Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Jack Thomas Lang]

To be fair, it’s reputation is something along the lines of “1000 years of embarrassment and ignorance.”

Which is frustrating because that's flawed history. Medieval Europe was incredibly sophisticated, with its fair share of advancements in technology, culture, and learning.

[Nakena]

Out of curiosity, how does the number of 5.000 years constitute?



I guess everyone has a favorite historical reference era.

Literal beginning of history. All the events which proceeded the invention of written language, which was about 5,000 years ago.

I am no fan of the French Revolution either, for my own reasons. I believe it brought more harm than good for many reasons.

[Kowani]

A couple of monarchist parties in Eastern Europe and Russians wanting something (it’s not happening, not with Eternal President Putin) does not constitute “the tide turning.”

The most likelist chance that hereditary "monarchy" (if not in name but in practice) would return is in the form of autocratic regimes and nations establishing itself where the autocrats attempt to varying degrees of sucess to bestow powers onto their offspring. (Syria, some central asian republics etc.) That tendency is always there to varying degrees.

Sure, that’s true.

[Nakena]

The most likelist chance that hereditary "monarchy" (if not in name but in practice) would return is in the form of autocratic regimes and nations establishing itself where the autocrats attempt to varying degrees of sucess to bestow powers onto their offspring. (Syria, some central asian republics etc.) That tendency is always there to varying degrees.

Sure, that’s true.

Mind you that many great european dynasties started out in similar ways, when they craved out their claims and fiefs from the remains of the roman empire. If they weren't bullies with swords to begin with.

[Hanafuridake]

I wish medieval history was more appreciated. I've noticed that it doesn't really factor into conservative thought, beyond Tradcats.

Bloody samurai always usurping the imperial prerogative.

[Kowani]

I have no idea who Fukuyama is, I just liked the sound of the phrase.

Liberal philosopher who kinda coined, The end of history, idea about liberal democracies following the fall of the Soviet Union.

Ahh. Well, it’s true that democracy has been seeing an upswing, and even the baseline of autocracy is not what it used to be. Despite that, yeah, we still have a long way to go.

Sure, that’s true.

Mind you that many great european dynasties started out in similar ways, when they craved out their claims and fiefs from the remains of the roman empire. If they weren't bullies with swords to begin with.

I believe I said something along similar lines the last time I ranted about monarchy.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

I wish medieval history was more appreciated. I've noticed that it doesn't really factor into conservative thought, beyond Tradcats.

To be fair, it’s reputation is something along the lines of “1000 years of embarrassment and ignorance.”

This was a very unfortunate step in past historiography. When people look to antiquity, it is probably more accurate that we owe more to the Middle Ages.

[Kowani]

To be fair, it’s reputation is something along the lines of “1000 years of embarrassment and ignorance.”

This was a very unfortunate step in past historiography. When people look to antiquity, it is probably more accurate that we owe more to the Middle Ages.

I’m not saying that it’s good historiography (although I still wouldn’t want to live there), I’m merely commentating on public perception.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

To be fair, it’s reputation is something along the lines of “1000 years of embarrassment and ignorance.”

This was a very unfortunate step in past historiography. When people look to antiquity, it is probably more accurate that we owe more to the Middle Ages.

Out of curiosity what do we owe to the middle ages?

[Pacomia]

I'd rather be living under someone who took power by force than under a monarchy, personally. At least the first guy knows how to do something. You wouldn't vote for an inbred, sheltered, useless politician who knew nothing about actual life in his country, so why would you do that with a monarchy?

[Totally Not OEP]

I wish medieval history was more appreciated. I've noticed that it doesn't really factor into conservative thought, beyond Tradcats.

Bloody samurai always usurping the imperial prerogative.

Tangentially related to this: whats your view on the Imjin War?

[Nakena]

I believe I said something along similar lines the last time I ranted about monarchy.

Yes and theres two kind of people. Those who have the swords and those who do not. Which one you want to be part of?

But lets skip the history part as theres enough other people here who can and will lecture you more on it than I ever wanted or could.

Now what does that all mean for now and the future in a modern and democratic society?

Yes thats right!

[Kowani]

This was a very unfortunate step in past historiography. When people look to antiquity, it is probably more accurate that we owe more to the Middle Ages.

Out of curiosity what do we owe to the middle ages?

We learned what not to do.

I believe I said something along similar lines the last time I ranted about monarchy.

Yes and theres two kind of people. Those who are bullied and those who do the bully. Which one you want to be part of?

Nak, you know me well enough to know the answer to that.

But lets skip the history part as theres enough other people here who can and will lecture you more on it than I ever wanted or could.

Now what does that all mean for now and the future in a modern and democratic society?

Yes thats right!

Time to speed up that technology...

[Hanafuridake]

Sure, that’s true.

Mind you that many great european dynasties started out in similar ways, when they craved out their claims and fiefs from the remains of the roman empire. If they weren't bullies with swords to begin with.

Germanic kings who invaded the Roman Empire were kings well before the invasions, the idea that they were nobodies who just happened to have a sword to make everyone recognize them as kings isn't historically accurate. From what Tacitus tells us, kings were selected according to their noble blood and because they inspired confidence in their fellow tribesmen. But European dynasty's legitimacy after Christianization ultimately relied on the divine right of kings which was granted by God rather than who they were before.

