Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[EastKekistan]

When enough people have knowledge about Darwin it is hard not to have some form of Hitler.

Lay off the weed.

I'm not drugged. Instead I believe in almost the same factual statements Spengler did but disagree with his sentiments.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was fairly unique at the time.

Not really, the same principle can be found in the Pre-Socratic, Pythagorean, and Stoic philosophies.

Yet you will find that Christianity was more successful in spreading those ideas than either of them. In fact, as I'm sure even CM will note, one of the reasons that Julian failed to oppose the spread of Christianity was because Christianity had become so intertwined with charitable social services in his time that even Julian recognized that other religions had to follow suit to compete.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Daily reminder that Julian did nothing wrong except die in battle tbh

[EastKekistan]

Daily reminder that Julian did nothing wrong except die in battle tbh

Exactly, same for everyone else.

[Bonenburg]

What is the difference between a patriot and a nationalist?

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

It's not fairly unique anymore because Christianity was hugely influential on all forms of Western philosophy that came after it, especially secular humanism.

And now, as a result, those concepts are no longer intertwined (if they ever were) with Christianity.

From an individual's perspective, sure.

But from a collective perspective?

No. Christian mores have intertwined themselves with Western civilization over the course of two millennia. It's all but impossible to separate them from Western cultural standards as a whole by this point.

[Bear Stearns]

What is the difference between a patriot and a nationalist?

Nationalism has many meanings but usually means a love of your people or a desire for your people to have sovereignty.

Patriotism is usually more abstract and involves a commitment to some sort of value or belief system, and is strongly correlated with being a dumbass institutional bootlicker.

[Conserative Morality]

Yet you will find that Christianity was more successful in spreading those ideas than either of them. In fact, as I'm sure even CM will note, one of the reasons that Julian failed to oppose the spread of Christianity was because Christianity had become so intertwined with charitable social services in his time that even Julian recognized that other religions had to follow suit to compete.

He tried to remedy that. It's too bad he got distracted by his P*rsian adventure and died young.

RIP JULIAN YOU WERE THE TRUE EMPEROR IN OUR HEARTS

No, but really, that is definitely one thing I would give Christianity props for. At the time, the concept of universalist benevolence was radical, especially religiously. Stoicism espoused something similar, but was hindered by the fact that they didn't really believe in the alleviation of suffering in the normal sense, since all suffering was a product of internal dissatisfaction in the soul and a failure to achieve virtuous apatheia. They were better described as radically cooperative rather than generous or charitable. Some Stoics even held that such generosity was negative, because it appealed to a sense of desire rather than indifference towards the physical world rather than virtue. Roman mores were (usually, theoretically) generous towards other Romans, but had a, at best, noblesse oblige kind of feeling towards the 'lessers' they ruled over, and no pity at all for barbarians outside of their borders.

[Salus Maior]

Creationists don't do what they do because they're some kind of mustache twirling villains, they do what they do because Creationism is an important part of their identity as Evangelical Christians.

That doesn't change the fact that they have no real interest in science except using it as a cover to spread their religious views.

Yeah, it's pretty clear they don't care about science.

[Duhon]

No one in the history of the world has ever done something because they're “mustache twirling villains.” Belief doesn't magically absolve them for being dishonest and manipulative, there's lots of instances of them quote mining scientists or trying to character assassinate Darwin and other prominent evolutionary scientists by associating them with Hitler and genocide.

When enough people have knowledge about Darwin it is hard not to have some form of Hitler.

My knowledge of Darwin does not make me any more inclined to not shit on sHitler.

[Duhon]

What is the difference between a patriot and a nationalist?

Nationalism has many meanings but usually means a love of your people or a desire for your people to have sovereignty.

Patriotism is usually more abstract and involves a commitment to some sort of value or belief system, and is strongly correlated with being a dumbass institutional bootlicker.

I love my country and want it to stay independent from the designs of authoritarians. Yet despite my deep-rooted preference for institutions, no one can call me a "dumbass institutional bootlicker", unless by that you mean someone who unquestioningly follows the precepts of the liberal dispensation, instead of preferring dystopian authoritarian brutality.

[Painisia]

Wait, am I actually seeing a Coca Cola can down to the bottom left?

I thought North Korea was the most ardent anti-capitalist nation on the planet? The Kim dynasty has already committed a serious crime towards the Juche system and should have actually, by law, been sent to a re-education camp.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What is the difference between a patriot and a nationalist?

Nationalism has many meanings but usually means a love of your people or a desire for your people to have sovereignty.

Patriotism is usually more abstract and involves a commitment to some sort of value or belief system, and is strongly correlated with being a dumbass institutional bootlicker.

I thought nationalists were the ones that were more often bootlickers.

[Novus America]

Nationalism has many meanings but usually means a love of your people or a desire for your people to have sovereignty.

Patriotism is usually more abstract and involves a commitment to some sort of value or belief system, and is strongly correlated with being a dumbass institutional bootlicker.

I thought nationalists were the ones that were more often bootlickers.

It certainly is the case that people who claim to be nationalists but not patriots tend towards authoritarianism.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I thought nationalists were the ones that were more often bootlickers.

