Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVIII: Hyena Central Command 憶ラ

[United Muscovite Nations]

We need to do what they did in Gears of War. All the men are sent to the front lines to fight the bug people, while the women are in reproductive camps unless they are infertile, then they are sent to the front lines.

I agree, the bug people have had it too good for too long. It's time they are faced with totalen krieg.

[Napkizemlja]

We need to do what they did in Gears of War. All the men are sent to the front lines to fight the bug people, while the women are in reproductive camps unless they are infertile, then they are sent to the front lines.

I agree, the bug people have had it too good for too long. It's time they are faced with totalen krieg.

This gets the Gear seal of approval.

[Chernoslavia]

We face a two front world war with an enemy power set to eclipse our naval strength by 2035. One of those fronts, our so called allies are worthless. Also we face manpower shortages.

The situation is dire enough as is.

You see the words immediately obvious? Most people aren’t thinking that far ahead. I’d be surprised if politicians were thinking that far ahead. The thing about conscription is that it doesn’t really work socially unless you’re already in a war or have the threats right at your door. Whether or not it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it can be done.

See my post on young men checking out.

You wouldn’t happen to have a link? ‘Cause you’ve got a lot of posts.

Society can't continue as is.

Nah. The capitalist structure makes sure of that.

We do, namely we face an immediate threat that has us out outnumbered in persons 4 to 1.

You do realize that China would still outnumber the US regardless.

Plus a society breaking at the seams from tribal identity politics,

Often politics with legitimate grievances behind them. Blacks, rural whites, Latinos, etc-identity politics happens because there are certain trends that effect demographic subgroups harshly, and that’s not going to be addressed with conscription.

poor health,

So we provide free healthcare, and we stop subsidizing the junk food and meat industries. Properly regulate their advertising to children, subsidize healthy food, provide parks and recreation centres.

lack of social interaction, a failing sense of common identity and civic virtues.

These ones, you actually have a point.

Yeah we have they need more than any. And Singapore does it more for the value of uniting a diverse society than military need. We need it just as much as they do for that purpose.

Singapore also has public housing with racial quotas, a national education system, and two different hate speech laws. Just taking national services won’t work.

Dude China has little to no chance in defeating the United States in war. They do not have the capability to mount an invasion on US soil nor can they reach us with their junky ass cannibalized aircraft. They don’t even possess a functioning aircraft carrier.

Edit: Just realized you’re not the one saying China is a significant threat, my bad.

[Kowani]

Ah, a transition period in which traditional views on masculinity aren’t connective with reality? No wonder there’s a problem. But here’s the issue-those jobs that men used as signifiers of their identity, the traditional arrangements-those aren’t coming back. Manufacturing, mining, whatever the industry is-the traditional masculine jobs aren’t coming back. Market forces prevent that. Trying to cling to the slowly dying status quo isn’t going to change that-you can’t compete. Well-paying jobs that provide community can’t compete with robots and underpaid third-world laborers. The game has changed, and the old ways aren’t coming back.

That’s really not the issue - single men work about as hard as women and produce economically about the same. Single women, married women, and single men all make about the same amount.

It’s only married men who really, as a statistical average, that work really hard and earn more. They also make up a very significant part of the tax base on a dollars and cents basis.

It’s not a question of job types changing. It’s that without families to support, they’re just not working as hard.

I realize you didn’t give the source, TEM did, but it very much is a question of job types changing. Not all sectors pay the same average wage, and the manufacturing sector, which tended to pay the best, and tended to employ men, has not been doing so hot. Market forces are a lot more powerful than social ones, in my experience-the former shape the latter more often than the other way around.

Money isn’t valuable to them in the abstract - only for supporting themselves and their families.

With the world hating them on the basis of their gender, and a land mine on every corner, is it any wonder they’re deciding to play video games in a one bedroom apartment and work part time?

But I’m sure it’s fine. No concerns here at all.

I don’t quite think that’s the only reason for the decline in marriage. I’m also not sure what the “land mine on every corner” refers to.

A note-it is never explained why there is an increase in female donors. It’s never even said if it’s a decrease in men or an increase in women, just a “widening gender imbalance.”

Here’s a quote from the article you didn’t read:

The number of men giving blood has dropped by 24.8% over the past five years in England, while the number of women giving blood has fallen by 6%

You’re right, I did miss that bit. My bad.

[Turbofolkia]

I couldn't agree with you more. I enjoyed the food overseas much more than here.... European food is much better.

I have never been to America but one of the first things people who have travelled there tell me is how artificial and mass produced everything tastes.

Now I do my bit by avoiding anything with a “product of the USA” label on it.

Because we grow a lot of corn. And are not as suited for growing sugar.

Neither is Europe, but most of the sugar in Europe is produced from beetroot. Cane sugar and beetroot sugar are not as harmful as corn syrup. Nor does it taste so disgusting and odd.

