to mention the longest of any Byzantine Emperor; from 976 AD - 1025 AD. The only other people who ever came close to this in Modern Greek History was the Military Junta of 1967 - 1974. I might add that neither the Emperor nor the Junta believed in Democracy or Liberalism, and they managed to take good care of their People - better than any Democrat has ever managed. How is this possible? Democrats, discuss!)

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Then you have the Ottoman Empire

They weren't even declared the heir to the Roman Empire by some Pope or something, they just conquered a city and said: "Fuck you, I'm Roman".

They didn't even hold the city of Rome, they just declared themselves Roman.

The Ottomans had literally ZERO relationship to the Greco-Roman Empire they conquered. They were nomadic Turkic hordes from the plains of Central Asia; who dressed like the Persians, worshipped like the Arabs, and ruled their Empire with all the cruelty and eye for extortion of the Mongol Khans. Calling the Ottoman Sultans the "successors of the Eastern Roman Empire" is the same as calling Alaric and the Goths "Roman", which is utterly ridiculous.

And its not the Pope who declares someone an heir of Rome; sorry Charlemagne - its continuity from the beginning that counts, and the only ones who can truly claim that is the Eastern Roman ( Byzantine) Empire. It was never about controlling the city of Rome; but about maintaining the Greco-Roman/Classical Civilization; and the Franks had nothing to do with that (at least not until Charlemagne's time). Only Constantinople did that from the very beginning; there was no break in continuity from the Augustan Principate even to the Palaiologos Emperos of the 13th - 15th centuries.

Tsarist Russia can trace itself as the "successor" of Constantinople, and that's more in terms of being the vanguard of the Orthodox Christian Civilization (stuck eternally between the Catholic-Protestant West, and the Islamic East) and the continuation of the Byzantine Legacy.

The way I see it, Western Europe and North America - which we broadly call the West is based off of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire (which is in turn based off Rome), and Russia is the descendant (in terms of culture, spirituality and mentality) of Byzantium (which is the continuation of Rome). Thus both trace themselves to the Mother Civilization of Classical Antiquity, and both claim it as their Birthright, and that the other is a bastard civilization. I think when one peels back all the politics and rhetoric, that is what is going on, if we're being honest.

To lay all my cards on the table, being Greek and being Orthodox, I'm naturally going to be arguing in favour of the Russo-Byzantine side. Because that's the side I'm coming from. Plus, I do genuinely believe they have the best case.

I agree with you that Byzantium was Rome (why the fuck wouldn't it be, it was the exact same political entity), but why Russo-Byzantine? Russia has even less of a claim to the empire than the Ottomans did. At least the Ottomans kept the legal structure and actually owned some of the core provinces of Rome, all the czars did was marry a Byzantine princess at one point.

[Nea Byzantia]

The Ottomans had literally ZERO relationship to the Greco-Roman Empire they conquered. They were nomadic Turkic hordes from the plains of Central Asia; who dressed like the Persians, worshipped like the Arabs, and ruled their Empire with all the cruelty and eye for extortion of the Mongol Khans. Calling the Ottoman Sultans the "successors of the Eastern Roman Empire" is the same as calling Alaric and the Goths "Roman", which is utterly ridiculous.

And its not the Pope who declares someone an heir of Rome; sorry Charlemagne - its continuity from the beginning that counts, and the only ones who can truly claim that is the Eastern Roman ( Byzantine) Empire. It was never about controlling the city of Rome; but about maintaining the Greco-Roman/Classical Civilization; and the Franks had nothing to do with that (at least not until Charlemagne's time). Only Constantinople did that from the very beginning; there was no break in continuity from the Augustan Principate even to the Palaiologos Emperos of the 13th - 15th centuries.

Tsarist Russia can trace itself as the "successor" of Constantinople, and that's more in terms of being the vanguard of the Orthodox Christian Civilization (stuck eternally between the Catholic-Protestant West, and the Islamic East) and the continuation of the Byzantine Legacy.

The way I see it, Western Europe and North America - which we broadly call the West is based off of Charlemagne's Frankish Empire (which is in turn based off Rome), and Russia is the descendant (in terms of culture, spirituality and mentality) of Byzantium (which is the continuation of Rome). Thus both trace themselves to the Mother Civilization of Classical Antiquity, and both claim it as their Birthright, and that the other is a bastard civilization. I think when one peels back all the politics and rhetoric, that is what is going on, if we're being honest.

To lay all my cards on the table, being Greek and being Orthodox, I'm naturally going to be arguing in favour of the Russo-Byzantine side. Because that's the side I'm coming from. Plus, I do genuinely believe they have the best case.

I agree with you that Byzantium was Rome (why the fuck wouldn't it be, it was the exact same political entity), but why Russo-Byzantine? Russia has even less of a claim to the empire than the Ottomans did. At least the Ottomans kept the legal structure and actually owned some of the core provinces of Rome, all the czars did was marry a Byzantine princess at one point.

The answer is right under your nose...

