Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The Sacking of Constantinople worked to hasten a dying man to his grave, when that dying man could have lived for longer. Besides the atrocities that occurred during the sacking as well as after, along with Ottoman dominance, could have been avoided altogether or at least slowed.

Chances are the Angelos dynasty wouldn't have lasted long and perhaps another renaissance of sorts could have occurred as it had previously. The Byzantines had a knack for coming back after being on the brink. Well, most of the time.

Perhaps

[Bear Stearns]

If I am going, to be honest, if I were a nativist in the 19th century (presumably antebellum) I would be more upset at the presidential abuse of power in regards to the "five civilized tribes". By all extents, Jackson was booting off Christianized Americans from their lands who ironically integrated into the slaveholding society of their states.

To clarify this is me placing myself in the shoes of a nativist within my home state of South Carolina. I don't actually agree with the olden days of nativist to the point of viewing Catholics as robotic spies for the papacy.

The reason why nativism never caught on was twofold

1) Slavery was considered to be far more important - nativists on the whole leaned towards abolitionism (because most were Northerners), and they could never rally enough support in the South to get them to put slavery aside
2) Builds off of number 1, it was largely a regional issue as most immigrants were going to the North. It was hard to build a national campaign around issues that Southerners and Westerners didn't care about

But for their time, the nativists were extremely successfully at local politics, where they didn't need to get involved in the slavery debate. Boston and Philadelphia had a string of nativist governments throughout the 1840s and 1850s.

Also, with your example, nativism was likely very low on a South Carolinian's political priority list.

[Totally Not OEP]

Chances are the Angelos dynasty wouldn't have lasted long and perhaps another renaissance of sorts could have occurred as it had previously. The Byzantines had a knack for coming back after being on the brink. Well, most of the time.

Under the Komnenos, the Byzantine Empire was at its richest and damn near came close to achieving a personal union with Hungary as well as reclaiming Egypt.

[Totally Not OEP]

Tbh the greatest defense of Christendom was the Battle of Lechfeld in 955, when King Otto the Great of Germany, and later Holy Roman Emperor, beat back the pagan hordes of Hungary. Stick that into your goulash you horse fetishizing bastards.

I approve of this.

[Totally Not OEP]

Also, in light of recent events, I'm bringing back Stone Cold.

[Napkizemlja]

Also, in light of recent events, I'm bringing back Stone Cold.

You watched his Hot Ones interview, didn't you.

[Totally Not OEP]

Also, in light of recent events, I'm bringing back Stone Cold.

You watched his Hot Ones interview, didn't you.

Nah, I'm back to classes next week and just wracked up a recent encounter with the Mods lol. Seemed appropriate to restore him as my avi.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I had a possible “Eureka” moment of sorts. As y’all know, the French Revolution could be perhaps described as the definitive turning point in politics (whether for the better or worse I’ll leave up to you all), the beginning of the modern ideological age. The conventional “left-right” political spectrum emerged during this time, but said system is inadequate. Picture, for a moment, an equilateral triangle. Where two sides of the triangle converge into a point, that represents an extreme form of “revolutionary” style thought. Each of these points represents a particular (stated) principle of the revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I’ve noticed that three influential schools of political thought (Liberalism, Socialism, and Fascism, respectively) correspond roughly to said principles. As such, each school could, perhaps, be the logical conclusion of their particular principle being exalted above the others. Within the center of the triangle would be a right mixture of moderates, centrists, and conservatives, all defined by a rejection of the extremes of the Liberals, the Socialists, and the Fascists, but for different reasons. The way I see it, this better represents the nature of politics today. What do y’all think?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

You watched his Hot Ones interview, didn't you.

Nah, I'm back to classes next week and just wracked up a recent encounter with the Mods lol. Seemed appropriate to restore him as my avi.

Do you move in this Friday and begin classes next Monday?

[United Muscovite Nations]

You watched his Hot Ones interview, didn't you.

Nah, I'm back to classes next week and just wracked up a recent encounter with the Mods lol. Seemed appropriate to restore him as my avi.

I go back next week too, moving in next weekend. Hopefully I'll graduate this fall because this semester is an expensive one.

[North German Realm]

All right, lads. My very large brain has a question.

If you could go back in time what would have been your ideal version of the Treaty of Versailles? Or would have preferred that the Entente never win at all?

The thing about the Treaty of Versailles (or rather, what it stands for; that is to say the treaty enforced on the losing side by the winners of the First World War) is that its an inevitability. The main points of the treaty (heavy-handed punishment, territorial concessions, admission of guilt) are the same in all other treaties and the harsh reparations are unique because none of the other losers has an actual economy anymore. There is no ideal version of it. If you don't get reparations, you can't feed the mouths that are now hungry because you've lost a large part of your working force. If you don't get territorial concessions in any form, you won't get that warm and fuzzy feeling inside that tells you "it wasn't all for nothing". If you don't force admission of guilt, you have to stop living in a fantasy and face the reality that your side was just about as responsible for the shitshow that was the last four years as the other guys and that there were no "bad guys". You can't change it.

That said, My own ideal version of the Versailles wouldn't give Poland access to sea or give Denmark territory that it had originally tried to take by infringing upon a treaty. It wouldn't include the admission of guilt clause, and it would include harsher economic measures.

