Conservatives of ModDB
Entertainment & Press
We are a group of Right-Wing advocates of freedom and individual liberty, the right to life, right to own and carry firearms, freespeech, net neutrality, individual rights, constitutional republic government, separation of church and state, limited government, anti-globalist, freedom of association, property rights, the free market, mandating transparency, preservation of western culture, Christianity and the European people against feminism, Islam, marxism and political correctness. For those on Mod DB if you're a conservative, libertarian, traditionalist, reactionary, Christian, Orthodox, nationalist or New Right, for US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or European nations join us to help defeat progressives.
Heroes of the West include: Davy Crockett, Andrew Jackson, Lord Nelson, Duke Wellington. Wolfe Tone and Lochiel, Dan O'Connell and Robert Bruce, Joan de Arc and Fredrick The Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Otto v. Bismarck, Hermann Göring, Erwin Rommell, Vladimir Putin, Marie Le Penn, Trump, Adam Walker, Jimmie Akesson and Tino Chrupalla. People who have opposed liberalism and stood for a nationalist or conservative stances.
Protect the community of degenerate elites. The community centric views to enforce moral intuitions and protect members of the community from the effects of hedonism, liberalism, limiting consumerism, it is part of the way of pre-civilisational means of existence and go beyond the modernist economic system and post-modern values and norms. Thats what it means to be part of this fight against globalism or global-homogeneity.
what? The veteran? He fought resource wars, he didn't protect your rights. The men and women who fought abroad are heroes, but not because they fought a real war, a war to defend you. These were nothing but wars to protect your masters' interests and capital. You just praise your master and call these people to a fake duty, those who suffered immensely in your fake wars.
Don't be such a peasant, you slave.
Democrats are the arm of the corporate oligarchy, further indebting people and are doing imperialist wars. They are the hawkish ones, if you look at the policies that the democrats continually to lie about what they say they support, wars with China over Taiwan, democrats are the ones that are supported and essentially are the arm of big corporate oligarchs to regulate away competition and increase taxes on all businesses in the US to destroy competition because they can afford to take the hit but not the mid sized or small businesses. While the conservatives want to drop taxes on all tax brackets. The democrats provide things that aren't useful to the US like backing unions is to increase regulations, red tape to make it more difficult for people to enter into the market, upstart businesses are the ones that lose in that battle. Making the the energy we choose to use more expensive in climate change proposals and making it more difficult for the average person to have good affordable energy across the country helped along by the huge oil buried in America that could be opened up by domestic fracking which people like Obama has made it their efforts to keep us reliant on foreign oil. The Chinese are the ones that stand inbetween monopolies and their economy, making them illegal and breaking them up if possible. Blaming the troops for the role of the democrats is backwards thinking.
Since your a communist you should know that there are plenty of commies that aren't anti-white, that are patriotic and nationalists that have a more centrist view of their countries and want that future for America that also blame democrats for continually bringing down the proletariat to a level of poverty. That don't want the communists to be regarded as the party of poverty (not always focusing on welfare queens) but on providing land and affordable housing to people since thats how many people in the US have made their wealth (hard work, entrepreneurship, competition, homesteadying and the Homesteading Act). We don't always want to hear about how poverty stricken people remain that way thanks to welfare, but the real material interests that prevent people from fearing communists. Making real headway into bridging the gap between right-wingers and the socialist/communist cause by squarely blaming things on the Soros and Rochefellers, big tech and big five media companies that rule America from the offices with regulation. The conservative agreement is America First; record low unemployment, thriving small businesses, low price on oil, securing the border and historic peace deals in the middle east. Youtube.com
You miss to understand the point. Both Democraps and Republicunts are the same. As for the second part... give me a break I am tired of this PC rhetoric and BS identity politics. You do not understand socialism. The fact is that you live in Corporate Amerikkka and any political party will make sure it stays that way. America first is total nonsense, it is just a slogan. But at this point it matters nothing, because the whole country is aiming to pre civil war already. You have only to blame yourselves, your "freedoms" and your "lateral" facts and your "natural" rights.
The veteran, as the worker, as the patriot, are all trapped inside this logic. Those who support the logic of Corporate USA are the actual anti-democratic enemies socialists fight against.
2 cents for you to think for 5 min alone.
