NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:53 am**

Nova Cyberia wrote:Hot take: the current neoliberal world order is worthless and should be thoroughly dismantled.

You are not wrong.
Though I find it ironic that people claiming to be “liberals” are Hell bent on PRC domination.
Because surrendering control of your economy to a hostile dictatorship in the name of liberalism makes sense... :roll:

But yes, the current world economic and political system must be completely overhauled.
The Post Cold War “End of History” BS wiped out completely and forgotten.
Fuck Francis Fukuyama.
Seriously. WTF was he thinking and why did so many people believe it?

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:53 am**

Novus America wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:RWDT regulars as films:
Me: Elizabeth (1998)

Swaglord: Brazil (1985)

UMN: Nicholas and Alexandra (1971)

Hanafuridake: Lady Snowblood (1973)

Fahran: Fidder on the Roof (1971)

Salus Maior: The Leopard (1963)

OEP: The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Nea Byzantia: 300 (2006)

Conserative Morality: Casablanca (1942)

Bienenhalde: Labyrinth (1986)

Bear Stearns: The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Diopolis: Day of Wrath (1943)

Xenopolis: Transformers (2007)

Novus America: Team America: World Police (2004)

I'm open to suggestions for further listings.

Fuck yeah!

Seriously though I like it. Irreverent, extremely pro US while also being critical of the US at the same time.

The only thing potentially more Americana would be GI Joe, or possibly Captain America.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:54 am**

Diopolis wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:But it isn't degenerate.

>Redefines marriage to accommodate personal lusts.
>Separates marriage as an institution from its purpose and symbolism.
>"Not degenerate"

>Homosexuality is not any more inherently lustful than heterosexuality.
>Marriage is not an institution, it is a personal union. And its purpose can be whatever the people involved like.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:54 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Nova Cyberia wrote:Neither is the mouth, really.

And yet...

That's also degenerate; for the same reason.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:55 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Nova Cyberia wrote:Neither is the mouth, really.

And yet...

That's also degenerate; for the same reason.

This could be applied to mouth-to-mouth kissing as well.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:56 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Novus America wrote:
Fuck yeah!

Seriously though I like it. Irreverent, extremely pro US while also being critical of the US at the same time.

The only thing potentially more Americana would be GI Joe, or possibly Captain America.

Well the new live action GI was a pretty shit movie with no depth.
All action, not even that pro America, they tried to make it internationalist and all.

Team America was a superior film by far.
The end speech was actually a great critique of the US, despite over the top (but hilarious) language and imagery.

Captain America was a actually pretty good.
But not as good.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:56 am**

Nova Cyberia wrote:Hot take: the current neoliberal world order is worthless and should be thoroughly dismantled.

Given enough time, the current neoliberal world order will collapse under its own weight, it is right now, and if the neoliberal Power: America, doesn't adjust its course, it will die with the neoliberal world and leave the world to the "revisionist" Eurasian Powers of China and Russia.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:57 am**

Novus America wrote:
Nova Cyberia wrote:Hot take: the current neoliberal world order is worthless and should be thoroughly dismantled.

You are not wrong.
Though I find it ironic that people claiming to be “liberals” are Hell bent on PRC domination.
Because surrendering control of your economy to a hostile dictatorship in the name of liberalism makes sense...

But yes, the current world economic and political system must be completely overhauled.
The Post Cold War “End of History” BS wiped out completely and forgotten.
Fuck Francis Fukuyama.
Seriously. WTF was he thinking and why did so many people believe it?

Because many Americans for whatever reason seem to have an instinctive need to fight and die in foreign wars that do not benefit us, and all in the name of upholding some world order that has grown stale and complacent.

I think it's time to hijack the progressive movement and create our own vision of "progress".

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:00 am**

Nova Cyberia wrote:
Novus America wrote:
You are not wrong.
Though I find it ironic that people claiming to be “liberals” are Hell bent on PRC domination.
Because surrendering control of your economy to a hostile dictatorship in the name of liberalism makes sense...

But yes, the current world economic and political system must be completely overhauled.
The Post Cold War “End of History” BS wiped out completely and forgotten.
Fuck Francis Fukuyama.
Seriously. WTF was he thinking and why did so many people believe it?

Because many Americans for whatever reason seem to have an instinctive need to fight and die in foreign wars that do not benefit us, and all in the name of upholding some world order that has grown stale and complacent.

And if America doesn't stop, it will self-destruct with the neoliberal order its constructed and maintained.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:00 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Diopolis wrote:>Redefines marriage to accommodate personal lusts.
>Separates marriage as an institution from its purpose and symbolism.
>"Not degenerate"

>Homosexuality is not any more inherently lustful than heterosexuality.
>Marriage is not an institution, it is a personal union. And its purpose can be whatever the people involved like.