Of course, given I -as an Iranian- stand to lose in an Entente victory (which is exactly what happened), it would be better if the allies didn't win in the first place so I'd prefer the Entente never to win at all. Who knows, maybe Foroughi could have skivved off some reparations for the occupation of Persia by the Russians and Brits in the "Peace with Honor" or whatever.

[Bear Stearns]

All right, lads. My very large brain has a question.

If you could go back in time what would have been your ideal version of the Treaty of Versailles? Or would have preferred that the Entente never win at all?

Brest-Litovsk stands in the East, no German guilt clause.

[The Grand Duchy Of Nova Capile]

I had a possible “Eureka” moment of sorts. As y’all know, the French Revolution could be perhaps described as the definitive turning point in politics (whether for the better or worse I’ll leave up to you all), the beginning of the modern ideological age. The conventional “left-right” political spectrum emerged during this time, but said system is inadequate. Picture, for a moment, an equilateral triangle. Where two sides of the triangle converge into a point, that represents an extreme form of “revolutionary” style thought. Each of these points represents a particular (stated) principle of the revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I’ve noticed that three influential schools of political thought (Liberalism, Socialism, and Fascism, respectively) correspond roughly to said principles. As such, each school could, perhaps, be the logical conclusion of their particular principle being exalted above the others. Within the center of the triangle would be a right mixture of moderates, centrists, and conservatives, all defined by a rejection of the extremes of the Liberals, the Socialists, and the Fascists, but for different reasons. The way I see it, this better represents the nature of politics today. What do y’all think?

I've seen this breakdown before, and it is somewhat accurate. I don't know if the defining characteristic of Fascism would be brotherhood, however. Brotherhood/Fraternity is also even more nebulous than the Liberty or Equality. You can easily imagine a society/political system devoted entirely to liberty, or devoted entirely to equality. Devoted entirely to Brotherhood, however?
I would hesitantly classify Fascism as being more about devotion to the collective/state/nation/race/people/etc. than to the idea of brotherhood in general, although the feeling of brotherhood is definitely a facet.

[Totally Not OEP]

Nah, I'm back to classes next week and just wracked up a recent encounter with the Mods lol. Seemed appropriate to restore him as my avi.

Do you move in this Friday and begin classes next Monday?

Basically

[Totally Not OEP]

All right, lads. My very large brain has a question.

If you could go back in time what would have been your ideal version of the Treaty of Versailles? Or would have preferred that the Entente never win at all?

Brest-Litovsk stands in the East, no German guilt clause.

[The Liberated Territories]

In any other century, it was irrelevant compared to Rome. You know, where the empire gets its name?

All the Romans worth anything moved East because the West was where the poor lived.

I have to concede at this, as upon researching more everything did suggest that Greece held the most sway in the Roman Empire. Still, the loss of the west culminated into a series of setbacks for the Byzantines where they never could really restore what we knew as Rome.

[The Liberated Territories]

Brest-Litovsk stands in the East, no German guilt clause.

Those are absolutely beautiful borders.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

All right, lads. My very large brain has a question.

If you could go back in time what would have been your ideal version of the Treaty of Versailles? Or would have preferred that the Entente never win at all?

Make Germany pay for the reparations they could fully afford. Give the frogs a wide mandate for military occupation and intervention.

[United Muscovite Nations]

[Jack Thomas Lang]

(Image)

"Jewish Republic of Turkey"

What the fuck UMN.

[Totally Not OEP]

(Image)

What is wrong with you

[United Muscovite Nations]

(Image)

"Jewish Republic of Turkey"

What the fuck UMN.

Erdogan's watermelons fetch many shekels before Shabbat!

[Bear Stearns]

(Image)

Lowkey that Greater Netherlands country looks awesome.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I had a possible “Eureka” moment of sorts. As y’all know, the French Revolution could be perhaps described as the definitive turning point in politics (whether for the better or worse I’ll leave up to you all), the beginning of the modern ideological age. The conventional “left-right” political spectrum emerged during this time, but said system is inadequate. Picture, for a moment, an equilateral triangle. Where two sides of the triangle converge into a point, that represents an extreme form of “revolutionary” style thought. Each of these points represents a particular (stated) principle of the revolution: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. I’ve noticed that three influential schools of political thought (Liberalism, Socialism, and Fascism, respectively) correspond roughly to said principles. As such, each school could, perhaps, be the logical conclusion of their particular principle being exalted above the others. Within the center of the triangle would be a right mixture of moderates, centrists, and conservatives, all defined by a rejection of the extremes of the Liberals, the Socialists, and the Fascists, but for different reasons. The way I see it, this better represents the nature of politics today. What do y’all think?

I've seen this breakdown before, and it is somewhat accurate. I don't know if the defining characteristic of Fascism would be brotherhood, however. Brotherhood/Fraternity is also even more nebulous than the Liberty or Equality. You can easily imagine a society/political system devoted entirely to liberty, or devoted entirely to equality. Devoted entirely to Brotherhood, however?
I would hesitantly classify Fascism as being more about devotion to the collective/state/nation/race/people/etc. than to the idea of brotherhood in general, although the feeling of brotherhood is definitely a facet.

Under my proposed system, for example, I’d reckon that I’d be 60 to 70 percent Fascist (defined in distance from the Moderate and/or Conservative center of the Ideological Triangle).

[Jack Thomas Lang]

(Image)

"Are you Latvian or Lithuanian?"
"yes"