Shall the world be ruled by capitalists or by socialists? This question cannot be decided by two countries in competition. It has become an internal question for each and every country. As soon as the weapons used against foreign states are put aside, they will be raised again in civil war. Its an ruthless war, those without the guts to engage in war and/or effective politics, then the countries capitalist or socialist will not survive. Gaugeing which will win has little to do with democracy, democracy makes anything moral aslong as the majority agrees on something. It really doesn't change the ethical or moral stance that a people take in private or on personal whim (thats the usual case), when it suddenly a majority its essential character does not change. Politics is the highest and most powerful dimension of all historical existence. World history is the history of states; the history of states is the history of wars. Ideas, when they press for decisions, assume the form of political units: countries, peoples, religions or parties. They must be fought over not with words but with weapons. Economic warfare becomes military warfare between or within countries. If you can't take the heat in the political system then stay out of the political arena. America being beaten from within doesn't determine the success of capitalism or socialism elsewhere. I'm against both democratic authority and authoritarianism. Everything that proceeds from the innermost soul to become flesh or fleshly creation demands a sacrifice of flesh in return. And even if a tired and blood-drained humanity desired to do away with war, like the citizens of the classical world during its final centuries, like the Indians and Chinese of today, it would merely exchange its role of war-wager for that of the object about and with which others would wage war for. Even if a Faustian universal harmony could be attained, masterful types on the order of late Roman, late Chinese or late Egyptian Caesars would battle each other for this empire-for the possession of it, if its final form were capitalistic; or for the highest rank in it, if it should become socialistic.
The idea that parties, above all English parties, are segment of the people at large are dilettantish nonsense. In reality there can be no such thing as popular governments or governments of and by the people, except in political units comrpising a few villages. Only hoplelessly liberal people still cling to this notion. In all places where english political systems have penetrated the government actually lays in the hands of a very few men who, with dictatorial arbitrariness, exert their power within the party on the basis of their experience, their superior will and their tactical skill. The workman or average person is not elected to the forefront of a representative democracy, notice that conservatives, nationalists and reactionaries and especially traditionalists don't praise democracy or even list it as their top principles because they know that democracy is just a way for people to be able hear what they have to say. In America, where the genuine Englishman no longer stands behind the system, and is now largely placed out of it in party politics which are instead aimed at white people, the custom now is for the parties to deliver one set of promises to the people, and another to the trust that fills the party coffers, one is published and the other is kept hidden. Democracy is promises peddling to lucrative business and lobbyist and elite interests, while less so, suggesting the interests and opinions of the average person back at the people.
Let us envision a unified nation and for according to his rank, his talent for voluntary self-discipline based on inner conviction, his organizational abilities, his work potential, consciousness and energy, his intelligent willingness to serve the common cause. Let us plan for general work advisory, resulting in occupational guilds that will administrate and at the same time be guided by an administrative council, and not by a parliament. A fitting name for this administrative body, in a state where where everyone has a job, maximum employment. We call this a "labor council" approach. Its silly to place such a high importance on democracy when it has at every turn made it more difficult for capitalist or socialist regimes from ruling, instead they are roadblocked at every turn from being able to commit to the wellbeing of the totality. The prevention of alienation and repression of the common person, particularly the average worker who isn't even given the status of a representative within the current system but a leader as an employer, a business man, a professional bureaucrat who listens to private interests (lobbyists, businesses and certain elites) and not a socialist mindset. Its organized against socialism in fact. Holding to socialism as some great belief system or that its winnable democratically is a pipedream.
Democratic socialism is in fact a social democrat group. They also hold to the same liberal beliefs that stand in the way of a genuine third party from succeeding, one that stands for the totality of people. The reason I personally like Republicans is because of some of their policies, not because I actually truly believe in democracy or that either party is a labour council regime. Just because I happen to like one party over the other does not mean that I endorse them or democracy.
Had Marx understood the meaning of Prussian work, of activity for its own sake, of service in the name of the totality, for "all together" or "all for all" and not for oneself, of duty that ennobles regardless of the kind of work performed, and had he comprehended all these things as good, his manifesto would never would have been made. This is why I would support a true third positionism, as described above.
