Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Novus America]

Because without the protection of rights it is nothing more than survival of the fittest, good material conditions are impossible and our lives will be miserable. It is ultimately a pragmatic, practical thing.

But that means there's no moral reason to protect human rights...so what if its more utilitarian or pragmatic for a Regime to engage in tyrannical measures and crush its citizens without caring for the people's rights; on what basis do you critique or oppose such Regimes?

Well in that case it might be pragmatic for the elite, but not the rest of us.
It then is good for the regime, but bad for us.
And even if you are the one in charge if you falter and fall in an authoritarian system you are going up against the wall.

I prefer hedging by bets on rights vs the all or nothing of true authoritarianism.

Moreover I do not reject religious morality, just oppose forcing the specifics on people.
Legislating theology was a disaster in the 1600s, which is why the Enlightenment rejected it.

[Nea Byzantia]

Well in that case it might be pragmatic for the elite, but not the rest of us.

It was pragmatic for Stalin to open up the gulags, and shove millions of people in there to work to death; it was pragmatic the PRC to crush the Tianamen Protests in 1989, its pragmatic for Xi to put the Uighurs in camps; each of these evil and cruel acts have their own (evil and twisted) rationale, so if your argument is pure pragmatism, then there's nothing wrong with that they did, or what they're doing.

It then is good for the regime, but bad for us.

Which won't stop them from doing it.

And even if you are the one in charge if you falter and fall in an authoritarian system you are going up against the wall.

Tell that to Stalin, who's authoritarian regime was very successful, and very evil. Aside from the German Invasion in 1941, at what point was Stalin's "back against a wall"?

EDIT: I initially misunderstood what you meant, I now understood you meant if the Tyrant falls he tends to get executed - unless of course he flees abroad and lives a life of luxury in retirement abroad.

I prefer hedging by bets on rights vs the all or nothing of authoritarianism.

Then its a question of personal preference and taste, rather than any moral foundation. You can make the argument that Authoritarianism is much more pragmatic than any form of Democracy, Republicanism, or upholding of "human rights".

[Novus America]

Well in that case it might be pragmatic for the elite, but not the rest of us.

It was pragmatic for Stalin to open up the gulags, and shove millions of people in there to work to death; it was pragmatic the PRC to crush the Tianamen Protests in 1989, its pragmatic for Xi to put the Uighurs in camps; each of these evil and cruel acts have their own (evil and twisted) rationale, so if your argument is pure pragmatism, then there's nothing wrong with that they did, or what they're doing.

It then is good for the regime, but bad for us.

Which won't stop them from doing it.

And even if you are the one in charge if you falter and fall in an authoritarian system you are going up against the wall.

Tell that to Stalin, who's authoritarian regime was very successful, and very evil. Aside from the German Invasion in 1941, at what point was Stalin's "back against a wall"?

I prefer hedging by bets on rights vs the all or nothing of authoritarianism.

Then its a question of personal preference and taste, rather than any moral foundation. You can make the argument that Authoritarianism is much more pragmatic than any form of Democracy, Republicanism, or upholding of "human rights".

Well Stalin survived, but most of his cronies did not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov
The executioner often ends up on the block.

And the only thing to stop them is us, and a system of checks an balances that keeps them from taking power in the first place.

Now you can make the argument some form of Enlightened Despotism can be better at times pragmatically, but the simple fact is life is better for most people in a society that respects rights than one that does not. You reap what you sow, generally (not always admittedly but it is most likely), treating others like garbage is generally not pragmatic because they will be glad to repay the treatment as some as the opportunity arises.

And again I am not rejecting religious morality but the legislation of the details of theology, which was a complete disaster in the 1600s, which is why the Enlightenment rejected attempting to enforce theology.

Take the homosexual bugbear. Some say religion says it is bad, some say that is just bad translations and oversimplification. Who is right? Who is wrong?
What matters is both sides can live their personal morality without restricting the rights of the other.

[Nea Byzantia]

Well Stalin survived, but most of his cronies did not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavrentiy_Beria
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov
The executioner often ends up on the block.

If I'm Stalin, though, do I really care?

And the only thing to stop them is us, and a system of checks an balances that keeps them from taking power in the first place.

Which makes a tyrannical takeover unpragmatic, for now, anyways...but there's no moral check or balance on such things

Now you can make the argument some form of Enlightened Despotism can be better at times pragmatically, but the simple fact is life is better for most people in a society that respects rights than one that does not. You reap what you sow, generally (not always admittedly but it is most likely), treating others like garbage is generally not pragmatic because they will be glad to repay the treatment as some as the opportunity arises.