Surely there are many regions in the USA that are suited to growing beetroot or sugar cane? Something tells me it’s the subsidies that corn farmers receive.

[Kowani]

[l

“It’s one thing to work with a gay latino for 2 years (length of Singapore’s conscription period) and then go home to Glendo, Wyoming, and never see one again.”
This is still better than never seeing one at all.

Statistically speaking? Not really.

And you have not show those other things are better at it, or would work as well in the absence of national service.

Well, yeah. The fact that the only countries to try it are Singapore Finland, and Israel, which use both, and everywhere else uses the other methods and still come out, on average, with better social capital, and Finland sees a suicide rate above the rest of the EU.

Moreover it is not really important because I am not against all those things either at all.
Again they can work alongside a national service system, and using multiple complementary methods makes perfect sense.

It does if all of those methods are feasible to implement. You’d have an easier time nationalizing healthcare (not just insurance) then reinstating conscription.

[Galloism]

That’s really not the issue - single men work about as hard as women and produce economically about the same. Single women, married women, and single men all make about the same amount.

It’s only married men who really, as a statistical average, that work really hard and earn more. They also make up a very significant part of the tax base on a dollars and cents basis.

It’s not a question of job types changing. It’s that without families to support, they’re just not working as hard.

I realize you didn’t give the source, TEM did, but it very much is a question of job types changing. Not all sectors pay the same average wage, and the manufacturing sector, which tended to pay the best, and tended to employ men, has not been doing so hot. Market forces are a lot more powerful than social ones, in my experience-the former shape the latter more often than the other way around.

And not all workers have the same motivation to work the same hours, with the same level of drive, effort, etc.

And there really is a factor here of young men just checking out of society altogether. Without a family, why bother?

Money isn’t valuable to them in the abstract - only for supporting themselves and their families.

With the world hating them on the basis of their gender, and a land mine on every corner, is it any wonder they’re deciding to play video games in a one bedroom apartment and work part time?

But I’m sure it’s fine. No concerns here at all.

I don’t quite think that’s the only reason for the decline in marriage. I’m also not sure what the “land mine on every corner” refers to.

I’m not even necessarily talking about marriage. That’s a factor of course, but it’s more of a visible and traceable sign of something more problematic.

It’s not just a factor of coal going away. It’s a factor of the worker going away.

[The East Marches II]

You see the words immediately obvious? Most people aren’t thinking that far ahead. I’d be surprised if politicians were thinking that far ahead. The thing about conscription is that it doesn’t really work socially unless you’re already in a war or have the threats right at your door. Whether or not it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it can be done.

You wouldn’t happen to have a link? ‘Cause you’ve got a lot of posts.
Nah. The capitalist structure makes sure of that.

You do realize that China would still outnumber the US regardless.

Often politics with legitimate grievances behind them. Blacks, rural whites, Latinos, etc-identity politics happens because there are certain trends that effect demographic subgroups harshly, and that’s not going to be addressed with conscription.

So we provide free healthcare, and we stop subsidizing the junk food and meat industries. Properly regulate their advertising to children, subsidize healthy food, provide parks and recreation centres.

These ones, you actually have a point.

Singapore also has public housing with racial quotas, a national education system, and two different hate speech laws. Just taking national services won’t work.

Dude China has little to no chance in defeating the United States in war. They do not have the capability to mount an invasion on US soil nor can they reach us with their junky ass cannibalized aircraft. They don’t even possess a functioning aircraft carrier.

Edit: Just realized you’re not the one saying China is a significant threat, my bad.

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

[The East Marches II]

Do you have a point here?

It was to assault your religious belief in democracy.

Of course it’s not going to stop every single thing. If you wanted a miracle, go prey. It’s very good, however, at preventing outright war.

A person made the very same argument as you are about soft power on 1913. It turned out to be very hollow. Do us a favor and knock on wood.

Yep. That’s why Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are very nearly members of the EU despite the EU not being able to force them in, and why the IMF can force developing countries into policies that benefit foreign investors and not their citizens. Hard power has been losing weight for a while now.

The IMF only has teeth because Uncle Sam does the dirty work if nations don't comply. It is dead at this point anyway. As for the EU, they got some countries to join an economic Union. In the face of any pressure they immediately cave like the cowards their leadership is. They bribe the Sultan to not have to deal with the issue of policing their borders and let the Kurds get rekt. They build pipelines with Russia, only to be shocked when they grab land. Not only that but they then cancel arms sales to the Baltics so not increase tensions. I'm glad you used that bunch of craven cowards as an example. I couldn't have asked for a better thing to rip apart.

