RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Hanafuridake]

No, but I think being frank about it is the first step to actually having a discussion about it.

You support traditional monarchies that are sexist in their structure like Japan. So it seems interesting you find sexist traditions inherently wrong.
I am against legally imposed sexism but I understand traditional organizations have traditional gender roles.

The sangha in a lot of countries have arbitrarily sexist double standards and should be criticized and reformed by those national communities. Women have in the past succeeded to the Japanese throne, albeit rarely and limitedly, and could be allowed to succeed to the throne again, although for historical reasons this would need to be patrilineal. Most sexist standards are the product of cultural and not theological reasons (such as women being barred from mountains for being considered impure during menstruation) and can be dismantled without giving way to liberalism. I would support the same for other monarchies, I would rather have an absolutist and religious queen then a liberal king.

[Novus America]

You support traditional monarchies that are sexist in their structure like Japan. So it seems interesting you find sexist traditions inherently wrong.
I am against legally imposed sexism but I understand traditional organizations have traditional gender roles.

Women have in the past succeeded to the Japanese throne, albeit rarely and limitedly, and could be allowed to succeed to the throne again, although for historical reasons this would need to be patrilineal. Most sexist standards are the product of cultural and not theological reasons (such as women being barred from mountains for being considered impure during menstruation) and can be dismantled without giving way to liberalism. I would support the same for other monarchies, I would rather have an absolutist and religious queen then a liberal king.

Patrilineal is still sexist, but again it is historical (traditional). That is how it largely is for the Catholic Church I believe, traditional and historical although I think it has some other justifications.
Although perhaps you could keep an organization not liberal in other areas, opposition to sexism is a modernist and liberal concept nonetheless.

But an absolutist monarch in Japan? Not going to happen and not even traditional really as the power of the monarchy has been limited for a very long time. It would massively contradict many traditions. Absolutism is actually not that traditional in many cases.

A lot on the right hopped on it because of Hobbes and all, but the modern perception of it is quite heavily based in early modern inventions over old traditions.

Although I am not inherently against modernization, liberalization and breaking with tradition when necessary (although for a good reason not necessarily for its own sake) I still also think we should be honest about what it is.

[Salus Maior]

As an aside,

Just started watching "The Pacific". I like it so far, it's got good atmosphere and suspense, and I like the characters. Not sure why people don't seem to like it.

[Hanafuridake]

Patrilineal is still sexist, but again it is historical (traditional).

No more than matrilineal descent.

But an absolutist monarch in Japan? Not going to happen and not even traditional really as the power of the monarchy has been limited for a very long time. It would massively contradict many traditions. Absolutism is actually not that traditional in many cases.

I'm going to stop you right there Novus. I know more about the history of the monarchy and social structures of Japan than you do and I'm not doing a repeat of where you try to explain Japanese history to me and I have to go into detail to reply why you're wrong. Whether or not absolutism is traditional had nothing to do with sexism in monarchies, so I'm not going to bother answering.

[Cekoviu]

As an aside,

Just started watching "The Pacific". I like it so far, it's got good atmosphere and suspense, and I like the characters. Not sure why people don't seem to like it.

Haven't seen it, but it's apparently very critically well-received, so the fault's probably with the audience rather than the show.

[New haven america]

As an aside,

Just started watching "The Pacific". I like it so far, it's got good atmosphere and suspense, and I like the characters. Not sure why people don't seem to like it.

Haven't seen it, but it's apparently very critically well-received, so the fault's probably with the audience rather than the show.

Most people were expecting a series like Band of Brothers (Cause, you know, it was made by most of the same production team and producers), but you have to remember that one theatre of WWII was much bloodier and gruesome than the other. (That being The Pacific vs. Western Front respectively)

[Novus America]

Patrilineal is still sexist, but again it is historical (traditional).

No more than matrilineal descent.

But an absolutist monarch in Japan? Not going to happen and not even traditional really as the power of the monarchy has been limited for a very long time. It would massively contradict many traditions. Absolutism is actually not that traditional in many cases.

I'm going to stop you right there Novus. I know more about the history of the monarchy and social structures of Japan than you do and I'm not doing a repeat of where you try to explain Japanese history to me and I have to go into detail to reply why you're wrong.

I mean sure, no matter what you will have sexism if matrilineal or patrilineal.
But it is still sexist.

And I am not sure if your study of Japan is really that objective, because of numerous biases. I think sometimes you see what you want to see over the reality you do not wish to acknowledge.
Although we all do this to some degree.

Still an appeal to authority claiming yourself as the authority is inherently problematic.

And Japan has definitely long had a tradition of de facto limitations going back a long time.
Although in theory maybe they could have in reality they did not. A theoretical absolutist is not an absolutist at all if they do not practice it. And some one asserting it today in practice would break with a lot.