Granted, its not always pragmatic, but you can make pragmatist, rational arguments for it; so you don't have any moral basis from which to criticize Tyrants.

And again I am not rejecting religious morality but the legislation of the details of theology, which was a complete disaster in the 1600s, which is why the Enlightenment rejected attempting to enforce theology.

The Enlightenment strove for complete Secularization of Society, though

Take the homosexual bugbear. Some say religion says it is bad, some say that is just bad translations and oversimplification. Who is right? Who is wrong?

According to the Pragmatist philosophy, whoever has power.

What matters is both sides can live their personal morality without restricting the rights of the other.

I agree that that's the ideal, but for completely different reasons.

[Hanafuridake]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

[Salus Maior]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

From what little I've heard of him, Evola is a nutter.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

From what little I've heard of him, Evola is a nutter.

I mean, you're not wrong. Personally, I find that his works read like poorly-written fantasy novels, only more excruciating to read.

[Kvatchdom]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

From what little I've heard of him, Evola is a nutter.

Sex magic. That's all I needed to know the guy's a knob.

[Nakena]

From what little I've heard of him, Evola is a nutter.

I mean, you're not wrong. Personally, I find that his works read like poorly-written fantasy novels, only more excruciating to read.

Poorly-written is an understatement.

[Hanafuridake]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

From what little I've heard of him, Evola is a nutter.

Oh yeah, totally. I just find it really ironic he wasn't even a good elitist.

[Bienenhalde]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

Yeah, that is pretty ironic. Also, would be fair to assume that since he was not initiated that he did not really know what he was talking about?

[Bear Stearns]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

There are many who praise the concept of an aristocracy while not particularly liking the aristocrats themselves.

[Kvatchdom]

There used to be someone in RWDT who praised Evola a lot, can't remember when or who though.

[Great Minarchistan]

And common men do not lead nation states either. They use a leadership filter too.

well yes then your whole point is moot, you were the one to bring up the imperfections of the common men at first

[Fahran]

There used to be someone in RWDT who praised Evola a lot, can't remember when or who though.

There was one white supremacist who did. OEP liked some of his quotes but wasn't keen on his philosophy - if I recall correctly. The rest of us just mocked him ruthlessly.

[Kvatchdom]

There used to be someone in RWDT who praised Evola a lot, can't remember when or who though.

There was one white supremacist who did. OEP liked some of his quotes but wasn't keen on his philosophy - if I recall correctly. The rest of us just mocked him ruthlessly.

Ah, not surprised with OEP. But good on the rest.

[Heulia]

What does it mean to be right wing?

[Kowani]

What does it mean to be right wing?

Hating modernity.

[Hanafuridake]

A random thought I had while perusing some books, there is something really ironic about traditionalists such as Evola who praise elitism but then proceed to mass publish books about Tantras which they aren't initiated in.

Yeah, that is pretty ironic. Also, would be fair to assume that since he was not initiated that he did not really know what he was talking about?

That would be a fair assumption, yes. The texts are meant to be transmitted between teachers and students, while I don't think there's an injunction against reading them, the full meaning can't be glimpsed nor can mantras be used if you haven't received them from someone who's been initiated in a lineage themselves.

[Fahran]

Ah, not surprised with OEP. But good on the rest.

I don't think OEP is nearly as offensive or bad as some make him out to be. We actually have rather pleasant conversations.

[Kvatchdom]

Ah, not surprised with OEP. But good on the rest.

I don't think OEP is nearly as offensive or bad as some make him out to be. We actually have rather pleasant conversations.

Ehhhh he's a bit far out and weird. At least from what I've seen. And his love of Imperialism is a bit cringy, but don't tell him that or he's gonna get his oily hands on me.

[Hanafuridake]

Ah, not surprised with OEP. But good on the rest.

I don't think OEP is nearly as offensive or bad as some make him out to be. We actually have rather pleasant conversations.

He's a fairly nice person, I think. Then again, people have told me that I'd probably get along with even the devil if I met him.

[Nakena]

Yeah, that is pretty ironic. Also, would be fair to assume that since he was not initiated that he did not really know what he was talking about?

That would be a fair assumption, yes. The texts are meant to be transmitted between teachers and students, while I don't think there's an injunction against reading them, the full meaning can't be glimpsed nor can mantras be used if you haven't received them from someone who's been initiated in a lineage themselves.

I wonder if talking over the internet counts too or if has to be in real life.

[Heulia]

I am interested in more information about this: The politics, philosophies, and ideologies of the right.
Right-wing perspectives on economics and political economy

[Nakena]

I am interested in more information about this: The politics, philosophies, and ideologies of the right.
Right-wing perspectives on economics and political economy

Homework?