Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The European of today, in his essential worth, falls far below the European of the Renaissance.

Citation needed.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What are universals, and how are they arousing?

I'm a globalist.

Yes, but what are universals?

[Grenartia]

I have no idea what that is, but down with monarchs! WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!

That was the last that Comrade Gren was ever heard from again, because the socialist dictator they helped rise to power had them executed for wearing glasses.

Hana, when have you ever known me to support tankies?

[Dumb Ideologies]

I have no idea what that is, but down with monarchs! WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!

That was the last that Comrade Gren was ever heard from again, because the socialist dictator they helped rise to power had them executed for wearing glasses.

A great moral stain on the left. Never again. Any revolution that doesn't recognise the sanctity of glasses-moe must be resisted.

[Hanafuridake]

That was the last that Comrade Gren was ever heard from again, because the socialist dictator they helped rise to power had them executed for wearing glasses.

Hana, when have you ever known me to support tankies?

Socialists are like eggs. They hatch into Marxist-Leninists eventually.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Hana, when have you ever known me to support tankies?

Socialists are like eggs. They hatch into Marxist-Leninists eventually.

This is the left-wing version of the libertarian to alt-right pipeline. Both are wrong.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Socialists are like eggs. They hatch into Marxist-Leninists eventually.

This is the left-wing version of the libertarian to alt-right pipeline. Both are wrong.

We're all in the pipe, five by five.

[Grenartia]

Hana, when have you ever known me to support tankies?

Socialists are like eggs. They hatch into Marxist-Leninists eventually.

False.

Socialists are like eggs. They hatch into Marxist-Leninists eventually.

This is the left-wing version of the libertarian to alt-right pipeline. Both are wrong.

Actually, it has a basis in reality. What Hana said...doesn't.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

This is the left-wing version of the libertarian to alt-right pipeline. Both are wrong.

We're all in the pipe, five by five.

Except for Hitlerists and tankies, they've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Socialists are like eggs. They hatch into Marxist-Leninists eventually.

False.

This is the left-wing version of the libertarian to alt-right pipeline. Both are wrong.

Actually, it has a basis in reality. What Hana said...doesn't.

Both are wrong, imo. But it depends which qualifier you use. "Libertarians turn into Nazis" and "Libertarian Socialists turn into MLs" are both technically correct statements, but they're very muddled ones with no qualifiers. "All libertarians turn into Nazis" and "All Libertarian Socialists turn into MLs" on the other hand is demonstrably wrong. The qualifiers "a lot of" is also very nebulous and hard to prove or disprove. Which makes this general pipeline idea an unhelpful one to pursue, and I think we should judge ideologies by what they are, not what they have an alleged tendency to turn into.

[Totally Not OEP]

So I was thinking that sexual relations should be solely for reproduction, not for pleasure, and that marriages should be arranged according to the best interests of the family and the state without regard to romance and sexual attraction. Who here agrees with this idea?

It's an awful idea which would result in the breakdown of families because people are paired together who are not at all attracted to each other. I'm pretty sure that this would be a major violation of Christian beliefs on marriage too, considering that the husband and wife are supposed to become one flesh, which is kind of hard to do when you're being forced to marry blindly.

That's not backed up by studies and the Christian angle ignores that the idea marriages are based on one of "Love" is a modernist invention.

[Totally Not OEP]

Socialists, Bolsheviks, Libertarians, etc are irrelevant distinctions and any alleged pipelines are too; they all get suppression by the military forces of the state for the threat they pose.

[Dumb Ideologies]

False.



Actually, it has a basis in reality. What Hana said...doesn't.

Both are wrong, imo. But it depends which qualifier you use. "Libertarians turn into Nazis" and "Libertarian Socialists turn into MLs" are both technically correct statements, but they're very muddled ones with no qualifiers. "All libertarians turn into Nazis" and "All Libertarian Socialists turn into MLs" on the other hand is demonstrably wrong. The qualifiers "a lot of" is also very nebulous and hard to prove or disprove. Which makes this general pipeline idea an unhelpful one to pursue, and I think we should judge ideologies by what they are, not what they have an alleged tendency to turn into.

This is crazy, dangerous talk. We'd have to debate people on what their currently stated beliefs are not our fantasies of what they secretly believe/might believe in future. It would be chaos.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's an awful idea which would result in the breakdown of families because people are paired together who are not at all attracted to each other. I'm pretty sure that this would be a major violation of Christian beliefs on marriage too, considering that the husband and wife are supposed to become one flesh, which is kind of hard to do when you're being forced to marry blindly.

That's not backed up by studies and the Christian angle ignores that the idea marriages are based on one of "Love" is a modernist invention.

Is love a modernist invention?
Is marriage a modernist invention?
Were marriage and love completely separate concepts before modernism?

As I understand it the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding "no." Even if marriage for love was a modernist invention, that would just make it a pretty damn good modernist invention.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Socialists, Bolsheviks, Libertarians, etc are irrelevant distinctions and any alleged pipelines are too; they all get suppression by the military forces of the state for the threat they pose.