Absolutism is a non starter in Japan today obviously, if a monarch actually tried it it would probably lead to their removal very quickly. It has not fit with the tradition and culture for quite some time.
Going back to the Soga Clan around 600 there have been de facto limits on the power of the emperor. And the history gets quite fuzzy anyways.

Of course really one can argue the whole concept of absolutism has problems in large complex societies which are simply to large to really rule without a bureaucracy and to actually be a functional dictator you have to resort to violence and terror as a result.

[Salus Maior]

Haven't seen it, but it's apparently very critically well-received, so the fault's probably with the audience rather than the show.

Most people were expecting a series like Band of Brothers (Cause, you know, it was made by most of the same production team and producers), but you have to remember that one theatre of WWII was much bloodier and gruesome than the other. (That being The Pacific vs. Western Front respectively)

Yeah, I just finished watching Band of Brothers.

Considering what I've heard, I decided to not look at the Pacific as if it were a sequel.

[Salus Maior]

My first big impression of the series after watching the first two episodes is that the Japanese seem like so much bigger and intense a threat than the Germans were in Band of Brothers.

My impression of the Germans, outside of a couple episodes, is that they were on their way to defeat and it showed. Meanwhile in the Pacific, the Japanese are fanatical and intense, like holy shit that guy got shot and he got up and is still trying to shank someone in the face with his bayonet.

[Hanafuridake]

I mean sure, no matter what you will have sexism if matrilineal or patrilineal.
But it is still sexist.

Then the concept of a family would itself be sexist, which is obviously ridiculous.

Still an appeal to authority claiming yourself as the authority is inherently problematic.

I am not an authority but it becomes extremely tiresome having someone try to explain something you've studied for years multiple times. The most annoying example was when you tried to explain the origins of Buddhism to me, someone who was in the process of ordination, and when you claimed I knew nothing about modern Shinto despite me having the sources and you didn't. It gets really annoying fast.

Going back to the Soga Clan around 600 there have been de facto limits on the power of the emperor. And the history gets quite fuzzy anyways.

The Soga clan were relatives of the imperial household who enjoyed the patronage of Prince Shotoku and who's attempted usurpation of imperial prerogatives ended up resulting in their downfall and the start of the Taika Reform, which reinforced the monarchy's absolutism and created a more centralized state. Monarchies, even absolute one, have never existed in a vacuum and have always had to manage competing interests.

[Salus Maior]

I mean sure, no matter what you will have sexism if matrilineal or patrilineal.
But it is still sexist.

Then the concept of a family would itself be sexist, which is obviously ridiculous..

People do make that argument, though.

[Hanafuridake]

My first big impression of the series after watching the first two episodes is that the Japanese seem like so much bigger and intense a threat than the Germans were in Band of Brothers.

My impression of the Germans, outside of a couple episodes, is that they were on their way to defeat and it showed. Meanwhile in the Pacific, the Japanese are fanatical and intense, like holy shit that guy got shot and he got up and is still trying to shank someone in the face with his bayonet.

The IJA were intensely fanatical, but in terms of threat, the Germans were much more mechanized with better logistics (which is really saying something) while the Japanese military was lead by idiots who preferred to avoid improving quality of weapons and goods for soldiers because they were afraid of harming their "fighting spirit." even if Japan had somehow won, most of the military leadership should have been shot for stupidity.

[Hanafuridake]

And if someone tells you no, they don't believe in your personal beliefs and would rather everyone have the choice about what they want to follow and believe, and said hypothetical tradcath never let's up or doesn't take no for an answer, well now we have an issue, don't we?

For one who believes that what they are doing is the literal work of God, then someone saying no isn't going to dissuade them. As Hana said, for the truly pious, divinity does not end were the state begins.

This isn't at all relegated to tradcath's either - evangelism is a pretty universal thing among the religious. I don't know why people diss on tradcath's in specific though, I didn't even know that was an ongoing trend. At least in the Christian community, the usually punching bag are the protestants.

We shouldn't make fun of tradcaths.

Instead we should all point and laugh at the white nationalists who join the Orthodox Church when they get anathemized.

[Salus Maior]

My first big impression of the series after watching the first two episodes is that the Japanese seem like so much bigger and intense a threat than the Germans were in Band of Brothers.

My impression of the Germans, outside of a couple episodes, is that they were on their way to defeat and it showed. Meanwhile in the Pacific, the Japanese are fanatical and intense, like holy shit that guy got shot and he got up and is still trying to shank someone in the face with his bayonet.

The IJA were intensely fanatical, but in terms of threat, the Germans were much more mechanized with better logistics (which is really saying something) while the Japanese military was lead by idiots who preferred to avoid improving quality of weapons and goods for soldiers because they were afraid of harming their "fighting spirit." even if Japan had somehow won, most of the military leadership should have been shot for stupidity.

