Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Novus America]

But the Shah did not (and Jimmy Carter, idiot he was deliberately worked to undermine the Shah and supported Khomeini) have the fortitude to ensure the reactionaries were stopped.

I take issue with your description of Khomeini and his followers as "reactionaries." They were revolutionaries, both in political terms and in the context of Shi'ite Islamic theology.

They were both. While their idea of toppling governments and imposing a new form of state was revolutionary their motive of retaining their near feudal land wealth was reactionary.

Protecting their economic power was just as important as their religious fanaticism.

Notice how they turned again the Shah not after his earlier urban modernization, but after his land reform.

Land reform offended the Clerics more than anything else.

Also they were working to stop improving women’s rights, stop and reverse both economic and social modernization.

[Old Tyrannia]

I take issue with your description of Khomeini and his followers as "reactionaries." They were revolutionaries, both in political terms and in the context of Shi'ite Islamic theology.

They were reactionaries though. At least in terms of Khomeini, he was specifically calling for the rolling back of various cultural reformations (from really atrocious and radical stuff like "Women being allowed to vote" to more justified stuff like "What do you mean American citizens would be tried in the US if they murdered someone in Iran?"), an absolutist rule by the clerics and the return of the "Court Cleric" culture that the Shah (and his father) had thoroughly crushed during their 50 years in power. While many other elements of the revolution were not reactionary by any means (many were protesting the heavy-handed anti-dissent policies taken by the Shah, many called for further political and social reformations, afterall), the Islamists were.

Being socially conservative doesn't make you "reactionary." Stalin was socially conservative. Overthrowing a monarchy to replace it with an economically left-wing totalitarian republic is not reactionary. Dispensing with centuries of tradition by involving clerics in politics is not reactionary.

[Conserative Morality]

The early saints magnificently demonstrated how empty paganism really was, with nary a sword in hand.

Yes, because that's how Christianity became the majority religion of the Roman Empire. Through martyrdom. Not through a successful emperor taking one of many mystery cults of the era and imposing it on the upper classes through force, looting temples and proscribing pagans.

Clearly, it was the martyrs.

[Novus America]

They were reactionaries though. At least in terms of Khomeini, he was specifically calling for the rolling back of various cultural reformations (from really atrocious and radical stuff like "Women being allowed to vote" to more justified stuff like "What do you mean American citizens would be tried in the US if they murdered someone in Iran?"), an absolutist rule by the clerics and the return of the "Court Cleric" culture that the Shah (and his father) had thoroughly crushed during their 50 years in power. While many other elements of the revolution were not reactionary by any means (many were protesting the heavy-handed anti-dissent policies taken by the Shah, many called for further political and social reformations, afterall), the Islamists were.

Being socially conservative doesn't make you "reactionary." Stalin was socially conservative. Overthrowing a monarchy to replace it with an economically left-wing totalitarian republic is not reactionary. Dispensing with centuries of tradition by involving clerics in politics is not reactionary.

But the economic measures were to keep their power. They already owned much of the rural land, they were protecting their land holdings as much as anything else.

[Nea Byzantia]

The early saints magnificently demonstrated how empty paganism really was, with nary a sword in hand.

Yes, because that's how Christianity became the majority religion of the Roman Empire. Through martyrdom. Not through a successful emperor taking one of many mystery cults of the era and imposing it on the upper classes through force, looting temples and proscribing pagans.

Clearly, it was the martyrs.

As much as you or I might like to, you can't give Constantine all the credit (or blame from your point of view) for making Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire. He definitely got the ball rolling by decriminalizing it.

[Hanafuridake]

The early saints magnificently demonstrated how empty paganism really was, with nary a sword in hand.

Yes, because that's how Christianity became the majority religion of the Roman Empire. Through martyrdom. Not through a successful emperor taking one of many mystery cults of the era and imposing it on the upper classes through force, looting temples and proscribing pagans.

Clearly, it was the martyrs.

Daily reminder that when Fabian Fucan tried to debate the Neo-Confucian philosopher Hayashi Razan, he literally got so wrecked that he quit being a Christian and wrote tracts denouncing Christianity.

It's a lot harder to show the emptiness of paganism when you can't use swords to make them convert.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Except no one is. Rape is a punishable offense. Read my links pls.

We’ve been over this. Sex between a master and slave, regardless of if the slave says yes, is still technically rape.

Except it isn't because: https://legacy.quran.com/4/36 And I don't really think raping those whom your right hands possess is "doing good" to them. Also, consent is a thing.

Dude you're not helping your case (at least in the eyes of the mushrikeen [polytheists]).

The early saints magnificently demonstrated how empty paganism really was, with nary a sword in hand.

Which changed depending on the Christian ruler in later years. Regardless, that's not gonna make a mushrik feel good.

[Conserative Morality]

As much as you or I might like to, you can't give Constantine all the credit (or blame from your point of view) for making Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire. He definitely got the ball rolling by decriminalizing it.

