Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Kowani]

Lenin?

Are you kidding?

Yes.

[Nea Byzantia]

Are you kidding?

Yes.

Wasn't expecting that.

[Grenartia]

Did I stutter?

I just didn't get it.

Plz explain.

[Kowani]

Yes.

Wasn't expecting that.

Shock value!

[Hammer Britannia]

I just didn't get it.

Plz explain.

Cossacks were a culture in Russia known for their Calvary skills.

[Grenartia]

Plz explain.

Cossacks were a culture in Russia known for their Calvary skills.

Ok, and?

[Nea Byzantia]

I just didn't get it.

Plz explain.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

[Conserative Morality]

Cossacks were a culture in Russia known for their Calvary skills.

Ok, and?

The Tsars liked using them to run reds the fuck down when they protested in the streets.

[Nea Byzantia]

Ok, and?

The Tsars liked using them to run reds the fuck down when they protested in the streets.

[Transjlwanja]

Kim Jong-un seems to be doing just fine without paying too much attention to his citizenry.

I’m not Kim Jong-Un, now am I?
Also, he’s in a constant state of paranoia and another Cold War, as well as general economic fuckery and the risk of a coup or assassin, but nah.

If you were in his position, it would be in your best interest to do everything necessary to stay in power.

[Old Tyrannia]

Plz explain.

Cossacks were a culture in Russia known for their Calvary skills.

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

[Grenartia]

Plz explain.

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Only if one understands the picture.

Ok, and?

The Tsars liked using them to run reds the fuck down when they protested in the streets.

Good thing I'm not a Bolshevist, then.

[Erythrean Thebes]

>> implying Caesar wasn't a liberal
>> implying he wasn't a pro-immigrant imperialist who championed the lower classes against the excesses of the aristocracy and archaic traditions
>> implying though he conquered Gaul, Nicomedes didn't conquer Caesar

Caesar was a reformist so long as it suited his political, and social agenda.

He was not even a reformist. There were no reformists in ancient Rome. Offering sections of the ager Romanus to veterans and citizens was one of the foundations of the Republic and its perennial military conquest system since its inception. Tiberius Gracchus was a conservative-minded tribune who proposed to seize further land from the Italian allies and redistribute it to the burgeoning mass of Roman citizens in the countryside. Likewise, the grain handouts to residents of the city commonplace in the Late Republic were not some liberal agenda - any Roman politician seized the opportunity to perform one of these, including Cato the Younger.

No Roman nobilis can be demonstrated to genuinely have thought in terms of an ideology of promoting the welfare of the lower classes. The term plebs is commonly misunderstood. Its servile connotation dates to the original divide between religiously-auspicious patricians and the remaining mass of the people. Its now argued that the concilium plebis was probably just the comitia tributa and that the plebeian assembly was the legislative assembly comprised of all the people of Rome. Livy, who created the narrative of the Struggle of the Orders, is thought to have mostly invented the events according to Augustan propaganda. Politicians in the Late Republic like Gaius Marius or Tiberius Gracchus who tried to circumvent the Senate through the plebeian assembly were outmaneuvering rivals in the elite for their own elite ambitions, not engaging any sense of proletariat consciousness. The plebeian assembly included most everybody, including many nobiles who would never become patricians since the status was hereditary.

Moreover, Henrik Mouritsen's recent study reiterated the minuscule sample of the population which actually participated in the voting assemblies at Rome. For logistical reasons only a tiny fraction of eligible voters who either lived in the environs of the city or could organize a delegation to Rome actually showed up to take part in the block voting system of the comitia centuriata. Any time a general returned to Rome with his armies, he could usually dominate any votes at the time by disbanding his troops to pack the voting tribes with their superior numbers. That will say something about how small the numbers were in the first place. Overwhelmingly, the lower classes of Rome only counted for their mob action inside the city as a potential riot if they were offended.

The division between optimates and populares in the Late Republic was illusory. A politician was at different times a popularis as well as an optimate. In the first place, the terms aren't antipodes. Optimus merely referred to the high standing of a Roman noble and his respectability, his comment to the elite society's values. All Roman nobles wanted to think they were optimi. On the other hand, popularis was a term not necessarily pejorative as it is usually mischaracterized. The word was really a descriptor for a politician if he was presently engaging in a bid to cultivate the favor of the plebs. All Romans were supposed to care for their community and enhance its welfare, so even Cicero was occasionally described as being a popularis. Its pejorative connotation was not in the word itself, it was conveyed by the usage of the word, when Cicero used it with prejudice to describe the hostile moves of Caesar, Crassus, and the other powerful politicians of the day. If the powerbrokers in the Late Republic had not been populares, they would have been both bad politicians and bad Romans.

