Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Neko-koku]

My dream world is a world controlled by entrepreneurs and tech. Tech leaders such as Brin, Musk, Gates and Zuckerberg are both good entrepreneurs and good tech folks so they are the best. May Wall Street and Silicon Valley rule and may opposition to them be defeated.

That is called "Neo-reactionary" or NRx

It is at most techno-commercialism. An actual NRx has three components.

[Greater Loegria]

Also, a world ruled by tech entrepreneurs would be very bleak indeed.

It benefits me. Moreover tech entrepreneurs are just a more successful version of regular STEM nerds such as myself so yes my interests and outlooks are almost the same as theirs. They just have resources to carry them out while I don't.

It is a horrific utilitarian vision. Devoid of folk or high culture.

[Neko-koku]

It benefits me. Moreover tech entrepreneurs are just a more successful version of regular STEM nerds such as myself so yes my interests and outlooks are almost the same as theirs. They just have resources to carry them out while I don't.

It is a horrific utilitarian vision. Devoid of folk or high culture.

It is horrible to you, not me. We are psychologically very different so we should indeed agree to disagree.

Also there should definitely be high culture. Whether folk culture should exist is race-dependent. German culture? Yes. Japanese culture? Yes. The culture of Detroit? Nope. Harmful cultures do not deserve to exist.

[San Lond]

I wouldn't necessarily say that centrists just "sit on the fence." I mean, sure, there may be an issue where they cannot decide and in that particular instance they are fence-sitting, but it is more about being aligned with ideas that are on different ends of the political spectrum. It averages out and puts them somewhere near the middle.

You sit on the fence because you enjoy the feeling.

It doesn't balance out at all. In fact many centrists come to see their ideological and pragmatic views as colliding.

I'm a social conservative but I'm quite sceptical of capitalism. So I'm very much on the right though I disagree with much of it economically.

Not sure what I'm supposed to enjoy about sitting on the fence on something. It is usually frustrating not being able to determine truth in a situation.

Personally, I think most people have colliding political views within themselves. We don't naturally think in the constricted political schools of thought, which is one reason why there is so much confusion as to what goes where on the political spectrum.

Me, my political views mostly stem from my religious views (Baptist), so some of them do conflict. But some things are just plain logical. For instance, I like capitalism a lot, but anyone who thinks it can be completely unregulated and still beneficial is wrong. We tried that, and we got The Jungle, with injustice and abuse everywhere.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Personally, I think most people have colliding political views within themselves. We don't naturally think in the constricted political schools of thought, which is one reason why there is so much confusion as to what goes where on the political spectrum.

Almost like there's a dialectic among different materials

[Cirrus Azaleum]

So from what I can tell, I can say conservative stuff here! Yasssss! No more Liberals!

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

So from what I can tell, I can say conservative stuff here! Yasssss! No more Liberals!

I mean, liberals can say stuff here too. And they do. Very loudly.

[Greater Loegria]

You sit on the fence because you enjoy the feeling.

It doesn't balance out at all. In fact many centrists come to see their ideological and pragmatic views as colliding.

I'm a social conservative but I'm quite sceptical of capitalism. So I'm very much on the right though I disagree with much of it economically.

Not sure what I'm supposed to enjoy about sitting on the fence on something. It is usually frustrating not being able to determine truth in a situation.

Personally, I think most people have colliding political views within themselves. We don't naturally think in the constricted political schools of thought, which is one reason why there is so much confusion as to what goes where on the political spectrum.

Me, my political views mostly stem from my religious views (Baptist), so some of them do conflict. But some things are just plain logical. For instance, I like capitalism a lot, but anyone who thinks it can be completely unregulated and still beneficial is wrong. We tried that, and we got The Jungle, with injustice and abuse everywhere.

To ‘enjoy sitting on the fence’ is a sexual euphemism but never mind that.

Subscribing exclusively to someone else’s school of thought is unwise aye. But your view and outlook of the world should make sense to you. Like if you’re a liberal then actually you should oppose multiculturalism in order to preserve the existing liberal culture against incoming third worlders who have much different views on women and gays. Or if you are a conservative you ought to be highly sceptical of the free market as it threatens traditional local social values.

[Cappuccina]

I'm socially on the right as well, but my economic views are very anti-capitalist, so I don't think it'd be correct to say I'm right-wing, personally.

'Right' and 'Left' are increasingly watered down and abused as terms. Generally, the 'right' believe that inequality or specifically social hierarchy is inevitable. It is the preference to Order and seldom challenges what it sees as natural law. The left on the other hand are chiefly motivated by equality and the arbitrary elevation of the masses at the expense of those controlling the means of wealth.