It certainly is the case that people who claim to be nationalists but not patriots tend towards authoritarianism.

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

[Hanafuridake]

Yet you will find that Christianity was more successful in spreading those ideas than either of them.

I'm an amateur when it comes to Roman history, so I can't argue. But it's not true that the ideas you mentioned were unique to Christianity, they were just better at promulgating them than other philosophies in the Roman Empire were. Being empathetic and understanding are universal human traits, not limited to one religion.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yet you will find that Christianity was more successful in spreading those ideas than either of them.

I'm an amateur when it comes to Roman history, so I can't argue. But it's not true that the ideas you mentioned were unique to Christianity, they were just better at promulgating them than other philosophies in the Roman Empire were. Being empathetic and understanding are universal human traits, not limited to one religion.

See CM's post on the matter earlier in the thread, it's a good summary of why Christianity was different.

[Hanafuridake]

Ironically fundamentalism tends to be a product of reformations. Sola scriptura is a Protestant idea instead of a Catholic one and Wahabhism is a relatively new denomination for instance.

Puritanism and Wahhabism have a lot in common.

Right, both tended to be hostile to the veneration of saints and see older forms of their religion as degenerations.

It was fairly unique at the time.

I believe Buddhism already hadn’t some of those ideals.

I think that they mean unique to the Graeco-Roman world and not the planet.

[Novus America]

It certainly is the case that people who claim to be nationalists but not patriots tend towards authoritarianism.

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

And often involves completely replacing their Constitution, government and society, even breaking up their country.

[Fahran]

It certainly is the case that people who claim to be nationalists but not patriots tend towards authoritarianism.

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

This seems to suggest that nationalism is inherently more radical than patriotism or at odds with patriotism. It really isn't in a lot of cases. Nationalism is love of the nation - meaning a particular people, culture, or identity. Patriotism is love of the country - meaning a particular homeland, supreme law, or regime. A Frenchman can be both a nationalist and patriot with some degree of ease. A Serbian living in Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, could not be both a nationalist and a patriot, at least not in the conventional sense.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

This seems to suggest that nationalism is inherently more radical than patriotism or at odds with patriotism. It really isn't in a lot of cases. Nationalism is love of the nation - meaning a particular people, culture, or identity. Patriotism is love of the country - meaning a particular homeland, supreme law, or regime. A Frenchman can be both a nationalist and patriot with some degree of ease. A Serbian living in Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, could not be both a nationalist and a patriot, at least not in the conventional sense.

Bear in mind he said ultranationalists, not mainstream civnats.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

This seems to suggest that nationalism is inherently more radical than patriotism or at odds with patriotism. It really isn't in a lot of cases. Nationalism is love of the nation - meaning a particular people, culture, or identity. Patriotism is love of the country - meaning a particular homeland, supreme law, or regime. A Frenchman can be both a nationalist and patriot with some degree of ease. A Serbian living in Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, could not be both a nationalist and a patriot, at least not in the conventional sense.

Nationalism isn't inherently more radical, but ultranationalism, as I stipulated, is.

[EastKekistan]

Puritanism and Wahhabism have a lot in common.

Right, both tended to be hostile to the veneration of saints and see older forms of their religion as degenerations.

I believe Buddhism already hadn’t some of those ideals.

I think that they mean unique to the Graeco-Roman world and not the planet.

My hypothesis is that literal fundamentalism is just one step from atheism. Why? It is an intellectual ideology that requires one to read and revere the original religious scriptures and completely get rid of the traditionalist control over the flow of religious knowledge which does cause religion to evolve (or be distorted) over time.

[EastKekistan]

It certainly is the case that people who claim to be nationalists but not patriots tend towards authoritarianism.

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

Western ultranats have done nothing wrong. I actually respect those who want an ethnoglobe and genocide of all non-ingroup members even though I hope and believe they will be deterred for it is a perfectly normal line of thought.

If Tribe A and Tribe B know that each other exist there is always some possibility that the other tribe will start a genocidal preemptive strike. If the possibility of a genocidal preemptive strike succeeding is sufficiently high we will get genocidal preemptive strikes. It's all downstream from the circumstances not very different from why feudalism was stable before good firearms and unstable after them. If you think it was actually mostly about changing moral preferences then you are mistaken.

[Novus America]

I've noticed that too. Since western ultranationalists can't really call themselves patriots because a lot of what they want goes against the values of their country.

This seems to suggest that nationalism is inherently more radical than patriotism or at odds with patriotism. It really isn't in a lot of cases. Nationalism is love of the nation - meaning a particular people, culture, or identity. Patriotism is love of the country - meaning a particular homeland, supreme law, or regime. A Frenchman can be both a nationalist and patriot with some degree of ease. A Serbian living in Austria-Hungary, on the other hand, could not be both a nationalist and a patriot, at least not in the conventional sense.

While this is true of normal nationalism, modern western ultranationalisn is of course extreme and generally hostile to the country it is in (feeling the modern country is a disgrace that needs to be torn down).
So while nationalism is not inherently more extreme or unpatriotic Western Ultranationalism tends to be.