Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Bear Stearns]

Like almost any political term, it has a different definition depending on how you use it.

A nationalist is someone who's loyal to their country and places its interests above those of other countries.

I like that in America, nationalism takes on a rather isolationist, anti-imperialist streak.

Post-Civil War, it usually the more liberal, proto-neolib/neocon corporate class that was in favor of our imperialist adventures, while populist nationalists were opposed to them and wanted isolationism.

It was the liberal wing of the Republican Party that wanted us to go into Vietnam, into the Persian Gulf, into Syria, into Libya, and now potentially into Venezuela.

[Nova Cyberia]

Well. If that was true, people’d idolize the Mongol Empire. But they don’t.

They didn’t win the civilizational game only a transitory empire that did not last very long as a unified polity. History being written by the victors necessitates a victory on a civilizational level not just a battlefield level.

It broke apart, sure. But the impact of the Mongol conquests can still be felt today. Some of the various khanates that were created when the empire split survived for centuries afterward.

[Bear Stearns]

Fair. History written by the winners and all that.

Well. If that was true, people’d idolize the Mongol Empire. But they don’t.

Probably because the Mongols did a shit job of writing their own history. More was written by their enemies about them than they wrote about themselves.

Also their empire didn't last that long.

[Nova Cyberia]

A nationalist is someone who's loyal to their country and places its interests above those of other countries.

I like that in America, nationalism takes on a rather isolationist, imperialist streak.

Post-Civil War, it usually the more liberal, proto-neolib/neocon corporate class that was in favor of our imperialist adventures, while populist nationalists were opposed to them and wanted isolationism.

It was the liberal wing of the Republican Party that wanted us to go into Vietnam, into the Persian Gulf, into Syria, into Libya, and now potentially into Venezuela.

That actually sums it perfectly.

It is pretty funny, tbh.

[Camelone]

They didn’t win the civilizational game only a transitory empire that did not last very long as a unified polity. History being written by the victors necessitates a victory on a civilizational level not just a battlefield level.

Well. They did, but as 3 different kingdoms. Particularly, the Yuan Dynasty and the Ilkhanate being the 2 that actually mattered. Nobody gives a fuck about the Golden Horde.

The thing is though that they assimilated into the cultures they ruled over so they were not really Mongol kingdoms in the truest sense of the word, they were Mongol descended kingdoms. They still lost the civilizational battle, their culture and society changed rapidly and was more assimilationist of their subjects culture. That kind of proves my point that the battlefield level is not the end all be all of the winner writes history.

[Bear Stearns]

Well. They did, but as 3 different kingdoms. Particularly, the Yuan Dynasty and the Ilkhanate being the 2 that actually mattered. Nobody gives a fuck about the Golden Horde.

The thing is though that they assimilated into the cultures they ruled over so they were not really Mongol kingdoms in the truest sense of the word, they were Mongol descended kingdoms. They still lost the civilizational battle, their culture and society changed rapidly and was more assimilationist of their subjects culture. That kind of proves my point that the battlefield level is not the end all be all of the winner writes history.

You win when you can set the narrative.

[Kowani]

Well. They did, but as 3 different kingdoms. Particularly, the Yuan Dynasty and the Ilkhanate being the 2 that actually mattered. Nobody gives a fuck about the Golden Horde.

The thing is though that they assimilated into the cultures they ruled over so they were not really Mongol kingdoms in the truest sense of the word, they were Mongol descended kingdoms. They still lost the civilizational battle, their culture and society changed rapidly and was more assimilationist of their subjects culture. That kind of proves my point that the battlefield level is not the end all be all of the winner writes history.

Fair.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Because I despise the US government.

Many people despise the US government, and yet are still patriots. You can love your country and yet hate its government. In Australia, holding an irreverent contempt for the government is considered a very Australian, and thereby, very patriotic thing to do.

Well I have a (possibly bad and/or inaccurate) habit of judging countries by how their governments act, so that's why I despise the US. On top of the fact that they commit war crimes (particularly against my brothers and sisters in Deen) and support the Zionists, is another reason why I hate it.

They didn’t win the civilizational game only a transitory empire that did not last very long as a unified polity. History being written by the victors necessitates a victory on a civilizational level not just a battlefield level.

Well. They did, but as 3 different kingdoms. Particularly, the Yuan Dynasty and the Ilkhanate being the 2 that actually mattered. Nobody gives a fuck about the Golden Horde.

I do. And the Ilkhanate.

I've noticed that as well. In America, Democrats hate the government when a Republican is in charge, but not so much when a Democrat is in charge, and vice versa for Republicans. In Australia, everyone hates the current PM, assuming they can even remember who they are.