Hmm, I don't see the Left's original intent on being arbitrary, tbth. The Old Left was more concerned with removal of the "old guard" or "old money", those who get by only through the inheritance of the forebears deeds, and making social mobility more accessible to the lower rungs of civilization. That imo, is a noble motive, though over time it did evolve into more equality for equality's sake.

[Neko-koku]

'Right' and 'Left' are increasingly watered down and abused as terms. Generally, the 'right' believe that inequality or specifically social hierarchy is inevitable. It is the preference to Order and seldom challenges what it sees as natural law. The left on the other hand are chiefly motivated by equality and the arbitrary elevation of the masses at the expense of those controlling the means of wealth.

Hmm, I don't see the Left's original intent on being arbitrary, tbth. The Old Left was more concerned with removal of the "old guard" or "old money", those who get by only through the inheritance of the forebears deeds, and making social mobility more accessible to the lower rungs of civilization. That imo, is a noble motive, though over time it did evolve into more equality for equality's sake.

The Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the City of London are good no matter whether you like them.

Redistribution is always evil...regardless of whether it is under a Communist flag, a Nazi flag or an African flag. Mugabe is always evil while Rothschilds are always good.

[Cappuccina]

Hmm, I don't see the Left's original intent on being arbitrary, tbth. The Old Left was more concerned with removal of the "old guard" or "old money", those who get by only through the inheritance of the forebears deeds, and making social mobility more accessible to the lower rungs of civilization. That imo, is a noble motive, though over time it did evolve into more equality for equality's sake.

The Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the City of London are good no matter whether you like it.

Redistribution is always evil.

I never said I opposed any of those things. But, I don't agree with the idea that redistribution is inherently evil.

[Neko-koku]

The Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the City of London are good no matter whether you like it.

Redistribution is always evil.

I never said I opposed any of those things. But, I don't agree with the idea that redistribution is inherently evil.

It is fairly easy to test what is good and what is evil. Think about occupied Rhodesia. Rhodesian farm owners are good while farm invaders are evil. Why? Because the latter violates property rights while the former protects property rights. Now let's apply the same principle consistently everywhere else.

For example if someone destroys Jewish businesses for being Jewish it is evil because it violates property rights. Committing pogroms is even worse because it is murder which is an even more severe violation of rights.

Similarly black mobs and criminals everywhere on this planet are evil for they violate rights while white, Indian and other business people harmed by them are good.

[Cappuccina]

I never said I opposed any of those things. But, I don't agree with the idea that redistribution is inherently evil.

It is fairly easy to test what is good and what is evil. Think about occupied Rhodesia. Rhodesian farm owners are good while farm invaders are evil. Why? Because the latter violates property rights while the former protects property rights. Now let's apply the same principle consistently everywhere else.

For example if someone destroys Jewish businesses for being Jewish it is evil because it violates property rights. Committing pogroms is even worse because it is murder which is an even more severe violation of rights.

Similarly black mobs and criminals everywhere on this planet are evil for they violate rights while white, Indian and other business people harmed by them are good.

I don't believe property rights are absolute, one must mind how it was that the property was acquired, is it wrong to confiscate property acquired through neferious means, no.

[Totally Not OEP]

Another excellent idea: the Pentarchy must be restored to Christendom.

Under the God-Ordained Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans, of course...

Who is the current title holder or best claim to such?

[North German Realm]

Under the God-Ordained Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans, of course...

Who is the current title holder or best claim to such?

If we go by legal marriage, someone from the House of Gonzaga, I'd say. If we go by tradition, there's no rightful holder as the office is supposed to be electoral

[San Lond]

Who is the current title holder or best claim to such?

If we go by legal marriage, someone from the House of Gonzaga, I'd say. If we go by tradition, there's no rightful holder as the office is supposed to be electoral

If it's up grabs, I'll take it. That'll look great on a resume.

[Neko-koku]

It is fairly easy to test what is good and what is evil. Think about occupied Rhodesia. Rhodesian farm owners are good while farm invaders are evil. Why? Because the latter violates property rights while the former protects property rights. Now let's apply the same principle consistently everywhere else.

For example if someone destroys Jewish businesses for being Jewish it is evil because it violates property rights. Committing pogroms is even worse because it is murder which is an even more severe violation of rights.

Similarly black mobs and criminals everywhere on this planet are evil for they violate rights while white, Indian and other business people harmed by them are good.