The US had a few different intervention strategies. 1:Prop up dictators. 2: Create sham democracies, with the understanding that democracy would only be allowed so long as it benefited US interests. 3: Create a democratic system without establishing any mechanisms by which that system would be safeguarded. 4: Create a Democratic System without helping fix the material conditions that work against it. None of which are actually conducive to a working democracy.

We tried actually Democracy in Iraq. It gave the result expected. A corrupt Iranian puppet incapable of governing itself. Arabs don't democracy so good. We would have been better off being evil.

I don’t disagree that the effects are a problem. I just disagree with your solution.

I am noticing a trend here, I don't think you actually read my post properly. I didn't offer any solutions, I canvassed RWDT for one because I saw no way to square the circle.

And now we need another citation that this happens on a significant scale.,

Sure thing.

No. A pyramid scheme assumes more people will buy into it. A welfare state assumes that larger incomes will support it. The two are not the same thing, and you are making the mistake of conflating population growth with incomes, in an era when the two are more disconnected than ever.

That is unironically how social security and other programs were predicated. Part of the issue with the welfare state's sustainability is the tax base is shrinking. They are already running into this issue in Europe. Taxes on the rich are not a magic cure-all. If this is what passes for so called AP education these days I'm deeply concerned.

Population decline will effect the state (although not in the way you think). You see, all of this grand analysis assumes that conditions in which the welfare state exist will stay the same. It assumes as priori three central things: that wages will not increase, that technological advancement will not happen, and that costs of care will not decrease. These are…rather unjustified assumptions, I think, and an analysis which lies on both of these things cannot really be counted.

Given trends I don't believe either expecting wage increases or costs to come down. The technological part of it is irrelevant if the state can't sustain the spending.

You messed up the quotes, I have no clue what this is referring to.

Perhaps if you'd read edits or read posts in general, this wouldn't be an issue. A clever lad could have even looked back at his old post and taken a guess based on where the post is and what topic is being addressed. Laziness I unbecoming. At least put in some effort.

[Cappuccina]

Dude China has little to no chance in defeating the United States in war. They do not have the capability to mount an invasion on US soil nor can they reach us with their junky ass cannibalized aircraft. They don’t even possess a functioning aircraft carrier.

Edit: Just realized you’re not the one saying China is a significant threat, my bad.

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

If they aren't super carriers, equipped with at least 4th gen fighters/bombers it's irrelevant. Saying China is a significant threat to USA military supremacy in the short term is nothing more than alarmism.

[The East Marches II]

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

If they aren't super carriers, equipped with at least 4th gen fighters/bombers it's irrelevant. Saying China is a significant threat to USA military supremacy in the short term is nothing more than alarmism.

They will have a larger fleet by 2035. Naval strategy is long term procurement and build strategy. This is a fleet very clearly being assembled to challenge the US. Today they don't have those carriers all working but they will soon with even more to follow. We have the edge for 5 years or so regionally but this will change. We do not have a strategy to counter this at the moment.

[United Muscovite Nations]

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

If they aren't super carriers, equipped with at least 4th gen fighters/bombers it's irrelevant. Saying China is a significant threat to USA military supremacy in the short term is nothing more than alarmism.

Even if their carriers aren't as good, saying the entire rest of their tonnage is irrelevant is silly.

[Napkizemlja]

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

If they aren't super carriers, equipped with at least 4th gen fighters/bombers it's irrelevant. Saying China is a significant threat to USA military supremacy in the short term is nothing more than alarmism.

It's not though. China is expanding its naval capabilities as well as it's ASBM capabilities. Their goal is to deny the area they want to control to the US through ASBM's and then use their naval capabilities to assert power. And that is just at the purely military level.

[Chernoslavia]

Dude China has little to no chance in defeating the United States in war. They do not have the capability to mount an invasion on US soil nor can they reach us with their junky ass cannibalized aircraft. They don’t even possess a functioning aircraft carrier.

Edit: Just realized you’re not the one saying China is a significant threat, my bad.

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

Yeah sure....they said they were going to develop aircraft carriers since the 1980s and so far the best one they got is a Ukrainian model that suffers from engine failure. I have not seen or heard much about the capabilities of their shongyong carriers. Not holding my breath for a personal military who thinks their smog can deflect US guided missiles.

[The East Marches II]

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

Yeah sure....they said they were going to develop aircraft carriers since the 1980s and so far the best one they got is a Ukrainian model that suffers from engine failure. I have not seen or heard much about the capabilities of their shongyong carriers. Not holding my breath for a personal military who thinks their smog can deflect US guided missiles.

Anon they are already under constructive. Thats not including the extreme amount of destroyers and cruisers they are building. It isn't threat inflation I swear. They already got the second carrier operational.

[Cappuccina]

If they aren't super carriers, equipped with at least 4th gen fighters/bombers it's irrelevant. Saying China is a significant threat to USA military supremacy in the short term is nothing more than alarmism.