I'm talking more in terms of the shows and my personal impressions than the reality of it. Although as I think of it more, that may just be an illusion.

In Band of Brothers, when the Germans are the most threatening you don't actually see them. The characters are being shelled or shot at from cover and you don't really see the Germans all that clearly themselves.

In the Pacific, the Japanese are screaming in your face pushing a bayonet charge through machine gun fire.

[Northern Davincia]

For one who believes that what they are doing is the literal work of God, then someone saying no isn't going to dissuade them. As Hana said, for the truly pious, divinity does not end were the state begins.

This isn't at all relegated to tradcath's either - evangelism is a pretty universal thing among the religious. I don't know why people diss on tradcath's in specific though, I didn't even know that was an ongoing trend. At least in the Christian community, the usually punching bag are the protestants.

We shouldn't make fun of tradcaths.

Instead we should all point and laugh at the white nationalists who join the Orthodox Church when they get anathemized.

I did not think that actually happened.

[Novus America]

I mean sure, no matter what you will have sexism if matrilineal or patrilineal.
But it is still sexist.

Then the concept of a family would itself be sexist, which is obviously ridiculous.

Still an appeal to authority claiming yourself as the authority is inherently problematic.

I am not an authority but it becomes extremely tiresome having someone try to explain something you've studied for years multiple times. The most annoying example was when you tried to explain the origins of Buddhism to me, someone who was in the process of ordination, and when you claimed I knew nothing about modern Shinto despite me having the sources and you didn't. It gets really annoying fast.

Going back to the Soga Clan around 600 there have been de facto limits on the power of the emperor. And the history gets quite fuzzy anyways.

The Soga clan were relatives of the imperial household who enjoyed the patronage of Prince Shotoku and who's attempted usurpation of imperial prerogatives ended up resulting in their downfall and the start of the Taika Reform, which reinforced the monarchy's absolutism and created a more centralized state. Monarchies, even absolute one, have never existed in a vacuum and have always had to manage competing interests.

I mean sure one can argue the concept of a family is sexist.
Your issue is assuming everything sexist must be inherently bad.
Sexism has always existed. It is very difficult if not impossible to be traditional with no sexism at all.

And sure the Soga clan took de facto power only to later lose to an assertion of the power of the imperial office, only to quickly have it become de facto limited again, by the Nakatomi clan, then the Fujiwara and then Shoguns.
Emperors asserting such absolutism with success are the exception rather than the rule. There is tradition to periodic restorations (although most did not provide absolute power) and declarations of absolutism, followed by quick return to more limited rule. Absolutism the exception rather than the rule at least in practice.

And of course is not remotely plausible for such a “restoration” today, Japanese society today is obviously different than it was during those times.

Well and that is the problem with the theory of absolutism vs the actual practice. Simply claiming absolutism does not make it so when you actually have limitations to go through.
Unless you are actually willing to resort to out right terror and continual bloody purges it is very difficult to maintain as parallel power structures develop.

[Hanafuridake]

We shouldn't make fun of tradcaths.

Instead we should all point and laugh at the white nationalists who join the Orthodox Church when they get anathemized.

I did not think that actually happened.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... ts-repent/

It is extremely entertaining.

[Diopolis]

We shouldn't make fun of tradcaths.

Instead we should all point and laugh at the white nationalists who join the Orthodox Church when they get anathemized.

I did not think that actually happened.

IIRC there were a couple of prominent cases.

[Diopolis]

Then the concept of a family would itself be sexist, which is obviously ridiculous..

People do make that argument, though.

That's because that argument is, from a modern liberal perspective, true.
It does not therefore follow that the family ought to be eradicated, or massively changed.

[Auze]

I prefer palæoreactionaries to neoreactionaries.

imagine being so pretentious that you unironically write Æs instæd of Es in 2020

HÆHÆHÆHÆ...


Imægin not rytiŋ evriþhiŋ in an aŋlō-sæxon stȳl orþonāgrafiy

[The Archbishopric of York]

This. I've seen a lot of people start quoting the JFK bit about peaceful revolution in justifying the violence. I know being the bigger man suck's huge, but, the point of being the bigger man isn't about making life easier, it's about doing the right thing.

No one benefits from this

It's not really justifying it more so pointing out that it is inevitable; they are right. Why so many of my fellow right-wingers seem to have lost this is pretty bewildering. America's elites abandoned America and America's policing institution is rotten and routinely tramples and abuses the citizenry and their rights. They, and a lot of America's elites, have been tearing away at the social fabric of society which is why things have now reached this point.