I don't believe property rights are absolute, one must mind how it was that the property was acquired, is it wrong to confiscate property acquired through neferious means, no.

This word does not have a definition. For example if my shop is open from 5AM to 12PM while others' shops are open from 9AM to 7PM so I earn more than others is this nefarious? Apparently some says "yes". Moreover to mobsters any form of wealth owned by people they don't like can be robbed anyway.

[Totally Not OEP]

[Crysuko]

(Image)

what did he mean by this

[Turbofolkia]

Fair enough, nothing can beat Split and Dubrovnik.

Yeah, the most hardline Croat nationalists are generally from Bosnia. The same can be said about Bosnian Serbs. Neum absolutely would vote to join Croatia in a heartbeat, as would the other Croat majority areas of Bosnia. Whether Croatia would want to take them is another question. Bosnia is a minefield - literally and figuratively.

There’s been talk of building the bridge for about as long as Croatia has been independent. It has really soured relations with Bosnia. The bridge will make Neum virtually useless as a sea port since it will cut off its access to the open sea.

There’s nothing to be gained from awarding the project to a Chinese company. China is sending its own workers to work on construction rather than hiring locals and now China is looking at acquiring important ports in a number of Croatian cities. Most Croats are just happy that the bridge is finally being built and haven’t really thought about the long term consequences of this.

Unfortunately our ship did not stop by Dubrovnik. I want to see it though.

Yes I understand why you would want the bridge but like you said the PRC was a horrible choice. They will only use Chinese workers and materials, crush you with unaffordable loans and hidden costs (you will pay MUCH more than the quoted costs) then seize your ports as repayment.

Unfortunately this had already happened many other places.

I hope you do see it one day. Probably best to visit in June or September when the whether is still nice but it’s less crowded. There are far more tourists visiting Croatia now than there were 10 years ago.

Yeah, Chinese influence is also quite strong in Serbia. I think they see the Balkans as the softest part of Europe to undermine since there is a lot of infrastructure that hasn’t been rebuilt and politicians are looking for a quick fix more than anything else.

[Neko-koku]

Unfortunately our ship did not stop by Dubrovnik. I want to see it though.

Yes I understand why you would want the bridge but like you said the PRC was a horrible choice. They will only use Chinese workers and materials, crush you with unaffordable loans and hidden costs (you will pay MUCH more than the quoted costs) then seize your ports as repayment.

Unfortunately this had already happened many other places.

I hope you do see it one day. Probably best to visit in June or September when the whether is still nice but it’s less crowded. There are far more tourists visiting Croatia now than there were 10 years ago.

Yeah, Chinese influence is also quite strong in Serbia. I think they see the Balkans as the softest part of Europe to undermine since there is a lot of infrastructure that hasn’t been rebuilt and politicians are looking for a quick fix more than anything else.

Of course SE Europe is the underbelly of Europe, followed by NE Europe and Latin Europe. Germanic Europe is the hardest to deal with for any foreign power.

[Greater Loegria]

Hmm, I don't see the Left's original intent on being arbitrary, tbth. The Old Left was more concerned with removal of the "old guard" or "old money", those who get by only through the inheritance of the forebears deeds, and making social mobility more accessible to the lower rungs of civilization. That imo, is a noble motive, though over time it did evolve into more equality for equality's sake.

The Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the City of London are good no matter whether you like them.

Redistribution is always evil...regardless of whether it is under a Communist flag, a Nazi flag or an African flag. Mugabe is always evil while Rothschilds are always good.

Are you a parody?

Like are you trying to be deliberately loathsome?

[Neko-koku]

The Wall Street, the Silicon Valley and the City of London are good no matter whether you like them.

Redistribution is always evil...regardless of whether it is under a Communist flag, a Nazi flag or an African flag. Mugabe is always evil while Rothschilds are always good.

Are you a parody?

Like are you trying to be deliberately loathsome?

It's not a parody. I'm serious. It's either respecting rights or Mugabism and Mugabism sucks.

[Neko-koku]

https://mises.org/library/left-and-righ ... rtarianism

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/20 ... y-defined/

I don't agree with everything in the two articles. However they roughly outline something I want, a free society. However maybe conservation of coercion is actually inevitable. In this case forces must serve businesses to prevent them from becoming destructive.

[Greater Loegria]

Are you a parody?

Like are you trying to be deliberately loathsome?

It's not a parody. I'm serious. It's either respecting rights or Mugabism and Mugabism sucks.

It's really so much more nuanced than that. The Bankers and Financial speculators really are some of the worst people around.