"Decriminalizing it"

That's a very generous way of saying "imposing it". Christianity had been legal previously and at times even under the Emperor's protection. The difference between those past eras and Constantine's was not that his decriminalization was somehow superior, it was that he combined it with a vicious persecution of traditional religious authorities. I would say "if ever there was proof that the oppressed never remember their oppression when they have sword in hand...", but tbqh I think it was just part and parcel of Constantine's opportunistic effort to bring the position of emperor closer to an eastern despot like Diocletian did by coopting a mystery cult that demanded exclusive loyalty of its followers.

[Novus America]

We’ve been over this. Sex between a master and slave, regardless of if the slave says yes, is still technically rape.

Except it isn't because: https://legacy.quran.com/4/36 And I don't really think raping those whom your right hands possess is "doing good" to them. Also, consent is a thing.

The early saints magnificently demonstrated how empty paganism really was, with nary a sword in hand.

Which changed depending on the Christian ruler in later years. Regardless, that's not gonna make a mushrik feel good.

Consent between master and slave is literally impossible.
We have been over this (countless times) before. Citing medieval propaganda does not change this.
The problem is many things that are rape you claim are not rape.

[Nea Byzantia]

As much as you or I might like to, you can't give Constantine all the credit (or blame from your point of view) for making Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire. He definitely got the ball rolling by decriminalizing it.

Christianity had been legal previously and at times even under the Emperor's protection. The difference between those past eras and Constantine's was not that his decriminalization was somehow superior, it was that he combined it with a vicious persecution of traditional religious authorities. I would say "if ever there was proof that the oppressed never remember their oppression when they have sword in hand...", but tbqh I think it was just part and parcel of Constantine's opportunistic effort to bring the position of emperor closer to an eastern despot like Diocletian did by coopting a mystery cult that demanded exclusive loyalty of its followers.

Which Emperors tolerated and allowed Christianity prior to Constantine?

[Northern Davincia]

The early saints magnificently demonstrated how empty paganism really was, with nary a sword in hand.

Yes, because that's how Christianity became the majority religion of the Roman Empire. Through martyrdom. Not through a successful emperor taking one of many mystery cults of the era and imposing it on the upper classes through force, looting temples and proscribing pagans.

Clearly, it was the martyrs.

That helped too.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Except it isn't because: https://legacy.quran.com/4/36 And I don't really think raping those whom your right hands possess is "doing good" to them. Also, consent is a thing.

Which changed depending on the Christian ruler in later years. Regardless, that's not gonna make a mushrik feel good.

Consent between master and slave is literally impossible.

Master: "Wanna have sex?"
Slave: "Yes/No"
Master: "Ok"
There, consent.

We have been over this (countless times) before.

So have I

Citing medieval propaganda does not change this.

Neither does citing modern propoganda.

The problem is many things that are rape you claim are not rape.

>"Many"
Lol ok

[United Muscovite Nations]

Many in the cities were willing to join with the clerics because the Shah was heavy handed in crushing their dissent as well. The Shah did himself no favors. Sometimes a moderate approach is better than a radical one.

Yes, many in the cities were willing to.
But did not want a brutal clerical regime. They were not backwards fanatic reactionaries necessarily. Just foolish and naive (obviously the clerics turned out worse).

You are certainly correct the Shah made mistakes.
But the clerics absolutely had to be broken and crushed. And could not be peacefully.
They would never willingly give up their power.

Sure he took on too much, too fast. Destroying the clerical classes power, while appeasing other segments would have been best. Unless the clerical class is destroyed like the Nazis were, Iran cannot improve.

Those attempts to crush them only made them much angrier. Killing the clerics didn't keep them down, it just made people side with them.

[Northern Davincia]

Yes, because that's how Christianity became the majority religion of the Roman Empire. Through martyrdom. Not through a successful emperor taking one of many mystery cults of the era and imposing it on the upper classes through force, looting temples and proscribing pagans.

Clearly, it was the martyrs.

Daily reminder that when Fabian Fucan tried to debate the Neo-Confucian philosopher Hayashi Razan, he literally got so wrecked that he quit being a Christian and wrote tracts denouncing Christianity.

It's a lot harder to show the emptiness of paganism when you can't use swords to make them convert.

Clearly he wasn't the best man for the job.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Christianity had been legal previously and at times even under the Emperor's protection. The difference between those past eras and Constantine's was not that his decriminalization was somehow superior, it was that he combined it with a vicious persecution of traditional religious authorities. I would say "if ever there was proof that the oppressed never remember their oppression when they have sword in hand...", but tbqh I think it was just part and parcel of Constantine's opportunistic effort to bring the position of emperor closer to an eastern despot like Diocletian did by coopting a mystery cult that demanded exclusive loyalty of its followers.

Which Emperors tolerated and allowed Christianity prior to Constantine?

