!agree

Gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwlQhKhxGDc&feature=youtu.be
Link to raffle: https://wn.nr/MN4EEA

(3 days left on this raffle to win an FN SCAR-16)

Well I wouldn't imagine TX is terribly different than my state, so it sounds accurate to me.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7c/a3/c2/7ca3c2fa936ea48e7c459f3c7e91aac1--denver-colorado-remington--tactical.jpg

Hey, guys. I own a shotgun (not a Remington as depicted in link) and will be purchasing a new stock/forend from Magpul and was wanting some input on what others thought looked better: the beige ("FDE"/"Flat Dark Earth") or black?

Yes

M590A1

Yeah, I'm having trouble deciding between FDE and black. You're the second to vote so it's tied now 😛

Didn't look like they offered that anymore on their website

mainstream left/right are essentially the same thing, imo

^

So why not assume the morals which prevent life fuckery

isn't that the typical atheist view

>pills
yeah, let the women fuck up their hormones unnaturally

ik, that was in response to @Milk

Reducing genetic diversity in the context of polygamy vs monogamy is not at all the same as it is for ethno-nationalism vs diveristy

learn 2 genetic

Genetic diversity is important __within__ a __single__ population. It's eugenic. Intra-diversity = good. Inter-diversity = bad

@Euro-American Bandit you're missing the meme made in response

There was an actual feud between NA and AWD, being where the memes came from

For me, it's mostly down to: if a people, who are in some capacity different from their country, want to secede, then they should and it's for the best. But what 2100AD said is good stuff too

Yeah, I've seen some Communist flags waving in some pictures from Luhansk, I believe.

The Azov Battalion makes me want to root for Ukraine :P

This QOTD is very good. Sometimes I'm quite confused by some responses to the polls if this is a "right wing" Discord. Political thought has entirely converged to the Left. It's diluted to Hell. Almost everyone who identifies as "Right" now are Leftists -- I'm looking at Right-Libertarians too.

Where does Left/Right come from? Those who supported Enlightenment ideals and the French Revolution sat to the left in the National Assembly, and the opposite sat to the right. *"Libertarian" and "liberal" have the same etymology for a reason.* They come from the same origin. Libertarians and a vast swath of the "Right" would be sitting on the left in 1789. Modern "conservatives" are not Rightists. They are libertarians of a sort.

Any real Rightist philosophy is virtually unknown now. And by that I mean: any philosophy not born out of the successful regime and moral changes of the 18th and 19th centuries, i.e.: Thomas Carlyle, Julius Evola, Oswald Spengler. So, to the question, what is truly "Right"? Winding your way back down the tree of political ideologies to the real fundamental divide that started it all and is anything born out of the Right from back then.

the QOTD wasn't pinned

or is that not something that you do obligatory

🤔 didn't realize there was a cap

maybe, no, no

@21tagtmeiern you have a hammer and sickle in your pic and seem pretty pro-gay, how do you define politically? don't seem too right wing at face value

I thought this was a right wing discord? 🤔

and if it were legal there'd be much more

Last time I looked into it, I believe gays are overrepresented in child molestation by like 40 times.

maybe 40 was one of the numbers used

^

yep

Just because an economy is doing well at face value doesn't mean it's actually good

Well the etymology of the word "nation" brings you back to Latin: "natio", in regards to birth, which goes back even further to "nascor", which is a word you could use to mean you are literally born or are so many years old. "Nation" didn't even mean as it does now until recently, as it's original meaning has become so diluted with the crossing of peoples within a single country. The "Iroquois Nation" was several different tribes, but one people. A "nation" is a blood connection.

The words "nation" and "natal" (which is a reference to a woman's womb) have the same etymology for a reason

He's asking that because the way you define a 'nation' is very contemporary.

'Nation', nowadays, might as well mean 'country'. When the two words actually used to have separate meanings.

Not as much as I can think of

Your children would be (potentially, depending), but not you. If you married in, sure, you may in all practicality be treated as a member of the nation, but you would not be in the literal sense. Your children potentially would be, depending on the nation's interpretation of how this works. Happas aren't considered Japanese in Japan, for instance.

I think what I said just then would still apply. In all practicality, as much as you'd ever experience, and as much as anyone around you is concerned, you may be a "member of the nation", but you would not be in the most literal sense.

Leftism is philosophy stemmed from the Enlightenment, Rightism is not.