The bourgeoisie are too well-off, and therefore they should be revolted against, say marxists. Marx has inoculated his prolertariat with a contempt for work. His disciples wish to destry all culture in order to decrease the amount of indispensible work. Martin Luther and Goethe both praised work, while the proletarian marx, would suggest they own everything without any effort. We however might actually agree in one way, in that both Marx and myself believe in stateless thought, in terms of peoples and not government. Like parliamentary practice in England his economic world functions as a two-party system with nothing above the parties. Within his scheme there can only be combat and no arbitration, only victory or defeat, its only the dictatorship of one of the two parties. The communist manifesto calls for a dictatorship of the "good" proleterain party over the "evil" capitalist party. Marx saw no alternatives. Democratic socialism is not included in this materialist vision - its liberal anyway. Big business interests of big tech, big media, big finance control the democratic process, they coopt bureaucrats, that its capitalist variants have to in order to fill their coffers.
It includes the prohibition of the strike, for it regards this as a private commercial device inimical to the authorities interests. THe power to set wage scales is removed from both employer and employee and becomes the privelege of a general economic council, thus ensuring that each party will operate within the same firm boundaries as they have to in other areas of management and work practice. The authorities settle disputes and not the employer and employee working in disunity perpetually as normally is the case. The Prussian way can be anarchic which is what I would prefer over a state-run society.
Putting it politely: You do not understand what socialism means.
1. it is based on the concept of struggle. Class struggle to be precise. Ofc, this can go up to war. We are not hippies.
2. it is based on the idea that history is not made by ideals but by people and institutions. This is why we are materialists (and please, if you do not understand this, like Unbeholden, don't reply to it)
3. Social democracies and democratic socialism are almost the same, true. But ofc I am talking about real existing socialism, that is, the experience of URSS. Bash what you will, if you don't grasp any of it, then don't answer "necrostatistics = bad"
4. Marx was only the start. He did not make "HIS" manifest, but a manifest of the communist party. If you can't tell the difference, then do not reply as well.
About your own position.
1. I am not sure you understand what 3rd position means, historically, and no, it is not Anthony Giddens. It is Fascism with another name. Especially, you state this, with your aim towards corporate + State intervention.
2. you don't prefer democratic authority. This means you don't get what democracy is, or, you do but you are willing to call yourself anti-democratic. That combined with the BS of Prussian ethics, tells everything we need to know about what you want.
2.1 BTW, Lenin stated that those who do not work shall not eat (after Paul ofc) and that communism is soviet power + electricity. So prussian ethics... ok, you don't know what you are talking about. Socialism does not make workers contempt to work.
3. Stating also that socialism is a moral response is missing by far what is all about. And yes, communist do live by work ethics in their everyday lives, in work, in family in comradery. You are either too young to have met real communists, or you believe the propaganda of liberalism.
4. If communists are contempt at something, it is actually to people like Marx. I am pretty sure you don't get that as well. Max was a liberal and bourgeoisie, he paved an intellectual road. Most communist countries, if you look closely, made statues of marx and engles, where engels was standing and marx was sitting. But they did nothing but pave an idea. It was Stalin and Mao who built socialism, and yes, they killed millions, and yes they were not j-e-w-s and yes they created the ground-steps for technological and scientific revolutions. I known you are going to mix all of it, because you can't get your head around it.
but to get back to the original point:
Yes, veterans, workers and patriots deserve more than your own 3rd position. Get over it already, you are trying to go back to a golden age that ended precisely because it didn't respond to the real issue within your system. Yes we did fail our first attempt, but the future is yet to be written, while you think you can come back to the past and undo your own ideological faults.
Nonetheless, glad we talked with some maturity.
Of course the pro-soviet communists, such as yourself, wants America to disarm, stop funding the military and all the rest of it. Nobody with the size of America around would basically mean that it wouldn't be able to push back against highly expansionist communism. Its directly against communist interests to support the US military while its in everybody else's interests who care about capitalism and democracy will want the military hardware to defend against communism. Simple. There are much more than interests at stake but values of minimal regulation, small government, low taxes, abundance of products, self-determination, representative democracy, individual initiative, personal responsibility and property rights. Things that are highly valued by classical liberals and some conservatives.
Indeed. At least we agree on something.
I just do not understand why you keep changing your values. In one day you are an advocate of the ethno-state and the day after you fight for liberal values. Lack of congruence is your name (as Umberto Eco said, you belong to that hive of contradictions named... what? yes, have a bone, good boy).