Nevertheless, agitation for the welfare of the people - although the vast resources of the Late Republican warlords enabled it to soar to a great height - was always just a window-dressing for the eternal parade of power-mongering that characterized the political career of Roman elites. In this society, the success of the individual in public life was really measured against the prestige of his ancestral lineage and the honors he had accrued during his time alive. It was not commonly measured against the common good except as a secondary descriptor. Caesar, Pompey, Octavian, Antony, Sulla, these men were all trying to cultivate the most possible honor, wealth, and glory for themselves personally. These things came from ruthlessly bidding for political power which translated into the deputation to lead armies for profitable conquest.

[Hammer Britannia]

Cossacks were a culture in Russia known for their Calvary skills.

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

They probably did tbh, filthy barbarians

[Nea Byzantia]

Cossacks were a culture in Russia known for their Calvary skills.

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

[Nova Cyberia]

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

what is your overall point here?

[Old Tyrannia]

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

They... Didn't.

[Nea Byzantia]

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

They... Didn't.

oh no? How did the Bristol Riots end? Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_riots

[Old Tyrannia]

They... Didn't.

oh no? How did the Bristol Riots end? Do tell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_riots

They certainly didn't end in people being crucified on hills.

[Napkizemlja]

Interesting, I didn't know the Cossacks enjoyed crucifying people on hills.

I didn't know British Dragoons liked to do the same.

OT is making a jab at HB misspelling cavalry as Calvary(aka Golgotha).

[Conserative Morality]

He was not even a reformist. There were no reformists in ancient Rome. Offering sections of the ager Romanus to veterans and citizens was one of the foundations of the Republic and its perennial military conquest system since its inception. Tiberius Gracchus was a conservative-minded tribune who proposed to seize further land from the Italian allies and redistribute it to the burgeoning mass of Roman citizens in the countryside.

lol

[Bienenhalde]

Can we go back to the fact that the foundation for monogamy is in secular Roman law, not Christian or Judaic law?

Aside from the influence of Roman law, the teaching of the New Testament is pretty insistent regarding the importance of monogamy.

[Conserative Morality]

Aside from the influence of Roman law, the teaching of the New Testament is pretty insistent regarding the importance of monogamy.

Yet the divine law of the Old Testament is pretty solid in allowing for polygamy. Furthermore, Paul was a Roman citizen with a knowledge of Roman law; and his statements on the matter are in reference to church leaders rather than blanket condemnations of polygamy or endorsements of monogamy.

[Fahran]

By the Renaissance the French Kings had an official mistress in addition to their wife.
We know the royal marriages of the Renaissance resulted in widely accepted infidelity.
If you could afford it you would only sleep with your wife to she had a son, then get a concubine (or two or three). If you were poor prostitution was rampant in Renaissance times.

The Renaissance actually represented a relative regression in the status of wives, daughters, and women more broadly because the re-invigoration of Roman customs and traditions such as the paterfamilias saw men wielding an increasing level of authority over female relatives. The early medieval period, at least in so far as the laws developed by the church were upheld over Germanic customs, dictated that women could veto a marriage proposed by their fathers and, furthermore, that aristocratic women often played a more pivotal role in setting up marital arrangements and in educating children. We can observe for instance that the institution of crusading seems to have often been passed down to younger sons by women from notable crusading families.

So that is not a good system, where you do not get officially divorced but stop seeing your wife for someone else anyways.

Concubinage was actually significantly reduced as Catholicism spread among peoples like the Franks, Lombards, and Normans. It was most often practiced by younger noblemen as a means of addressing their romantic needs at times when they could not achieve a profitable marriage, and it met with official condemnation from the clergy, who attempted to impose monogamous marriages on the elites. There's little doubt that the status of women improved by leaps and bounds moving from the Dark Ages to the Early Middle Ages, and that it was better in the Early Middle Ages than in the Classical Period by many metrics. The Renaissance reversed many of these gains, and they would not begin to resurface until well into the Early Modern Period.

Modern conservatives would find many Renaissance practices completely degenerate.

Now that being said a more collaborative system where the family helps choose the potential suitors but both parties can opt out is not necessarily a bad thing.

So, essentially, an Early Medieval or Indian system in the most idealized form?

For some people it is easy to find a wife or husband on their own, but for others it is much harder.
It should certainly be available as an option for those who want to participate.

I more or less agree. I actually like having the ability to date conventionally and choose my long-time romantic partner/future husband.

[Erythrean Thebes]

The Renaissance actually represented a relative regression in the status of wives, daughters, and women more broadly because the re-invigoration of Roman customs and traditions such as the paterfamilias saw men wielding an increasing level of authority over female relatives.

Good. The dominion of women is evil and denigrating