Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

As a side note, I thought that Atomwaffen was just an urban legend, like a boogeyman or something of that sort. I'm immensely disturbed to know that it's a real terrorist network. Anyway, my shift starts at 16:00 and it's currently 13:18. I need to get ready.

Odds are, no matter how bad you think humans are, there are some that are worse.

[Diopolis]

Golf clapping?

Because you can't have a democracy with two people, and same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.

Why shouldn't a woman who's more qualified than the average cadet be able to join the military?

Gnothi Sauton.

Then why not have two votes per household?

What would you say to a stable loving homosexual couple of two men equally qualified to vote? Which one of them gets the vote?

A voter should be beyond reproach in conduct. This would naturally exclude active homosexuals, along with adulterers, deadbeat dads, etc. I'm actually partial to the idea of requiring a man to be a father before he can vote, although not sure about it.

[Diopolis]

I don't exactly consider nationalism and patriotism synonymous with one another. Very closely linked for sure, but different still.

I feel quite comfortable describing myself as a nationalist or an ultranationalist even but I'm not quite sure I could call myself a patriot as I feel little love for the American republic as it currently exists.

I have something close to the opposite problem. I'm a Texan patriot, albeit not totally sold on the idea of nationalism yet. I am not a US patriot or nationalist, and what little love I have for America is because Texas happens to be a part of it.

All the great men of history pass down their souls into all of us; those millions who are heirs to their spirit and their thinking. We are all, in a sense, reincarnations of these great souls, and reflect both their origin and their continued development within us.

No I don't actually believe that but it's a nice intro innit?

OT - the heir of Benjamin Disraeli

Nea Byzantia - the heir of Constantine

UMN - the heir of Leo Tolstoy

WRA - the heir of Ted Kaczynski Cato The Younger

Salus Maior - the heir of Casimir The Great

Novus America - the heir of Teddy Roosevelt

Hanafuridake - the heir of Emperor Komei

Bienenhalde - the heir of Frederick The Great

Diopolis - the heir of Charles Maurras

No General Franco?

[Kowani]

Why shouldn't a woman who's more qualified than the average cadet be able to join the military?

Gnothi Sauton.

Then why not have two votes per household?

What would you say to a stable loving homosexual couple of two men equally qualified to vote? Which one of them gets the vote?

A voter should be beyond reproach in conduct. This would naturally exclude active homosexuals, along with adulterers, deadbeat dads, etc. I'm actually partial to the idea of requiring a man to be a father before he can vote, although not sure about it.

If we applied those standards to officeholding, Washington wouldn’t have been president.

[Diopolis]

Gnothi Sauton.

A voter should be beyond reproach in conduct. This would naturally exclude active homosexuals, along with adulterers, deadbeat dads, etc. I'm actually partial to the idea of requiring a man to be a father before he can vote, although not sure about it.

If we applied those standards to officeholding, Washington wouldn’t have been president.

And?

[Kowani]

If we applied those standards to officeholding, Washington wouldn’t have been president.

And?

Your standards are completely arbitrary, and terrible indicators of one’s actual character.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

And?

Your standards are completely arbitrary, and terrible indicators of one’s actual character.

I'm genuinely confused, mate; don't you maintain "character" to be arbitrary, given that you're (in terms of ethical theory) a moral nihilist and (in terms of moral practice) an egoistic hedonist?

[Novus America]

Chad Friedrich List > virgin Adam Smith.
Change my mind.

(actually you cannot because this is obviously correct )

[Nea Byzantia]

Chad Friedrich List > virgin Adam Smith.
Change my mind.

(actually you cannot because this is obviously correct )

Why would I? I agree.

[Kowani]

Your standards are completely arbitrary, and terrible indicators of one’s actual character.

I'm genuinely confused, mate; don't you maintain "character" to be arbitrary, given that you're (in terms of ethical theory) a moral nihilist and (in terms of moral practice) an egoistic hedonist?

Yes, but even under Dio’s system of Christian Morality, the standards he has imposed are terrible ways to judge one’s character under that same system.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Chad Friedrich List > virgin Adam Smith.
Change my mind.

(actually you cannot because this is obviously correct )

Why would I? I agree.

I’m only familiar with List’s work in passing, namely the placing of tariffs upon imported goods combined with a somewhat laissez-faire approach to domestic affairs. Am I mistaken or do I have the general gist of things?

[Nea Byzantia]

Why would I? I agree.

I’m only familiar with List’s work in passing, namely the placing of tariffs upon imported goods combined with a somewhat laissez-faire approach to domestic affairs. Am I mistaken or do I have the general gist of things?