They will have a larger fleet by 2035. Naval strategy is long term procurement and build strategy. This is a fleet very clearly being assembled to challenge the US. Today they don't have those carriers all working but they will soon with even more to follow. We have the edge for 5 years or so regionally but this will change. We do not have a strategy to counter this at the moment.

Larger, perhaps, but that means little if their vessels aren't actually up to spec. They may be building carriers, but what will their outfit be? What about subs? Missile cruisers/destroyers? Building carriers mean squat by itself.

[Napkizemlja]

It's worth noting that the Chinese are on track to pump out two up to date carriers within the next three years, giving them a total of four carriers. By the end of the decade they hope to be rolling out their answer to the Gerald R. Ford class. It's a joke to think that a country quite clearly rearming its navy to compete with the US is not a threat. "Oh the German Navy isn't a threat" - British admiralty 1895

[Chernoslavia]

They will have 7 carriers by 2025. They putting nearly triple the tonnage in the water we do every year. In what world is that not a significant threat? I would like to know.

If they aren't super carriers, equipped with at least 4th gen fighters/bombers it's irrelevant. Saying China is a significant threat to USA military supremacy in the short term is nothing more than alarmism.

On their Kuznetsov copies - 3 CIWS and 3 missile systems....

[Napkizemlja]

They will have a larger fleet by 2035. Naval strategy is long term procurement and build strategy. This is a fleet very clearly being assembled to challenge the US. Today they don't have those carriers all working but they will soon with even more to follow. We have the edge for 5 years or so regionally but this will change. We do not have a strategy to counter this at the moment.

Larger, perhaps, but that means little if their vessels aren't actually up to spec. They may be building carriers, but what will their outfit be? What about subs? Missile cruisers/destroyers? Building carriers mean squat by itself.

They are building all of those and are ahead when it comes to ASBM technology which the US cannot really counter.

[Chernoslavia]

Yeah sure....they said they were going to develop aircraft carriers since the 1980s and so far the best one they got is a Ukrainian model that suffers from engine failure. I have not seen or heard much about the capabilities of their shongyong carriers. Not holding my breath for a personal military who thinks their smog can deflect US guided missiles.

Anon they are already under constructive. Thats not including the extreme amount of destroyers and cruisers they are building. It isn't threat inflation I swear. They already got the second carrier operational.

Yeah I see where your coming from. I’m not saying they aren’t a threat, but people just have a knack for overestimating their power. But let’s be real by the time they finish building their stuff, we would’ve already had built double what they planned on building.

[The East Marches II]

They will have a larger fleet by 2035. Naval strategy is long term procurement and build strategy. This is a fleet very clearly being assembled to challenge the US. Today they don't have those carriers all working but they will soon with even more to follow. We have the edge for 5 years or so regionally but this will change. We do not have a strategy to counter this at the moment.

Larger, perhaps, but that means little if their vessels aren't actually up to spec. They may be building carriers, but what will their outfit be? What about subs? Missile cruisers/destroyers? Building carriers mean squat by itself.

The carrier alone won't account for the tonnage. I didn't save the link on my phone but when I get back I'll get you a report from one of the think tanks listing what is being built and in what numbers if you like. Google will give you an idea of their dockyard capacity and general types.

[Napkizemlja]

It's also worth noting that the US is spread thin while the Chinese are not. China can bring more of its fleet together in a shorter period of time than the US can into the same region.

[Napkizemlja]

Anon they are already under constructive. Thats not including the extreme amount of destroyers and cruisers they are building. It isn't threat inflation I swear. They already got the second carrier operational.

Yeah I see where your coming from. I’m not saying they aren’t a threat, but people just have a knack for overestimating their power. But let’s be real by the time they finish building their stuff, we would’ve already had built double what they planned on building.

Better to plan for a stronger enemy and then it turn out they are weaker than imagined than the opposite.

[Chernoslavia]

Larger, perhaps, but that means little if their vessels aren't actually up to spec. They may be building carriers, but what will their outfit be? What about subs? Missile cruisers/destroyers? Building carriers mean squat by itself.

The carrier alone won't account for the tonnage. I didn't save the link on my phone but when I get back I'll get you a report from one of the think tanks listing what is being built and in what numbers if you like. Google will give you an idea of their dockyard capacity and general types.

Yeah please do. I’d legit like to be updated on their current capabilities.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The carrier alone won't account for the tonnage. I didn't save the link on my phone but when I get back I'll get you a report from one of the think tanks listing what is being built and in what numbers if you like. Google will give you an idea of their dockyard capacity and general types.

Yeah please do. I’d legit like to be updated on their current capabilities.

Last 2 years they built like 12 destroyers, 1 cruiser, and 20 frigates alone or something crazy like that, it's mind-blowing how rapidly their navy is expanding.