I never said that I was married to any particular ideology. Liberals literally ally themselves with anti-communists and spread anti-communist information and work with anti-communism ideologists, why? They find communists to be the most reviled of all potential groups because they find that communism is the most possible out of all the groups in gaining power and smashing monopolies. That scares the beezwax out of them because it would throw a spanner or ruin their ability to easily hold clout, make load of friends, have a easier life and have people to depend on them, as well as hold intellectual positions where they make mountains out of mole hills.
If communists win then they, the liberals in power, will lose their monopolies and they will no longer have a comfortable, safe and consistent worldview. If there where communists around here that actually held to the view that conservatives hold, that we're basically on the side of democracy that would be something. Communists seem to be on the fence about democracy, they would rather seize the means of production.
The ultimate guide or advice for people to interact is common sense. An idea is a emphemeral or intangible thing, an idea is something that's grasped or sensed by the intellect and not be our senses. Ideas are abstract. The attachment to ideas come from the minimal expectation or apriori belief that there is a connection between heaven and the world. That what I believe in has some connection to the world. Ideas ideally are a reflection of the outside world, if its possible to reflect something without it being effective what would that mean? If the idea reflects only itself. So only putting a mirror infront an idea rather than reality, there is zero risk but on the other hand your not seeing anything at all. This is why I'm against any sort of intellectualism or puffing things up extroadinarily in order to boost someone's status. A justification based purely on ideology cannot work, it must gather the truth of the matter or the reality of the situation, and have a strategy based on realizing that truth. Justifications based on ideologies that are merely taking from other ideologies achieves only self-satisfaction.
Reactionary is the only way to go but I recognize that classical liberalism is superior to what came before it. Basically back when liberalism was classical liberalism, and its the ante of big governments and modern liberalism and could work in practice as it tends to do; morality for the common person like that of virtues, minimal regulation, small government, low taxes, abundance of products, representative democracy, individual initiative, personal responsibility, property rights, love of ones nation e.t.c. That may include granting self-determination to burgeoning people or people who are displaced.
I would say that modern liberalism (and marxism) cynically abandons nationalism when it wants to expand. Particularly in times of peace and plenty when it needs to solidify the status and wealth of the rootless cosmopolitan ruling class. I'm not against people's self-determination to be their own family, clan or tribe if they see themselves in that manner and wish to distance themselves from assimilating completely. Liberalism in particular does not recognize any cultural differences between groups whatsoever. Whereas conservatives basically always recognize cultural heritage, family values, laws and traditions which categorize a particular people or group. My main "beef" with progressives and communists is that they don't actually care what the people think, and impose whatever they decide on, on the masses from a intellectual vantage point. They don't want to ask them what they want.
Again, yes: you define yourself at the core of contradictions (Umberto Eco's Urfascism is the key here).
In the same sentence you state: «I never said that I was married to any particular ideology. [...] Reactionary is the only way to go [...].»
Then you equated liberals with communists, but now liberals are anti-communist heroes. Inconsistence is your name, and we know your tactics. «I would say that modern liberalism (and marxism) cynically abandons nationalism when it wants to expand. [...] Liberals literally ally themselves with anti-communists [...].»
Then you are just manipulating people's fear, nothing new.
«My main "beef" with progressives and communists is that they don't actually care what the people think.»
You are a mine of gold and because of you I feel sorry for the Herrenrasse. They have a lot of work to do with their foreheads if they keep using tools like you.
Structural realism provides the best explanation of nation states, theory of international politics, not dialectical materialism. That intellectual leader Kenneth Waltz basically totally debunks Marxism in the most rigorous way. I believe in Steve Keen's critique on marxism's labour theory of value. Also the best book is 'The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics' By John J. Mearsheimer. My number one thinker at the moment is Mencius Moldbug - Youtube.com
I'm not trying to fan the flames or anything, just that I know who is spreading what propaganda (particularly anti-communism) and for what reasons. My position is the based and redpilled position. I'm somewhat more sympathetic to the old guard types that want to protect the last bastion of freedom, liberty, faith and family.
Ok, I am going to lower my tone, because you are reaching a place where we can actually engage in discussion and accept a difference in thought.
While I must admit I don't know who that blogger is, there is some food for thinking, and in time I'll get back to you.