Looking at America, and back to Australia, there's a pretty strong argument that antipathy towards the government beats tribalism. Our politics are dysfunctional in their own special way, but it doesn't stop Australia from being a great country.

Yeah Australia is awesome, I wanna go back. I wish I still remembered its anthem...

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Yeah Australia is awesome, I wanna go back. I wish I still remembered its anthem...

Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free... ringing a bell?

[First American Empire]

Why aren't you or Amin patriots?

Because I despise the US government.

Me too, but for completely different reasons.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Yeah Australia is awesome, I wanna go back. I wish I still remembered its anthem...

Australians all let us rejoice, for we are young and free... ringing a bell?

All I remember is "Advance Australia Fair!"

[Turbofolkia]

Incidentally, we used to be like that in the US no matter who was in charge, but now it’s more tribal. Criticism only if the other guy is in charge this week.

Fucking GW and all the bastards who kept chanting that criticism was unpatriotic.

I've noticed that as well. In America, Democrats hate the government when a Republican is in charge, but not so much when a Democrat is in charge, and vice versa for Republicans. In Australia, everyone hates the current PM, assuming they can even remember who they are.

Yeah, Bob Hawke was the last PM who was truly loved by everybody since he was really a personification of Australia. The state memorial to him the other week really proved that. Every other PM after him will be lucky to have a memorial service at the local RSL. Keating was seen as too nasty towards his opponents, Howard tried to copy Hawke's style but he came off as some creepy uncle, Rudd was known as being popular with those who have never met him, Gillard was never seen as a legitimate PM and the less said about Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison the better.

[Novus America]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

[Soviet Tankistan]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

[Mostrov]

This is the end result, if said posters ideas, even using the same terms and justification, were put into practice:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html

I can only add that they have been a damn fool, for they having destroyed people's toleration of them on both personally and religiously, when silence is often the best course.

[Nea Byzantia]

St. Francis Xavier tried to the best of his abilities to correct any mistake in understanding that his converts had and he did begin to use a different word when the misunderstanding was brought to his attention. It still refutes your original point though that Christianity depended on force and self-interest to spread. The message of Christ was appealing to many of the converts and perhaps the nuances and growing pains led to some misunderstandings but nonetheless the Christian Faith spread through word of mouth not force and self-interest.

“Tried” is the key word here. Eventually the point was reached where Xavier tried to avoid Japanese religious terms altogether in an attempt to make sure that the Japanese converts didn't mistake what he was saying. If the converts thought that Christianity was just an exotic form of Buddhism, then it does devalue their conversion, because they obviously misunderstood what Xavier was trying to say.

Xavier was a Jesuit, so just that alone should cause one to question his motives and what he was telling people. Even most Catholics will tell you the Jesuits are a rather sketchy bunch; Japan wasn't exactly being evangelized by the most up-and-up Christian organization. By the 18th century, most Catholic Monarchs were coming down hard on the Jesuits (because they had grown very wealthy and powerful, and had a penchant for international intrigue and political machinations), and even the Pope censured them in 1773 (many of them were forced to flee to the Court of Tsarina Catherine the Great of Russia, of all places, in order to continue their activities).

(Inb4: all the Catholics will now attack me for criticizing "St" Francis Xavier)

[Hanafuridake]

Xavier was a Jesuit, so just that alone should cause one to question his motives and what he was telling people.

This went a full 360. I may not like Xavier, but I don't believe any conspiracy theories about him. He was just a missionary.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles.

If you can prove me wrong, please do so. But in the IDT, not here.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

This is the end result, if said posters ideas, even using the same terms and justification, were put into practice:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html

I can only add that they have been a damn fool, for they having destroyed people's toleration of them on both personally and religiously, when silence is often the best course.

Never in any of my posts have I referenced ISIS as an example of how Islamic slavery should be practiced, or of anything in Al-Islam. You must've not read anything I said either.

[Imbalistan]

I will just say this.
If a slavery apologist is right about Islam, than Islam is truly an irredeemable religion, and should be eliminated entirely.
Every time we see posts like these it makes Islam look contemptible at best.

Maybe the poster is really anti Muslim, and just pretending to be a Muslim to make Islam look horrible?

Regardless either the poster is wrong, or Islam is evil.

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

The huge problem (coming from a muslim himself) is that there are a lot of interpretations. And everyone believes in there own version. My family is to me pretty liberal when it comes to Islam. We dont eat pork, my dad drinks beer, but many people do not drink alcohol. Why? Because it says in the Koran this is said:

O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. (Al-Quran 4:43)

To some this means that yes, you can drink as long as you dont get drunk. But to others, they see this more conservatively, like for example, no drinks at all. When it comes to pork, it says the following:

He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) God has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is most-Forgiving, most-Merciful.

