Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Kowani]

Natural allies are different from the same. Also not all fascists are evil or bad or racist. I just disagree with them for their economics. A commie would call them state capitalists or whatever- to me their still pseudo-socialists.

So here's a question unrelated to the previous discussion. Its for everybody, of course.

Who's interests is Trump really serving? Discuss.

His ego.

[Hanafuridake]

The Fascists of Italy notably got a lot of money from Southern Italian landlords - the traditional ruling elite - to keep peasants in line. Mussolini, despite earlier being a republican, made a pretty strong alliance with the King and the monarchist bloc by protecting them from the left. It's also worth noting that Badoglio's coup against Mussolini in 43, partially instigated by the King, was intended to preserve the Fascist system with the monarch at its centre.

And then Mussolini betrayed the king and went back to supporting the leftist revolutionary republican ideology he had advocated previously.

If that's what you want to call being imprisoned by Victor Emmanuel for no valid reason and being “rescued” by German forces who then threaten if you don't found a puppet government for them, they'll make the Italians “envy the fate of Poland.”

[Bienenhalde]

And then Mussolini betrayed the king and went back to supporting the leftist revolutionary republican ideology he had advocated previously.

If that's what you want to call being imprisoned by Victor Emmanuel for no valid reason and being “rescued” by German forces who then threaten if you don't found a puppet government for them, they'll make the Italians “envy the fate of Poland.”

Well, at least the king and other leaders had the good sense to realize that Mussolini was causing Italy more harm then good. But if he was kidnapped by Hitler's soldiers, then I suppose he cannot be blamed for whatever they forced him to do. I mean, obviously making an alliance with Nazi Germany was a bad idea in the first place, but considering that he ended up as their victim in a sense, maybe I should not be too hard on him.

[Greater Istanistan]

And then Mussolini betrayed the king and went back to supporting the leftist revolutionary republican ideology he had advocated previously.

Call it "leftist" if you must, but the RSI was, if anything, even more socially reactionary, racialist, and traditionalist than its predecessor. There's a reason Evola was most at home with it and why all the postwar Italian fascist revolutionaries looked back on it as an inspiration.

[Hanafuridake]

If that's what you want to call being imprisoned by Victor Emmanuel for no valid reason and being “rescued” by German forces who then threaten if you don't found a puppet government for them, they'll make the Italians “envy the fate of Poland.”

Well, at least the king and other leaders had the good sense to realize that Mussolini was causing Italy more harm then good. But if he was kidnapped by Hitler's soldiers, then I suppose he cannot be blamed for whatever they forced him to do. I mean, obviously making an alliance with Nazi Germany was a bad idea in the first place, but considering that he ended up as their victim in a sense, maybe I should not be too hard on him.

After 20 years of beating and imprisoning Italians who didn't subscribe to fascism, attacking Ethiopians with poison gas, and putting Slavs in concentration camps. What incredible good sense.

[Hanafuridake]

And then Mussolini betrayed the king and went back to supporting the leftist revolutionary republican ideology he had advocated previously.

Call it "leftist" if you must, but the RSI was, if anything, even more socially reactionary, racialist, and traditionalist than its predecessor. There's a reason Evola was most at home with it and why all the postwar Italian fascist revolutionaries looked back on it as an inspiration.

Evola hated the Italian Social Republic and criticized Mussolini for renouncing ties with the monarchy.

[Bienenhalde]

Well, at least the king and other leaders had the good sense to realize that Mussolini was causing Italy more harm then good. But if he was kidnapped by Hitler's soldiers, then I suppose he cannot be blamed for whatever they forced him to do. I mean, obviously making an alliance with Nazi Germany was a bad idea in the first place, but considering that he ended up as their victim in a sense, maybe I should not be too hard on him.

After 20 years of beating and imprisoning Italians who didn't subscribe to fascism, attacking Ethiopians with poison gas, and putting Slavs in concentration camps. What incredible good sense.

Well, I am not saying he was a particularly good king, but at least in the end he realized that trusting Mussolini was a mistake.

[Kowani]

After 20 years of beating and imprisoning Italians who didn't subscribe to fascism, attacking Ethiopians with poison gas, and putting Slavs in concentration camps. What incredible good sense.

Well, I am not saying he was a particularly good king, but at least in the end he realized that trusting Mussolini was a mistake.

In the end, he realized smoking was bad for him after he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
A bit late, methinks.

[Hanafuridake]

After 20 years of beating and imprisoning Italians who didn't subscribe to fascism, attacking Ethiopians with poison gas, and putting Slavs in concentration camps. What incredible good sense.

Well, I am not saying he was a particularly good king, but at least in the end he realized that trusting Mussolini was a mistake.

Strange that Emmanuel only stopped trusting Mussolini when it was bad for him, and not when it was bad for his people, other people, or the world.

[Duhon]

Well, I am not saying he was a particularly good king, but at least in the end he realized that trusting Mussolini was a mistake.