That said, there is something you must still pay attention about what I was trying to say, and here it goes, in a mood of good will:
1. The debunk of Marxism is welcome. I don't think the people you suggested are a great start simply because, in order to debunk marxism there are academics like Nozick for instance, much more interesting to talk about because they engage in theory, philosophy, politics and sociology in a contemporary sense, and that is more relevant even for NRx
2. In this sequence, there is no truth is social sciences or philosophy. Physical sciences (Physics and Chemistry) and its languages (infinetisimal calculous, boolean logic, Bayasean statistics, etc) are the only actual knowledge we know of, the rest is metaphisical speculation or opinion, or belief, or emotional feeling. Therefore, debunking marxism is futile. There is a debate, not reaching any fundamental truth about reality. That is why I care more about the social experience of socialism, rather than what the books had to say about it. Even if marxism, theoretically, is debunked (and Marx himself did it, as you pointed out in another place) the response of the Barbarossa offensive, Stalingrad (a city who deserved love poems from Neruda) and the end of german fascism is much more "identitarian", if you like and to use some of your language.
3. This leads to red pills. I honestly believe you must put everything in the same ground. Theory is only a tool for debate and explore human conditions. In the end, nobody is "right" or has seen the "truth". That is why most people jailed in the January coup are also rethinking their position. You are in a place of confort, while watching the actual warriors faint their enthusiasm. There is room for you to think openly.
Have nice day
There is major differences between liberalism and nationalism. Liberals believe in the abstract, whereas nationalism believes in the historical. Liberals believe in the atomized individuals as being the primary units of a nation, nationalists believe in the ethnic organic whole being the primary unit of society. Liberals believe in individuals produce society where as nationalists believe society produces individuals. Individualist liberals want a mercantile elite, adversarial system and are minoritarian, whereas nationalists want a managerial elite, constructivist system and are majoritarian. So I would say they clearly have their differences, I would appreciate both sides here as "classical liberal" and "nationalist", I more of a libertarian-conservative if I can be pinned down on direction I wish to head rather than the specificity of my political thought of which I would categorize as being the following; ultra-conservative, ultra traditionalist, radical traditionalist and macho conservative. Heres a video that describes the differences between the two in some detail: Youtube.com
The number 1 group that I'm most opposed to is the bureaucratic parliamentarian socialists. They basically act as a sapper of energy for both sides of the isle, both sides are given a peace of mind or pacificing force to make each side placated instead of pursuing stuff like; "classical liberalism", "radical traditionalism", "ultra-conservativism", even "class struggle" is contradicted by these mediocre socialist parliamentarians who wish to supplicate the more "extreme" parts of the political spectrum but that's only according to them, which to me is just the natural state of mankind that is being made repressed and weak.
Pathological ideas are being spread by them to mollify the energy of the lower classes and middle to upper middle classes. I don't want to reform capitalism according to socialist parliamentarians, I don't want to abolish capitalism according to rev synd or rev soc, I want to work with it for my benefit. The parliamentary socialists are effectively lying their way into power, saying they want change but they just bring the proletariat into power to reproduce the history of capitalism under liberalism by increasingly using force against segments of capital according to their will, just like modern liberal capitalism has increasingly used force against its most productive aspects for the slowly growing the welfare-warfare state. The socialist parliamentarians are just trying to reform what's been working all along; the free market, personal responsibility and competition.
The government cannot know what each individual wants, entrepreneurs should decide what should be produced, free market competition should decide how much things should cost and how much of each product should be produced, the government should not intervene with regulations, law or stimulus in the market place and society thrives if let up to the personal responsibility and competition. Creating jobs in the public sphere is always about stealing resources to fatten the purses of the ruling class from that of the working class and the middle classs. That isn't to say we should get rid of the state but that it should be primarily a state where people are free. Aslong as this is brought back to the fore then we can choose our own ways of life without the state continuously butting into our business and personal lives.
The vitality that is inevitably to be reborn by the passion, traditional hierarchy, brotherhood, "traditionalist" values, energy and honor will totally outweigh any benefit one would get by "getting free stuff" from the government. No instead we want the principles of "duty", "discipline", "devotion", "honor" and "loyalty" to form the new state. Capitalism hasn't gotten more and more effecient, its declined actually substantially because of a degenerate element that has creeped into the middle class.
Maybe, referring to the way you define yourself politically, you have some opinions on what is happening in Italy, namely, Meloni - Fratelli d'Italia.