Isn't National Syndicalism a form of Socialism?

[Totally Not OEP]

That's not backed up by studies and the Christian angle ignores that the idea marriages are based on one of "Love" is a modernist invention.

Is love a modernist invention?
Is marriage a modernist invention?
Were marriage and love completely separate concepts before modernism?

As I understand it the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding "no." Even if marriage for love was a modernist invention, that would just make it a pretty damn good modernist invention.

The contemporary conception of love and marriage very much are modernist inventions. And yes, before present times, marriage and love very much were different concepts.

[Totally Not OEP]

Socialists, Bolsheviks, Libertarians, etc are irrelevant distinctions and any alleged pipelines are too; they all get suppression by the military forces of the state for the threat they pose.

Isn't National Syndicalism a form of Socialism?

No, as the name in of itself should imply; Socialism is international in character while National Syndicalism, as the name should suggest, doesn't and is specifically geared towards the preservation of the nation-state. In economic terms, likewise, National Syndicalism does not remove the market like Socialism. The 26 Point Program of the Spanish Falange is an excellent resource I'd recommend reading.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Is love a modernist invention?
Is marriage a modernist invention?
Were marriage and love completely separate concepts before modernism?

As I understand it the answer to all three of these questions is a resounding "no." Even if marriage for love was a modernist invention, that would just make it a pretty damn good modernist invention.

The contemporary conception of love and marriage very much are modernist inventions. And yes, before present times, marriage and love very much were different concepts.

If that is true, then modernism seems like an improvement in that regard.

[Totally Not OEP]

The contemporary conception of love and marriage very much are modernist inventions. And yes, before present times, marriage and love very much were different concepts.

If that is true, then modernism seems like an improvement in that regard.

As Benuty pointed out, it's really not and we have the data to back that up.

[Old Tyrannia]

So I was thinking that sexual relations should be solely for reproduction, not for pleasure, and that marriages should be arranged according to the best interests of the family and the state without regard to romance and sexual attraction. Who here agrees with this idea?

This is literally the state mandating sinful relationships.

You've absorbed unscriptural Catholic teachings about marriage and combined them with a brazen totalitarianism to produce something more resembling IngSoc than anything authentically Christian.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Isn't National Syndicalism a form of Socialism?

No, as the name in of itself should imply; Socialism is international in character while National Syndicalism, as the name should suggest, doesn't and is specifically geared towards the preservation of the nation-state. In economic terms, likewise, National Syndicalism does not remove the market like Socialism. The 26 Point Program of the Spanish Falange is an excellent resource I'd recommend reading.

I question what the massive distinction is that makes Socialism a threat worthy of shredding the first amendment over, but National Syndicalism the way forward.

[Totally Not OEP]

No, as the name in of itself should imply; Socialism is international in character while National Syndicalism, as the name should suggest, doesn't and is specifically geared towards the preservation of the nation-state. In economic terms, likewise, National Syndicalism does not remove the market like Socialism. The 26 Point Program of the Spanish Falange is an excellent resource I'd recommend reading.

I question what the massive distinction is that makes Socialism a threat worthy of shredding the first amendment over, but National Syndicalism the way forward.

Because Socialism is a threat to the nation-state, both through its internationalism and the class conflict it supports. I also, it should be clear, have no love for the First Amendment.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If that is true, then modernism seems like an improvement in that regard.

As Benuty pointed out, it's really not and we have the data to back that up.

I can't find Benuty's post. If you're referring to divorce rates, the high divorce rates we have are a result of it being very easy to initiate a divorce, not due to marriage for love being a popular idea.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I question what the massive distinction is that makes Socialism a threat worthy of shredding the first amendment over, but National Syndicalism the way forward.

Because Socialism is a threat to the nation-state, both through its internationalism and the class conflict it supports. I also, it should be clear, have no love for the First Amendment.

Is internationalism and class conflict reason enough to send the military on it?

What's wrong with the first amendment? Without it, any ideas at odds with the establishment including yours would likely not be tolerated.

[Totally Not OEP]

Because Socialism is a threat to the nation-state, both through its internationalism and the class conflict it supports. I also, it should be clear, have no love for the First Amendment.

Is internationalism and class conflict reason enough to send the military on it?

What's wrong with the first amendment? Without it, any ideas at odds with the establishment including yours would likely not be tolerated.

Yes.

Because it allows ideas the opposite of mine to exist and thus undermine the nation and its institutions.

As Benuty pointed out, it's really not and we have the data to back that up.

I can't find Benuty's post. If you're referring to divorce rates, the high divorce rates we have are a result of it being very easy to initiate a divorce, not due to marriage for love being a popular idea.

The two are intertwined and that should be obvious; when you marry solely based on a feeling, what is inevitable when said feelings recline as they inevitably do? This is why marriage until contemporary times was emphasized as an institution, not just as an expression of two individuals having feelings at that moment.