1. Leaving aside any questions about whether homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered lust, the issue is the redefinition of marriage in order to accommodate personal lusts, rather than the lusts themselves, which are a separate issue that Nea Byzantia is addressing.
2. Very good. On an individual level, marriage is a personal union. But gay "marriage" didn't redefine marriage on an individual level, now did it? It redefined marriage on a societal level, where marriage is indeed an institution. And of course, before the campaign of redefinitions that lead up to the gay "marriage" thing, heterosexual marriage was understood widely to be ordered for the good of the children and symbolize proper gender roles... which gay "marriage" cannot do.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:01 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Nova Cyberia wrote:Because many Americans for whatever reason seem to have an instinctive need to fight and die in foreign wars that do not benefit us, and all in the name of upholding some world order that has grown stale and complacent.

And if America doesn't stop, it will self-destruct with the neoliberal order its constructed and maintained.

Indeed. The current world order must be destroyed to save liberty.
The current world order is the enemy of freedom ironically.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:03 am**

Novus America wrote:
Nea Byzantia wrote:And if America doesn't stop, it will self-destruct with the neoliberal order its constructed and maintained.

Indeed. The current world order must be destroyed to save liberty.
The current world order is the enemy of freedom ironically.

The first step would be to defeat the American liberals and neoconservatives who seek it's preservation.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:04 am**

Novus America wrote:
Nea Byzantia wrote:

You sure...

(Too bad the Russians actually did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to beating the Nazis)

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:04 am**

Hanafuridake wrote:If you want to crown yourself monarch, you're not really a good monarchist.

You do know nearly all monarchies started with a warlord crowing himself?
Which is why it is inherently silly.

Somehow a warlord seizing power is both good and bad to monarchists.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:06 am**

Novus America wrote:
Hanafuridake wrote:If you want to crown yourself monarch, you're not really a good monarchist.

You do know nearly all monarchies started with a warlord crowing himself?
Which is why it is inherently silly.

Somehow a warlord seizing power is both good and bad to monarchists.

Its only good when the Ruler and the Ruling Dynasty are thoroughly corrupt, indolent, and tyrannical, and need to be replaced. There is a point at which Dynasties become stale or rotten, and need to be replaced; and in most Monarchies its a natural - and usually violent - phenomenon.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:08 am**

Diopolis wrote:
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:>Homosexuality is not any more inherently lustful than heterosexuality.
>Marriage is not an institution, it is a personal union. And its purpose can be whatever the people involved like.

1. Leaving aside any questions about whether homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered lust, the issue is the redefinition of marriage in order to accommodate personal lusts, rather than the lusts themselves, which are a separate issue that Nea Byzantia is addressing.
2. Very good. On an individual level, marriage is a personal union. But gay "marriage" didn't redefine marriage on an individual level, now did it? It redefined marriage on a societal level, where marriage is indeed an institution. And of course, before the campaign of redefinitions that lead up to the gay "marriage" thing, heterosexual marriage was understood widely to be ordered for the good of the children and symbolize proper gender roles... which gay "marriage" cannot do.

1. I don't quite understand what you mean by "redefining marriage to accomodate personal lusts" then.
2. I don't see the difference between marriage on an individual level and marriage on a societal level, I don't understand the distinction. I don't quite know the studies on whether gay marriage causes kids to turn out okay or turn out bad, but if I remember correctly, kids weren't noticeably worse off being raised by same-sex parents. And it may be too early to tell.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:08 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Novus America wrote:

You sure...

(Too bad the Russians actually did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to beating the Nazis)

Let’s not do this again, shall we?

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:09 am**

Kowani wrote:
Nea Byzantia wrote:You sure...

(Too bad the Russians actually did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to beating the Nazis)

Let’s not do this again, shall we?

Do what again?

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:10 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Diopolis wrote:1. Leaving aside any questions about whether homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered lust, the issue is the redefinition of marriage in order to accommodate personal lusts, rather than the lusts themselves, which are a separate issue that Nea Byzantia is addressing.
2. Very good. On an individual level, marriage is a personal union. But gay "marriage" didn't redefine marriage on an individual level, now did it? It redefined marriage on a societal level, where marriage is indeed an institution. And of course, before the campaign of redefinitions that lead up to the gay "marriage" thing, heterosexual marriage was understood widely to be ordered for the good of the children and symbolize proper gender roles... which gay "marriage" cannot do.

1. I don't quite understand what you mean by "redefining marriage to accomodate personal lusts" then.
2. I don't see the difference between marriage on an individual level and marriage on a societal level, I don't understand the distinction. I don't quite know the studies on whether gay marriage causes kids to turn out okay or turn out bad, but if I remember correctly, kids weren't noticeably worse off being raised by same-sex parents. And it may be too early to tell.