You are going to win this one. Any thoughts? And the Portuguese "Chega" Party (they are both closely related to the French nationalist movement)?
Slavoj Zizek says basically that the system is outside of our control, propped up as a collective fiction. We should return to the authority figure, we should have a stated role of the state and put a stop to this dominance of economic rationality. So Zizek really sounds awfully alot like he's hard-right to me. He really should just be one judging by that statement eventhough hes a marxian hegelian.
Moldbug is a revivifying how political change works. Populism is more or less useless, and the circulation of elites is really the main way that power changes or culture itself changes over time. He's been most popular of building The Cathedral, how we talk about the political consensus amongst the academia, the media and the unelected government. Its a evolutionary and natural explanation for this is basically there is antinomianism that is fueling this deconstruction and dissolution of rules, laws and social norms. Reactionary and NRx (Moldbug is basically one) main insight is how useless main populist movements really are, the political system is constantly shifting left and it doesn't really matter what populist leader manages to make it because the political consensus, i.e. power and culture, is working against them consistently.
Just like socialists read from socialist parliamentarian people who are against class struggle, I also read things that are anti-liberal like some of ultra-traditionalism and radical traditionalism. I see the capitalist economics as being better than what has come before it, trying to change it up or reform it may cause more issues than it fixes if you ever read anything from the Mises institute. With that said although I prefer free market economics or laissez faire I can see the benefits of traditionalist thought or "organic" thought. The main tension that I foresee is between the first few principles that seem to hint at collectivism vs individualism which people will strongly side with one over the other. I would side with both if need be. Much like Moldbug, despite being neo-reactionary (or NRx in his case), we both have ultra liberal solutions to problems (libertarian/classical liberal). Obviously we both have been influenced in that way despite being in somewhat different camps.
Relativism derives from GE Moore's emotivism, that is just the history. Natural law stems from the rather obvious idea that human morality must be rooted in human nature, and I would call that logical rather than what detractors would think is arbitrary.
Zizek sounds conservative to you because he wants to go back to marxism-leninism, after understanding that Derrida and Deleuze are fancy liberals for a new-left identity based on Postmodern concepts such as the reverence to liberal values on an anarchistic-libertarian sense (meaning, subversive and destructural methods aiming at an objectively confusing ways towards dismantelling the enemy: the liberal)
Populism are useless in a sense that they want nothing, they aspire nothing and (this is more important) they can't be called usefull idiots. They are sheep to their masters (UKIP proves this perfectly). The work to be done there is too harsh to make them come to the fringes. It is best, anyway, to speek truthfully about your political intentions (as Meloni is doing)
Center left and social democracies still have value and they will fight back, as the Portuguese and French govs are suggesting. But yes, that is your main enemy in Europe, not the liberal (whom you can make partial alliances indeed)
*****
"Relativism derives from GE Moore's emotivism, that is just the history. Natural law stems from the rather obvious idea that human morality must be rooted in human nature, and I would call that logical rather than what detractors would think is arbitrary."
I disagree with you (not the Moore part). There are no Universal morals, and relativism is part of the daily evidence. if you try to impose a natural order of things, you will fail (just see Iran right now). Human nature exists in a very basic way (Kantian faculties are key), while the everyday joes are individualistic when they don't strife in life (autonomy and independence are liberal values). If you do need to find a sense in life or meaning in a group or family, then you must be not doing well in life (ofc, this is my experience with the theme). Social "sciences" are not truth, they only try to explain phenomena that is intrinsically ever changing. There is only opinion there, not truth. Only conflict of ideas, like we do here everytime.
In some ways I agree. If you mindlessly got shipped overseas to fight for a private company's interest in oil reserves then you have not done anything to protect my rights.
At the moment the current powers are easy to control and bribe who destroy our civilization by doing pointless wars for profit. Its better to have virtuous people at the top. Yes they will be able to make decisions to go to war or not, but because our society at the moment is upside down and frankly a clown world where rather than the virtuous and courageous people get to rule society instead of the retarded way bureaucrats run it. In reality everything in reality has been done by violence, to make our struggle and survival of humanity, ethnicities and religions occur, there is also the victory of our cause. Suggesting wars are always wrong is a ridiculous statement and frankly marxian if I'm being honest, doing a war for the protection of our family and our nation is useful and beneficial for making our people thrive and live.