Strange that Emmanuel only stopped trusting Mussolini when it was bad for him, and not when it was bad for his people, other people, or the world.

"... but he wanted to build up a new Roman empire! I mean, sure, he was an asshole, a tyrannical dolt who couldn't back his talk, but who could refuse such a generous offer? Would you? I sure didn't."

[Napkizemlja]

Tbh sometimes I think the best way to save the Canadian monarchy is to hand it to someone else from the House of Windsor as a cadet branch. Harry would make a good choice.

[Bear Stearns]

Donaldson Luftkin Jenrette
Drexel Burnham Lambert
Alex Brown & Co.
Bear Stearns
Shearson Lehman Hammill
Kidder Peabody, & Co.

The boys, one and all.

[Duhon]

Tbh sometimes I think the best way to save the Canadian monarchy is to hand it to someone else from the House of Windsor as a cadet branch. Harry would make a good choice.

What's wrong with the system as is?

[Old Tyrannia]

Protestants didn't even come into existence until 500 or so years after the Papists split the Church; and as for the Roman Catholics; they changed a lot over those 500 years. Rome, in the first 1,000 years of Christianity was Orthodox; not the other way around - Orthodoxy was not Catholic or Protestant. Never was; never will be.

Anyways, sh*tposting aside; I'm genuinely curious; which gods do you worship?

Mahavairocana, Kangiten, Inari, and Kokuzo Bosatsu.

You have the option to worship literal dragon gods, and you pick these guys instead? What are you even doing with your life?

[Hanafuridake]

Mahavairocana, Kangiten, Inari, and Kokuzo Bosatsu.

You have the option to worship literal dragon gods, and you pick these guys instead? What are you even doing with your life?

[Napkizemlja]

Tbh sometimes I think the best way to save the Canadian monarchy is to hand it to someone else from the House of Windsor as a cadet branch. Harry would make a good choice.

What's wrong with the system as is?

They aren't considered Canadian and whatnot. People dislike the idea of a "foreign" Queen etc etc. One of the reasons given to abolish the monarchy. Maybe having our "own" royal family would improve its prospects, though funnily enough it'd cost us more than just keeping the system as is. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Tbh once Canada becomes a republic (since it most likely will in my lifetime) the Western provinces might as well just split off and join the US as far as I'm concerned.

[Asherahan]

You have the option to worship literal dragon gods, and you pick these guys instead? What are you even doing with your life?

What is the plot lady called?

[Fahran]

>> when Salic law is now a Renaissance institution

10/10

Salic law and inheritance wasn't really the institution to which I was referring. I was emphasizing the role of guilds in limiting the economic opportunities of women towards the close of the High Middle Ages, a phenomena documented and studied by both historians and medievalists. Additionally, the revitalization of the paterfamilias, a tradition inherited from Rome, saw the increasing prominence of the father's mastery over the family. While this was never as fully actualized as it was under the Republic, it did result in a de facto decline in the rights and autonomy of women compared to the High Middle Ages. And Salic law being more fully implemented didn't help matters.

>And which classics were those, again?

Literally any and all of them depicted women in the traditional Roman manner. This notion that the classical period was a lovely time for women is a bit of apologia. Marriage conditions were the same or worse compared to those of medieval women. The marriageable age was a low as twelve for aristocratic women and was late adolescence or early adulthood for non-aristocrats. Women were subject to the authority of their fathers or husbands at all times. Gender roles were arguably more restrictive. Women couldn't refuse a marriage unless they had a good motive and could point to some defect in a potential husband's character. The medieval period, theoretically, offered a bit more freedom with regard to denying spouses since you had to say "yes." It wasn't enough to just not be able to give a convincing reason for a "no."

>Women and the guilds coexisted for quite some time before the decline in women's rights. What made the change was the increasing interest of the national polity run by kings and nobles to bring the cities in line with the legal and moral standards of the feudal structure, largely based on Salic law.

Yes, and towards the beginning of the Renaissance the power of guilds became more concentrated and formalized, giving them a greater capacity to restrict women from the marketplace and economic competition. Margaret C. Schaus discusses this phenomenon in "Women and gender in medieval Europe: an encyclopedia." Some of this was based on Salic law, some of it was based on the increased influence and status of male-dominated guilds and the emergence of the mercantile class as a political and social base.

Not one on a familial level.

There are historians and medievalists who would disagree based on the frequency of crusading occurring within particular families based on matrilineal descent.

Since fucking when? Concubinage was fucking rampant, even amongst the clergy, until the 13th-14th centuries.

Yes, but it was no longer seen as morally acceptable. We can observe a shift from the chroniclers describing the multiple concubines of Charlemagne, as though this were a perfectly normal convention, to the Church largely promoting monogamous marriage, with one cleric referring to concubines charmingly as "one-man whores." This represents the beginning of the concept of modern monogamous marriage and the waves of Puritanism that came in the modern period would enshrine it more strongly. This trend led to wives having a more secure status and to a lesser degree of concubinage, at least comparatively. Or can you point to an English king of the High Middle Ages having six or seven life-long concubines and it being seen as normal and morally acceptable?