No difference.
At all.
Possible benefit.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:11 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Novus America wrote:

You sure...

(Too bad the Russians actually did most of the heavy-lifting when it came to beating the Nazis)

Captain America is very cool. 10/10.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:12 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Novus America wrote:
You do know nearly all monarchies started with a warlord crowing himself?
Which is why it is inherently silly.

Somehow a warlord seizing power is both good and bad to monarchists.

Its only good when the Ruler and the Ruling Dynasty are thoroughly corrupt, indolent, and tyrannical, and need to be replaced. There is a point at which Dynasties become stale or rotten, and need to be replaced; and in most Monarchies its a natural - and usually violent - phenomenon.

You don't get to decide when a monarchy becomes stable or not though. The idea that people have any say in how governing (which eventually becomes popular sovereignty) is naturally republican. Popular monarchies exist ("King of the Belgians" rather than "King of Belgium") but they are, at least in the modern day, a compromise between monarchists and republicans, not "monarchism" in and of itself. Similarly, Constitutionalism. To you -the monarchist- the king literally has a divine right to rule. You don't get to decide if he gets to keep it or not. You're not divine. If you -or really, anyone other than god- can decide that the monarch has somehow lost his right to rule, then why not make a republic and make sure there is no "Right" to be abused and lost?

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:13 am**

Nea Byzantia wrote:
Kowani wrote:Let’s not do this again, shall we?

Do what again?

Have a dick-measuring contest about who really won WWII.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:18 am**

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:
Diopolis wrote:1. Leaving aside any questions about whether homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered lust, the issue is the redefinition of marriage in order to accommodate personal lusts, rather than the lusts themselves, which are a separate issue that Nea Byzantia is addressing.
2. Very good. On an individual level, marriage is a personal union. But gay "marriage" didn't redefine marriage on an individual level, now did it? It redefined marriage on a societal level, where marriage is indeed an institution. And of course, before the campaign of redefinitions that lead up to the gay "marriage" thing, heterosexual marriage was understood widely to be ordered for the good of the children and symbolize proper gender roles... which gay "marriage" cannot do.

1. I don't quite understand what you mean by "redefining marriage to accomodate personal lusts" then.
2. I don't see the difference between marriage on an individual level and marriage on a societal level, I don't understand the distinction. I don't quite know the studies on whether gay marriage causes kids to turn out okay or turn out bad, but if I remember correctly, kids weren't noticeably worse off being raised by same-sex parents. And it may be too early to tell.

1. There was a redefinition of marriage to accommodate homosexuality, due to the lusts involved.
2. This one needs to be broken down into multiple points:
A. Gay "marriage" cannot properly speaking be entered into for the good of the children because two men or two women cannot reproduce.
B. Gay "marriage" cannot symbolize and demonstrate proper gender roles, for rather obvious reasons.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:21 am**

North German Realm wrote:
Nea Byzantia wrote:Its only good when the Ruler and the Ruling Dynasty are thoroughly corrupt, indolent, and tyrannical, and need to be replaced. There is a point at which Dynasties become stale or rotten, and need to be replaced; and in most Monarchies its a natural - and usually violent - phenomenon.

You don't get to decide when a monarchy becomes stable or not though. The idea that people have any say in how governing (which eventually becomes popular sovereignty) is naturally republican. Popular monarchies exist ("King of the Belgians" rather than "King of Belgium") but to you -the monarchist- the king literally has a divine right to rule. You don't get to decide if he gets to keep it or not. You're not divine. If you -or really, anyone other than god- can decide that the monarch has somehow lost his right to rule, then why not make a republic and make sure there is no "Right" to be abused and lost?

Republics always become Oligarchies; where it is the Rich and Influential who come to rule Society - with a facade of Democracy and Popular Rule, of course. This happens because Republics require Representatives to represent the People; and these Representatives can - and usually are - bought off and corrupted by the Rich and Influential. Its not the 18th or 19th centuries anymore; we've had Republicanism now for 200-300 years, in many Western countries. Look at all the shenanigans going on with the British Government, and Brexit - how the political class in Westminster is attempting to undo and/or undermine the result of the Referendum; ie. the direct Will of the People; look at all the unpopular wars the American Government is waging throughout the Middle East - all of this, done in the name of the People.

With a Monarchy, on the other hand, there is no pretense to serve the People, because the People are never served by the Government, because the People can never be the Government. The Government is always run by a small Minority, an Elite, and its better to have a Single Ruler, who can restrain the oligarchic appetites of the Rich and the Influential, than it is to have a Republic - which feigns concern for the Will of the People; but actually serves the interests of the Rich and Influential.

Posted: **Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:22 am**

Kowani wrote:
Nea Byzantia wrote:Do what again?

Have a dick-measuring contest about who really won WWII.

But we know who did...

NationStates

Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again