Tsarist Russia can trace itself as the "successor" of Constantinople, and that's more in terms of being the vanguard of the Orthodox Christian Civilization (stuck eternally between the Catholic-Protestant West, and the Islamic East) and the continuation of the Byzantine Legacy.

And its not about controlling geographic territory; its about culture. The Ottomans were about as far away from the Greco-Roman Civilization/Culture as possible.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Who cares where the Roman Empire is? Ffs let’s just make it back in Rome. I couldn’t care less.

[Diopolis]

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

(Note: Those cowering on the floor before Emperor Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" are all the corrupt oligarchs and politicians who got rich off the People. Basil used corporal punishment - blinding, torture and expropriation of property - to root out corruption and make sure the Government ran efficiently; he also protected the rights of the People; by which I mean the Peasants, Artisans, ordinary working folk. He stabilized the Empire during a time of crisis, and his reign was something of a Golden Age; not to mention the longest of any Byzantine Emperor; from 976 AD - 1025 AD. The only other people who ever came close to this in Modern Greek History was the Military Junta of 1967 - 1974. I might add that neither the Emperor nor the Junta believed in Democracy or Liberalism, and they managed to take good care of their People - better than any Democrat has ever managed. How is this possible? Democrats, discuss!)

Often the regimes best for the people aren't democracies.

[Minzerland II]

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

Are you trying to argue for Anarchism?

Anarchism is worse than both. To be ruled by a Monarch is a naturally better position than to be ruled by Oligarchs and ‘the People’, unless that Monarch is a tyrant, then it is worse.

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

Oligarchs cannot exist under full democracy and taxation in democracy is legitimate.

>when the people fuck your people and steal your money instead

[Minzerland II]

Republicans need to read John of Salisbury and Aquinas smh

[Vrijstaat Limburg]

>when democratically elected oligarchs steal your money and fuck your people instead

Oligarchs cannot exist under full democracy and taxation in democracy is legitimate.

>"Full democracy!"<

Also known as mob rule and one of the most destructive and illogical forms of government, "full democracy" cannot provide a nation with security, stability or prosperity.

[Nea Byzantia]

Oligarchs cannot exist under full democracy and taxation in democracy is legitimate.

>"Full democracy!"<

Also known as mob rule and one of the most destructive and illogical forms of government, "full democracy" cannot provide a nation with security, stability or prosperity.

And neither does Oligarchy, for that matter...the Oligarchs are always rapacious, and being driven by Profit, they will eat away at their own Society; and sell you the rope with which to hang them, if it will mean making an extra buck.

[Painisia]

Are there any Venezuelans on NS, or is NS banned in Venezuela?

[Conserative Morality]

>when the monarchs don’t get to fuck with the people anymore and steal their money

(Note: Those cowering on the floor before Emperor Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" are all the corrupt oligarchs and politicians who got rich off the People. Basil used corporal punishment - blinding, torture and expropriation of property - to root out corruption and make sure the Government ran efficiently; he also protected the rights of the People; by which I mean the Peasants, Artisans, ordinary working folk. He stabilized the Empire during a time of crisis, and his reign was something of a Golden Age; not to mention the longest of any Byzantine Emperor; from 976 AD - 1025 AD. The only other people who ever came close to this in Modern Greek History was the Military Junta of 1967 - 1974. I might add that neither the Emperor nor the Junta believed in Democracy or Liberalism, and they managed to take good care of their People - better than any Democrat has ever managed. How is this possible? Democrats, discuss!)

>> when I wake up to some low-grade autocracy apologism

Tell me more about how the junta totally didn't arbitrarily arrest, murder, and torture thousands of Greek citizens on trumped-on charges. I also enjoy the rampant nepotism, corruption, waste, and factionalism during the seven short years of the regime.

Basil II was okay by the standards of his time, but I wouldn't attribute any greatness to him.

[Nea Byzantia]

(Note: Those cowering on the floor before Emperor Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer" are all the corrupt oligarchs and politicians who got rich off the People. Basil used corporal punishment - blinding, torture and expropriation of property - to root out corruption and make sure the Government ran efficiently; he also protected the rights of the People; by which I mean the Peasants, Artisans, ordinary working folk. He stabilized the Empire during a time of crisis, and his reign was something of a Golden Age; not to mention the longest of any Byzantine Emperor; from 976 AD - 1025 AD. The only other people who ever came close to this in Modern Greek History was the Military Junta of 1967 - 1974. I might add that neither the Emperor nor the Junta believed in Democracy or Liberalism, and they managed to take good care of their People - better than any Democrat has ever managed. How is this possible? Democrats, discuss!)

>> when I wake up to some low-grade autocracy apologism

Tell me more about how the junta totally didn't arbitrarily arrest, murder, and torture thousands of Greek citizens on trumped-on charges. I also enjoy the rampant nepotism, corruption, waste, and factionalism during the seven short years of the regime.

Basil II was okay by the standards of his time, but I wouldn't attribute any greatness to him.

Why not? What wasn't great about Basil? Why is he subpar in your eyes?