Well, the politics of a society may shift, but there is a true Left/Right. Currently the center is embedded leftward, but that doesn't mean there isn't a true center

otherwise, how would you judge the society moved at all

Sure, I suppose @campodin. Most people who call themselves Rightists, I would call Leftists -- and that seems to cover a fair amount of people here as well. They may be "Right" as much as society is concerned, but they aren't actually.

Whether or not what is "torture" for what you're referencing is actually debatable. On top of that, if you murder someone and flee across a national border, you aren't tried in that new country. You're extradited to the country the crime was committed in. So, Exxon should be tried in Indonesia. *"But they're human rights violations!"* What kind of point is that? If an entity is committing human rights violations anywhere, they aren't held to the laws of a different land. Human rights are not American rights, they're __human__ rights. That means Exxon will not, and should not, be tried by the US government, but by an international court @SilverLining

If it was discovered and completely forgetten about for the next upward of a millennium, I'd say the Romans discovery was insignificant

Assuming it was even intentional

And, sure, it may open a discussion on Roman history, but that's not the topic at hand

For the intent of this discussion, he practically did. The Romans may or may not have been here, and it was completely forgotten. The Vikings actually created a settlement, and it was completely forgotten. And all those back in Europe and the world at large had no idea both the Romans and Vikings were here. Colombus' final "discovery" was the most significant one

And might as well be considered its actual discovery for what it created and the fact it wasn't forgotten

If something's forgotten, anyway, it has to be "rediscovered"

There are maps with some piece of land that can't be identified, which some hypothesize is knowledge of the New World. If it was, no one will ever know. Did Zheng He visit the New World? There's no definitive answer.

but

this whole conversation is completely derailed from the question 😛

So, for my own answer: You could say Columbus was a positive figure, sure. I don't really contend that, per se. He ushered in a new era of exploration, colonization, etc. The emigration from Europe led to the birth of many American, Canadian, etc. scientists, explorers, and more over these past several hundred years.

However, I do look at history and think that the world would have been better off had Europeans stayed in Europe, that the Enlightenment had never happened, etc, etc. This is along the lines of Spengler's "Faustian spirit" of Europeans -- that we traded our soul for knowledge, which Columbus is a part of.

So, while I think fondly of Columbus, I think the world would be better off had he not existed.

China's GNP is already several trillion greater than the US. However, their GDP is starting to smooth out, which also bears in it now having some "growing pains".

Did you mean "in" instead of "and"

also, no

The furthest south they should go is our own border. Sending them all that way is ridiculous. *"Stop the drug lords!"* For what? Becuase they're __here__? Ridiculous. Forcibly crack down on them and expel/kill them __here__, but sending our troops out for other countries' problems is of no use to us if we can just crack down on our own border to keep them out. It's a loss of life not necessary.

If anything, sending our troops to Central America is just imperialist masturbation

^

The US economy has been on the up regardless. The Dow Jones has been topping out regularly for years and years. Recessions happen every decade and it has been a decade since the last one, so of course the economy is up and its not really thanks to Trump.

These tariffs just happen to coincide with a very predictable up in the economy, but no one seems to look at patterns.

Also, the more we stave off wherever the next recession will come from, the worse it will probably be.

One should be around the corner

Eh, I'm of the opposite opinion. No cap, but the minimum should be raised.

25 year olds don't have enough stake in society (usually).

I just looked. 25 for rep, 30 for senator

Age is really not of my concern. You could be 50 for all I care and you should have no right to vote or hold office. If you don't have stake in the collective future of your nation, then you shouldn't be telling others how. You should be required to have children, really.

^ in a proper world

Well, even further than that, not all men could vote either

They also had sortition, which is very overlooked and underrated

imo

birthright

The problem is Zoomers don't read doctrine. They either just like it because it's edgy or that they genuinely have adopted right-wing ideas but don't know what they're really talking about -- because they don't read. But then you have to consider that 99% of people will always be sheep. So, it's really not odd.

Or just trade with them and still keep them out

It should be actively integrated

Scientific ""progress""

""""progress""""

^

>freedom of religion
big gay

All you secularists are liberals

Trad Christian vigilantism now

^

haha

Even the rural would die. The only survivors would be those who go Ted mode

There's literally only one source even speaking anything about 'war', and it's the one being linked. All the others say President Poroshenko does not intend for martial law to imply war.

Still the only things I can find talking about "war" are his one obscure website he linked and a single tweet.

🤷🏻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWQNaf5WUvw

I'm just listening to this while watching for update 😁

That Ukrainian tugboat shouldn't have steered right in front of that Russian ship