[Old Tyrannia]

I just thought of an interesting idea. Essentially, subtly goad the PRC into firing what few nukes they have that are capable of reaching the United States at us, which would give us a legitimate causus belli to retaliate and annex them. I dunno though, I thought of it while doing the dishes, so it might not be the most well-thought out plan. But the basic gist of it is that we'd sacrifice, say, San Francisco and a few other cities on the West Coast to the PRC's atomic hellfires, in order to legitimize a war of conquest and annexation. Hell, if we play our cards right, we could convince the rest of our allies to join us in the war. But what do y'all think about my half-baked crackpot scheme?

The United States is not capable of annexing China. You'll just end up sending millions of young Americans into the biggest meatgrinder since Operation Barbarossa.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

We learned what not to do.

D E S T R O Y E
D

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I just thought of an interesting idea. Essentially, subtly goad the PRC into firing what few nukes they have that are capable of reaching the United States at us, which would give us a legitimate causus belli to retaliate and annex them. I dunno though, I thought of it while doing the dishes, so it might not be the most well-thought out plan. But the basic gist of it is that we'd sacrifice, say, San Francisco and a few other cities on the West Coast to the PRC's atomic hellfires, in order to legitimize a war of conquest and annexation. Hell, if we play our cards right, we could convince the rest of our allies to join us in the war. But what do y'all think about my half-baked crackpot scheme?

The United States is not capable of annexing China. You'll just end up sending millions of young Americans into the biggest meatgrinder since Operation Barbarossa.

Goodness, why does everyone keep replying to that... erm... is "shitpost" the right word? Like, I even admitted in the post that it was a half-baked crackpot scheme. I'm confused, really. Should I have put a "/silliness" tag or something?

[Kowani]

We learned what not to do.

D E S T R O Y E
D

Bows.

[Old Tyrannia]

The United States is not capable of annexing China. You'll just end up sending millions of young Americans into the biggest meatgrinder since Operation Barbarossa.

Goodness, why does everyone keep replying to that... erm... is "shitpost" the right word? Like, I even admitted in the post that it was a half-baked crackpot scheme. I'm confused, really. Should I have put a "/silliness" tag or something?

It's the Right-wing Discussion Thread. When Americans talk about annexing this country or that as if it were a casual stroll through a park, it's hardly obvious anymore that they're joking.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I just thought of an interesting idea. Essentially, subtly goad the PRC into firing what few nukes they have that are capable of reaching the United States at us, which would give us a legitimate causus belli to retaliate and annex them. I dunno though, I thought of it while doing the dishes, so it might not be the most well-thought out plan. But the basic gist of it is that we'd sacrifice, say, San Francisco and a few other cities on the West Coast to the PRC's atomic hellfires, in order to legitimize a war of conquest and annexation. Hell, if we play our cards right, we could convince the rest of our allies to join us in the war. But what do y'all think about my half-baked crackpot scheme?

The United States is not capable of annexing China. You'll just end up sending millions of young Americans into the biggest meatgrinder since Operation Barbarossa.

Fighting communism is always a worthy cause tbh

[Hanafuridake]

Bloody samurai always usurping the imperial prerogative.

Tangentially related to this: whats your view on the Imjin War?

It was a total disaster, and I think that was the main reason that Hideyoshi launched a war that he probably knew he couldn't win. He wasn't a noble by birth, his parents had been peasants, and he had rose through the ranks but could never fully reach the rank of shōgun because of that. His power was something he could only claim because he had the force of arms, and if someone else proved stronger, he'd be undone. Weakening the daimyo by throwing them into an unwinnable war was in his best interest.

I'm fond of Hideyoshi, but this is one of the things that leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Goodness, why does everyone keep replying to that... erm... is "shitpost" the right word? Like, I even admitted in the post that it was a half-baked crackpot scheme. I'm confused, really. Should I have put a "/silliness" tag or something?

It's the Right-wing Discussion Thread. When Americans talk about annexing this country or that as if it were a casual stroll through a park, it's hardly obvious anymore that they're joking.

Really? Has the thread always been like this or is it a recent phenomenon?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Out of curiosity what do we owe to the middle ages?

A lot actually. Universities, printing, Western music, etc. One can hardly forget the Magna Carta, or town charters. I think our understanding of constitutions is heavily influenced by medieval history.

[Old Tyrannia]

I'd rather be living under someone who took power by force than under a monarchy, personally. At least the first guy knows how to do something. You wouldn't vote for an inbred, sheltered, useless politician who knew nothing about actual life in his country, so why would you do that with a monarchy?

Personally I dislike the idea of being ruled by a power-hungry tyrant who is beholden to no law.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

I'd rather be living under someone who took power by force than under a monarchy, personally. At least the first guy knows how to do something. You wouldn't vote for an inbred, sheltered, useless politician who knew nothing about actual life in his country, so why would you do that with a monarchy?

Personally I dislike the idea of being ruled by a power-hungry tyrant who is beholden to no law.

Said the anglican monarchist