This is the best take I have seen on the current American situation in this thread. When confronted with the news about riots breaking out in the US, I had three reactions:

1) The first thing that popped into my mind was how ironic it was for American conservatives to react with moral indignation to people rioting violently and destroying property in response to perceived persecution and alienation from the legal authorities when next month they will no doubt be out in force celebrating the founding of their country, which was achieved in part by rioting violently and destroying property in response to perceived persecution and alienation from the legal authorities.
2) The second response I had was a general antipathy for the rioters, being generally a law-and-order oriented person.
3) Upon further consideration and exploration of the facts, I began to realise that things have clearly been very seriously awry in the US for some time now (in some respects, since its founding), and these protests are in some sense an inevitable outcome of that. The problem is that the people now sitting in moral judgement over the people out in the streets are the same ones, by and large, who have been pushing "Blue Lives Matter" type rhetoric for the past few years and discrediting anyone calling for substantial reform- and the consequence of that is that many people have justifiably concluded that they cannot expect to achieve meaningful reform through the conventional channels of electoral democracy and peaceful protest. It was inevitable that frustrations would eventually spill over into violence.

I am sure there are many opportunists among the rioters taking advantage of the situation for their own gain. Nonetheless, I believe that much of the anger being displayed is both real and justified, even if its expression in this way is not. For people in a position of authority to debate the morality of the riots at this time is simply not helpful; rather, they should be approached as an inevitable outcome of the series of events leading up to them, with the aim of understanding how the situation could have been managed differently at every stage to avoid getting to where we are now. Otherwise this will not be the last time public anger against the police sparks serious civil unrest. I'm not going to venture to comment on the accusations I've seen online that police have acted as agents provocateurs to provoke riots in order to give them an excuse to crack down; I have no idea whether such reports are reliable. Although the fact that a CNN reporter was arrested at one point is pretty sinister, and doesn't inspire confidence in the police.

[Luminesa]

I did not think that actually happened.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... ts-repent/

It is extremely entertaining.

It’s quite ironic that he sees himself as a guardian of “Tradition and Authority”, but when asked by a guardian of “Tradition and Authority” to repent for his actions and to reconsider them, he throws a whining fit. Newsflash, if you only join a church for what “aesthetic” you believe it has, and not because you want a spiritual connection with Christ, you’re doing it wrong. I’m glad his pastor called him out, too. He is protecting his congregation and those Christians outside his congregation as well.

[Luminesa]

why is it so trendy to hate on tradcaths now anyways? their personal relationship with God is not anyone's business but their own, and all of them have a really good understanding of catholic (or orthodox, I use term tradcath loosely) theology, and easily name more ecumenical councils than the average lapsed cultural irish-italian-american catholic.

The problem is that usually their personal relationship with God doesn't stay private and they tend to try to preach and proselytize and get their private religious beliefs codified into actual policy.

It's their way or the highway.

Surprise, Catholics are supposed to talk about their faith to other people. If that bothers you then don’t talk to Catholics?

[Luminesa]

I've never understood adopting a religion for the aesthetics.

I mean... I do understand why people do it - it's just So dumb though. A lot of the neoreactionaries out there who say that they are supposedly radtrad catholic and orthodox are really just atheists who enjoy larping as something other than materialists and ideologues.

I mean, I've seen some arguments by some religious people about the ultimate beauty of their religion's rites, such as the sacrament, and how they hope they are true. Larpers are annoying, but I'd consider them a bit different from aestheticists.

I think a distinction should be made between simply liking rites for the aesthetic and believing in the Eucharist. The Mass is a difficult thing for many people to understand, because it’s not simply about aesthetic, though it has plenty of that. The altar is beautiful, the words of the liturgy are graceful and solemn, the vessels (the chalice and bread) are icons of faith. Yet believing in the Eucharist requires moving past simply liking how these things look, and requires a true act of Faith in the heart, a movement of the soul. Believing in the Eucharist and understanding what it is separates the LARPers from the true Christians. Or as Christ would have said in St. Matthew’s Gospel, the chaff and the wheat.

[The Archbishopric of York]

The problem is that usually their personal relationship with God doesn't stay private and they tend to try to preach and proselytize and get their private religious beliefs codified into actual policy.

It's their way or the highway.

Surprise, Catholics are supposed to talk about their faith to other people. If that bothers you then don’t talk to Catholics?

If you'd read New haven America's post more carefully you'd have seen that their complaint was about Catholics trying to get their religious beliefs codified into actual policy- ok, so they objected to Catholics preaching and proselytising as well; but that last part was the most important from my reading. As far as Catholics talking about their faith goes, when it comes to traditionalist Catholics specifically it must be said that they have a widespread and, in my opinion, justly deserved reputation for the sort of triumphalist attitudes that make serious and mutually respectful dialogue with non-believers or followers of other faiths more or less impossible.