Yeah, you got the gist of List.

[Novus America]

Why would I? I agree.

I’m only familiar with List’s work in passing, namely the placing of tariffs upon imported goods combined with a somewhat laissez-faire approach to domestic affairs. Am I mistaken or do I have the general gist of things?

That is the most basic of it.
The idea is that internal trade should be largely free as it it all contributes to the growth of the same country, and there should not be drastic differences regarding laws and development (so no race to the bottom) but that external trade does not have these conditions so protectionism is needed, especially when trading with a place with an extremely different level of development or that is not politically compatible.

He also supported government investment in industry and infrastructure.

As far as the cost of the tariff he points out it is simply an investment in the future of the country, and that the long term health of the country is more important than immediate self gratification.

Increasing production and living standards long term is more important than the immediate accumulation of speculative capital.

It was the basis of US economic policy up to the 70s. Hamilton and others built the American School of Economics and the American System based on List’s theories.

It only made the US overwhelming successful.
Abandoning it in the name of Smith’s free trade in the 70s on the other hand lead to massive wealth inequality, stagnant wages, and deindustrialization.

Meanwhile the PRC and others embraced List to beat us economically.

[Nea Byzantia]

I’m only familiar with List’s work in passing, namely the placing of tariffs upon imported goods combined with a somewhat laissez-faire approach to domestic affairs. Am I mistaken or do I have the general gist of things?

That is the most basic of it.
The idea is that internal trade should be free as it it all contributes to the growth of the same country, and there should not be drastic differences regarding laws and development (so no race to the bottom) but that external trade does not have these conditions so protectionism is needed, especially when trading with a place with and extremely different level of development or that is not politically compatible.

He also supported government investment in industry and infrastructure.

As far as the cost of the tariff he points out it is simply an investment in the future of the country, and that the long term health of the country is more important than immediate self gratification.

It was the basis of US economic policy up to the 70s. Hamilton and others built the American School of Economics and the American System based on List’s theories.

It only made the US overwhelming successful.
Abandoning it in the name of Smith’s free trade in the 70s on the other hand lead to massive wealth inequality, stagnant wages, and deindustrialization.

Meanwhile the PRC and others embraced List to beat us economically.

In other words, List wanted Capitalism to the benefit of the Nation, not to the detriment of the Nation.

[Diopolis]

I'm genuinely confused, mate; don't you maintain "character" to be arbitrary, given that you're (in terms of ethical theory) a moral nihilist and (in terms of moral practice) an egoistic hedonist?

Yes, but even under Dio’s system of Christian Morality, the standards he has imposed are terrible ways to judge one’s character under that same system.

TBH I would've preferred sticking with the articles of confederacy.

[Novus America]

That is the most basic of it.
The idea is that internal trade should be free as it it all contributes to the growth of the same country, and there should not be drastic differences regarding laws and development (so no race to the bottom) but that external trade does not have these conditions so protectionism is needed, especially when trading with a place with and extremely different level of development or that is not politically compatible.

He also supported government investment in industry and infrastructure.

As far as the cost of the tariff he points out it is simply an investment in the future of the country, and that the long term health of the country is more important than immediate self gratification.

It was the basis of US economic policy up to the 70s. Hamilton and others built the American School of Economics and the American System based on List’s theories.

It only made the US overwhelming successful.
Abandoning it in the name of Smith’s free trade in the 70s on the other hand lead to massive wealth inequality, stagnant wages, and deindustrialization.

Meanwhile the PRC and others embraced List to beat us economically.

In other words, List wanted Capitalism to the benefit of the Nation, not to the detriment of the Nation.

Yes. That is an excellent summary.
He goes into much greater detail of course of why and how, but that sums it up nicely.

[Nea Byzantia]

In other words, List wanted Capitalism to the benefit of the Nation, not to the detriment of the Nation.

Yes. That is an excellent summary.
He goes into much greater detail of course of why and how, but that sums it up nicely.

But you have to be a Nationalist and love your Nation to be in favour of such policy.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Yes, but even under Dio’s system of Christian Morality, the standards he has imposed are terrible ways to judge one’s character under that same system.

TBH I would've preferred sticking with the articles of confederacy.

The Articles of Confederation? Really? I’m surprised, tbh; it doesn’t seem like a set of laws that you’d be in favor of, at least from my knowledge of you.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

As a side note, I thought that Atomwaffen was just an urban legend, like a boogeyman or something of that sort. I'm immensely disturbed to know that it's a real terrorist network. Anyway, my shift starts at 16:00 and it's currently 13:18. I need to get ready.