>No, the marriageable age in England was, from the 12th to the 19th century, 12. The average age is estimated in the early 20s for the common folk; and much lower for the nobility - a criticism you cast at Ancient Rome as a 'contrast' later in your post.

I've seen it put around thirteen or fourteen for medieval noblewomen prior to the Renaissance, making it somewhat later than the marriageable age of Roman noblewomen. The Black Death seems to have lowered the age somewhat, at least for commoners.

>"Consent" is a pretty generous term for what amounted to "Marry this guy or we'll send you off to a convent".

Still better than the Roman equivalent honestly. Like I said, you had to cite a character defect to refuse consent to a marriage up until and even past the time of the Principate.

>... because the minimum age of marriage was the same as it was in the Principate, and because they needed consent, like in the Principate?

>Implying consent was as flexible in the Principate

>Manus marriage was dead by the Late Republic even in the upper classes, much less the Principate, and it didn't make a revival.

Yes, but the Late Republic wasn't the entirety of the Classical Period and we got the wonderfully restrictive laws of Augustus by the time of the Principate.

[Hanafuridake]

Out of curiosity, Fahran, what's your stance on Jesus & Christianity? As a Jewish conservative in America, you've given a lot of credit to Christianity for it's role in Western civilization, as a lot of other Jewish conservatives have. I just wondered how you personally felt about the religion and its founder as a whole, since you don't believe it's true.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Anyway, I'd like to wish everyone here a happy V-E Day!

[Conserative Morality]

Still better than the Roman equivalent honestly. Like I said, you had to cite a character defect to refuse consent to a marriage up until and even past the time of the Principate.

>... because the minimum age of marriage was the same as it was in the Principate, and because they needed consent, like in the Principate?

>Implying consent was as flexible in the Principate

I don't feel like getting into most of this except for this absolute bullshit. Literally untrue; not only could women and men freely refuse marriage without a given reason, but they could also, by the time of the Principate, likewise dissolve the marriage without a given reason.

[Fahran]

[qI don't feel like getting into most of this except for this absolute bullshit. Literally untrue; not only could women and men freely refuse marriage without a given reason, but they could also, by the time of the Principate, likewise dissolve the marriage without a given reason.

Beryl Rawson, writing in "The Roman Family", suggests that a daughter required some evidence of a legitimate character defect to decline a marriage. Mind you, I'm relying on a particular set of historians and medievalists to make these assertions given that my own knowledge on such matters has largely been limited until rather recently. If my sources or reading of them is flawed, my understanding will necessarily be flawed.

[Fahran]

Out of curiosity, Fahran, what's your stance on Jesus & Christianity? As a Jewish conservative in America, you've given a lot of credit to Christianity for it's role in Western civilization, as a lot of other Jewish conservatives have. I just wondered how you personally felt about the religion and its founder as a whole, since you don't believe it's true.

Jesus wasn't the mashiach since he didn't fulfill the prophesies associated with the mashiach and Christianity is a religion that is largely alien in its precepts to Judaism. I do respect Christianity, especially certain theologians, philosophers, and jurists who set the foundation for the society in which I currently live, but I don't accept it as my faith and believe, to a significant degree, that it is incorrect about the nature of G-d and the universe. I actually view Judaism as more similar to Islam, a religion which I respect while likewise believing it to be incorrect, but we're still our own thing.

[Conserative Morality]

[qI don't feel like getting into most of this except for this absolute bullshit. Literally untrue; not only could women and men freely refuse marriage without a given reason, but they could also, by the time of the Principate, likewise dissolve the marriage without a given reason.

Beryl Rawson, writing in "The Roman Family", suggests that a daughter required some evidence of a legitimate character defect to decline a marriage. Mind you, I'm relying on a particular set of historians and medievalists to make these assertions given that my own knowledge on such matters has largely been limited until rather recently. If my sources or reading of them is flawed, my understanding will necessarily be flawed.

Did you mean: Theodosian Code?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Out of curiosity, Fahran, what's your stance on Jesus & Christianity? As a Jewish conservative in America, you've given a lot of credit to Christianity for it's role in Western civilization, as a lot of other Jewish conservatives have. I just wondered how you personally felt about the religion and its founder as a whole, since you don't believe it's true.

Jesus wasn't the mashiach since he didn't fulfill the prophesies associated with the mashiach and Christianity is a religion that is largely alien in its precepts to Judaism. I do respect Christianity, especially certain theologians, philosophers, and jurists who set the foundation for the society in which I currently live, but I don't accept it as my faith and believe, to a significant degree, that it is incorrect about the nature of G-d and the universe. I actually view Judaism as more similar to Islam, a religion which I respect while likewise believing it to be incorrect, but we're still our own thing.

Interesting. Could I just ask, in what ways is Judaism more similar to Islam than to Christianity?