Not much to argue about, so, no pork. But there are probably a tiny minority that does eat pork, I can be wrong.

[Nea Byzantia]

Xavier was a Jesuit, so just that alone should cause one to question his motives and what he was telling people.

This went a full 360. I may not like Xavier, but I don't believe any conspiracy theories about him. He was just a missionary.

Xavier himself may have been sincere, but the organization he worked for was anything but. The Jesuits almost never brought Catholic Christianity to other nations without having ulterior political motives, or without using crooked methods to convert people. For instance, they got permission to set up Catholic schools in the Ottoman Empire - on the surface this was to "help" the impoverished Greek, Armenian and Slavic Orthodox Christians living under the Sultan's yoke, but in reality they were hoping to expand Rome's ecclesiastical reach into traditionally Orthodox lands; you could only send your kids to these schools if they became Catholic. They did a similar thing with the Antiochian Orthodox Christians in Lebanon (also under Ottoman rule), as well as in Ukraine, back when vast portions of it were ruled by the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom. Its called Casuistry, and its fundamentally immoral. This is just what they did with their fellow Christians, let alone the non-believers.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

The huge problem (coming from a muslim himself) is that there are a lot of interpretations. And everyone believes in there own version. My family is to me pretty liberal when it comes to Islam. We dont eat pork, my dad drinks beer, but many people do not drink alcohol. Why? Because it says in the Koran this is said:

O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. (Al-Quran 4:43)

To some this means that yes, you can drink as long as you dont get drunk. But to others, they see this more conservatively, like for example, no drinks at all. When it comes to pork, it says the following:

He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) God has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is most-Forgiving, most-Merciful.

Not much to argue about, so, no pork. But there are probably a tiny minority that does eat pork, I can be wrong.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=462608&p=35832573#p35832573

[Old Tyrannia]

Far be it for me of all people to defend a Catholic missionary order, but the Jesuits were actually far more respectful of China's Confucian traditions than other Catholic missionary orders. The Dominicans and Franciscans reported back to Rome that the Jesuits were permitting Chinese converts to participate in Confucian ancestor veneration, and the papacy eventually sided with them and banned Chinese Catholics from participating in Confucian ceremonies. The result was that the Kangxi Emperor banned Christian missionaries from preaching to the Chinese altogether.

[Turbofolkia]

It's clear the poster is wrong. His ideas are in sharp contrast to Islamic principles and nobody, Muslim or not, on this site agrees with him. No legitimate religion needs to be banned, but laws should be enacted to protect against his sort and every good person should arm themselves as they may someday be attacked by religious lunatics on the command of a law humans invented to harm each other. The Confederates made a Christian argument for slavery. They were clearly profit seeking monsters rather than moral Christians. Beware the people, not the religion.

The huge problem (coming from a muslim himself) is that there are a lot of interpretations. And everyone believes in there own version. My family is to me pretty liberal when it comes to Islam. We dont eat pork, my dad drinks beer, but many people do not drink alcohol. Why? Because it says in the Koran this is said:

O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving. (Al-Quran 4:43)

To some this means that yes, you can drink as long as you dont get drunk. But to others, they see this more conservatively, like for example, no drinks at all. When it comes to pork, it says the following:

He has only forbidden you what dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that over which any other (name) than (that of) God has been invoked; but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring, nor exceeding the limit, no sin shall be upon him; surely Allah is most-Forgiving, most-Merciful.

Not much to argue about, so, no pork. But there are probably a tiny minority that does eat pork, I can be wrong.

I feel like most Balkan Muslims would have tried pork at least once in their lives and most of them definitely are regular drinkers. But they're about as "Muslim" as your average "Christian" is in the West. My grandfather called himself a Muslim yet he made his own rakija (40% alcohol) and had no problems eating pork ćevapi. I feel like most Bosnian Muslims, even many of the practising ones, while they wouldn't go out of their way to eat pork, they wouldn't refuse it if you gave it to them. I wasn't raised Muslim so can't speak too much for what Islam actually says about it all.

[Nea Byzantia]

Far be it for me of all people to defend a Catholic missionary order, but the Jesuits were actually far more respectful of China's Confucian traditions than other Catholic missionary orders. The Dominicans and Franciscans reported back to Rome that the Jesuits were permitting Chinese converts to participate in Confucian ancestor veneration, and the papacy eventually sided with them and banned Chinese Catholics from participating in Confucian ceremonies. The result was that the Kangxi Emperor banned Christian missionaries from preaching to the Chinese altogether.

That's because the Jesuits are more on the "Liberal" side of the Catholic Church, in fact they had a lot to do with the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council. You might or might not view them as a positive force depending on how you relate to Vatican II.