They far right looks like a meme, but they usually aren't bluffing. To any sane person, they're out of their minds and are pretty cringy too. That doesn't change that they are real and eager to kill.

As for the poll, I am bothered when people suggest there is no difference. Patriotism is loyalty and respect to your home and the people who have fought for the goals of your home. You don't have to be native to there, you don't have believe in superiority, and you don't have to agree with everything your current leader says. I support our troops, wish to uphold ideals of freedom and (admittedly, partial) democracy, and respect emblems of America's pride and I don't respect state actors who make moves to hurt the American people. That is why I consider myself a patriot. Our laws are superior to laws in most of the world and others should recognize that. However, I am staunchly anti-nationalist. Nationalism is a fanatic and irrational ideology, driven by love for one group's identity one factors such as race, ethnicity, culture, and national origin. No people are better as a group because they are uniform and alike in these aspects and nationalism is often used as an excuse for xenophobia. Nationalism at the state level is also nonsensical, using arbitrary divisions to decide how humanity ought to be divided and conquered. Let's take some people in Somalia while the war was going on as an example of intervention. The government is in shreds, terrorists are going around and carrying out massacres, it's not good. Is it wrong to try helping? Killing militants and accepting refugees? Or is it not our business, they are just some colored Muslims in another country that don't matter. Are they bad for living there, do they not deserve reasonable comfort? Are militaries only to be used in imperialist conquests and direct defense? Of course the better states should intervene to set things better. On the other side of nationalism, hate and discrimination based on who and what they were born with, is that needed? I don't believe that skin color or national origin determines one's character, nor does excessive head nodding for anything someone does. Culture as a whole changes and should be changed often. Ethnicity shouldn't sway whether someone belongs or not. Place of birth does not decide if a person is worthy of a role or award. If you must hate something, hate the state and not the nation. Individuals, not entire peoples, are responsible for bad things most of the time, so don't blame everyone for being forced into a group.

[Diopolis]

TBH I would've preferred sticking with the articles of confederacy.

The Articles of Confederation? Really? I’m surprised, tbh; it doesn’t seem like a set of laws that you’d be in favor of, at least from my knowledge of you.

I'm a Texas secessionist and patriot. Getting rid of the federal government's power is, from my perspective, awesome.

[Washington Resistance Army]

CM rubbed off on me and I've come to believe in the power of the firing squad.

A firing squad on whom?

Well, that's not something that can really get a direct answer because of NS's rules, but lets just say the list of people I find deserving isn't exactly short.

A firing squad on whom?

Atomwaffen.

Also this, Atomwaffen is a bunch of degenerate morons.

[Novus America]

Yes. That is an excellent summary.
He goes into much greater detail of course of why and how, but that sums it up nicely.

But you have to be a Nationalist and love your Nation to be in favour of such policy.

Well of course if you are a self serving internationalist just interested in socking away as much money as possible in tax havens, and buying luxuries for your immediate self gratification naturally you would reject his ideas.

[Diopolis]

A firing squad on whom?

Well, that's not something that can really get a direct answer because of NS's rules, but lets just say the list of people I find deserving isn't exactly short.

Atomwaffen.

Also this, Atomwaffen is a bunch of degenerate morons.

Yeah, I really don't understand the idea of random mass casualty attack terrorism as a political point. Quite aside from being evil, it doesn't work.

[Novus America]

On nationalism and patriotism, they are not necessarily the same.
But not necessarily opposed (although they can be).
Neo-Nazis consider themselves “nationalists” but also seek to destroy their existing country in harm their fellow countrymen.
So they definitely are not patriots.

I am a patriot, a civic ultranationalist, a soft cultural nationalist, and am anti ethnic nationalism.

And interesting conundrum for those who reject the enlightenment yet claim to be nationalists is that nationalism is an enlightenment idea.
Rejecting the enlightenment while embracing nationalism thus is contradictory.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well, that's not something that can really get a direct answer because of NS's rules, but lets just say the list of people I find deserving isn't exactly short.



Also this, Atomwaffen is a bunch of degenerate morons.

Yeah, I really don't understand the idea of random mass casualty attack terrorism as a political point. Quite aside from being evil, it doesn't work.

I understand the reasoning and strategy behind attacks like that, it makes sense for groups and people like them when you factor in what their goals are.

But when you look into the actual shit that goes on in Atomwaffen it becomes a meme. Former members and leaked logs have shown it to be a hilariously degenerate group. The fact that they're more adept at killing each other than anyone else just adds to the amusement.