Philip the Arab.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Christianity had been legal previously and at times even under the Emperor's protection. The difference between those past eras and Constantine's was not that his decriminalization was somehow superior, it was that he combined it with a vicious persecution of traditional religious authorities. I would say "if ever there was proof that the oppressed never remember their oppression when they have sword in hand...", but tbqh I think it was just part and parcel of Constantine's opportunistic effort to bring the position of emperor closer to an eastern despot like Diocletian did by coopting a mystery cult that demanded exclusive loyalty of its followers.

Which Emperors tolerated and allowed Christianity?

A number of them tbh. You had a few standouts who were big on discrimination for sure, but for the most part as long as the Christians weren't causing problems they got on fine under a lot of emperors.

[Conserative Morality]

Which Emperors tolerated and allowed Christianity?

Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Phillip the Arab. Arguably also Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Severus. The number of Emperors who gave a shit at all about Christianity, much less persecuted them, can be counted on one hand.

(Nero, Maximinus Thrax, Decius, Valerian, Diocletian - I am cheating slightly in excluding co-emperors)

[Novus America]

Consent between master and slave is literally impossible.

Master: "Wanna have sex?"
Slave: "Yes/No"
Master: "Ok"
There, consent.

We have been over this (countless times) before.

So have I

Citing medieval propaganda does not change this.

Neither does citing modern propoganda.

The problem is many things that are rape you claim are not rape.

>"Many"
Lol ok

The slave is not in the position to freely give consent.
Even if they say yes.
You obviously do not understand consent at all. It is much more than saying yes.
Both sides have to be free and of equal rights.

There is a reason officer/enlisted, teacher/student and boss/employee relations are generally proscribed. And in those the power differential is less significant.

The closest would be a guard/prisoner relationship.
And obviously that is strictly prohibited.

Though there is no pint in continuing this. You will just run to the mods whenever criticized.
I think I will just place you on ignore.

[Novus America]

Yes, many in the cities were willing to.
But did not want a brutal clerical regime. They were not backwards fanatic reactionaries necessarily. Just foolish and naive (obviously the clerics turned out worse).

You are certainly correct the Shah made mistakes.
But the clerics absolutely had to be broken and crushed. And could not be peacefully.
They would never willingly give up their power.

Sure he took on too much, too fast. Destroying the clerical classes power, while appeasing other segments would have been best. Unless the clerical class is destroyed like the Nazis were, Iran cannot improve.

Those attempts to crush them only made them much angrier. Killing the clerics didn't keep them down, it just made people side with them.

But the Shah never tried to kill them. Just redistribute their land. Even Khomeini he foolishly allowed to flee into exile. Crushing them more stictly was never tried.
And how else could they be eliminated?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Those attempts to crush them only made them much angrier. Killing the clerics didn't keep them down, it just made people side with them.

But the Shah never tried to kill them. Just redistribute their land. Even Khomeini he foolishly allowed to flee into exile. Crushing them more stictly was never tried.
And how else could they be eliminated?

The Shah's secret police tortured Khomeini's son to death, which was a huge reason for the revolution.

[The South Falls]

The Shah was very desperate to keep power, and so he overstepped the bounds that the laypeople were willing to permit.

[Conserative Morality]

The Shah's secret police tortured Khomeini's son to death, which was a huge reason for the revolution.

tbqh torture seems like one of the worst things a ruler can do to their people. It's like "Turning People Against You 101".

[Hanafuridake]

Daily reminder that when Fabian Fucan tried to debate the Neo-Confucian philosopher Hayashi Razan, he literally got so wrecked that he quit being a Christian and wrote tracts denouncing Christianity.

It's a lot harder to show the emptiness of paganism when you can't use swords to make them convert.

Clearly he wasn't the best man for the job.

Or Christianity couldn't make an actual argument against other belief systems and relied on intimidation and self-interest (sweet Portuguese trade).

[Camelone]

Clearly he wasn't the best man for the job.

Or Christianity couldn't make an actual argument against other belief systems and relied on intimidation and self-interest (sweet Portuguese trade).

St. Francis Xavier seemed to have done a pretty good job at converting the local community without intimidation or Portuguese trade due to the fact many of his converts were not in positions to benefit from such.

[Old Tyrannia]

But the Shah never tried to kill them. Just redistribute their land. Even Khomeini he foolishly allowed to flee into exile. Crushing them more stictly was never tried.
And how else could they be eliminated?

The Shah's secret police tortured Khomeini's son to death, which was a huge reason for the revolution.

The circumstances surrounded Mostafa Khomeini's death have never been confirmed, and even if he was executed by SAVAK, he was involved in an underground political movement seeking to topple the shah- he got what he deserved. Most of the Iranian religious establishment actually opposed Khomeini, he and his followers were fringe radicals. If I recall correctly, there's even evidence that Ayatollah Shariatmadari secretly offered to issue a fatwa approving Khomeini's assassination, but the shah turned him down.