Yuyutsu

Stop posting crap, man. We are talking about the rule of law and the right and obligation of countries to protect their borders and culture. Not your personal take on morality.

Dear Ttbn,

«Not your personal take on morality.»
Regarding morality, there are no three ways about it:
either you believe that violence is wrong, or you believe that "might is right".

If you believe the latter, then you may just as well justify Hamas' attack and atrocities on October 7th, just because they were able to do what they did; or the Houthis shooting and drowning merchant ships to protect their culture because they can.

Is this the culture you are so eager to protect?

«We are talking about the rule of law»

A rule of law is only legitimate over those who freely accepted that law to begin with.

- unless of course "might is right".

«and the right and obligation of countries to protect their borders and culture.»

Who gave "countries" such a right? Their might?
Who obliged them to protect? Their desires?

Desire not a right makes.

- well again, not unless "might is right".

By "country", I take it you mean a group of people, rather than the actual land that supports them.

The theory is that some "social contract" is in place, whereby the actual people of the land joined together because they sought mutual protection.

That never happened in reality in modern times - in reality the people as a whole never joined and agreed on anything, but lets assume for a moment that they did.

According to that theory, individuals delegate the group to exercise their legitimate power to self defend, that because a group can protect more effectively than a loose bunch of individuals.

Fair enough, but such a group only receives its powers from the people that comprise it, and therefore its powers cannot exceed the total aggregate of powers originally belonging to the people who bestowed them on the group. In other words, no extra powers or "rights" can appear out of thin air only because some people decided to get together.

Unless of course "might is right", people's power to defend themselves and their properties is restricted and finite, thus the aggregate sum of these powers is also finite.

unless of course "might is right".
Yuyutsu,
That is the parasitic Woke definition of Democracy being dictated to by minority groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuyutsu

My understanding is that the word Yuyutsu is Hindu- maybe the Yuyutsu on OLO believe's in replacing Anglo-European principles with Hindu principles.

Perhaps because India is overpopulated they no longer identify with the land but with the culture separated from the land. Maybe Hindu's and other cultural groupings have their own governments or elder councils.

Perhaps Northern Regions where European culture developed was more sparsely populated and environmentally hostile and this led to a different cultural view and it's attachment to the land. When you can point to a road and say my great-grandfather built it, grandfather built the church and school, father built the house- the extended family live in it- the community has a much deeper impression on personal identity.

When there is constant warfare between tribes- survive by running- identity with the land is lost.

I believe land identity important- I don't care if people think I'm a racist anti-Hindu micro-aggressivist for believing it. I feel sad for Hindu's that may have lost their identity with the land.

I don't believe in replacing Anglo principles with Hindu principles.
I believe that Hindu principles might "work" for Hindu's in India- and Anglo principles "work" for Australian Anglo's.

Dalai Lama "Europe is for the European's".

Woke/ Communist- Critical Race Theorists say races are incompatible and relativist- the solution to relativism is to burn culture down- nihilism- I disagree with the solution.

Communist's apparently similar to Yuyutsu don't seem to believe in individual property rights and everything should be owned by the state or culture (and the Communist state should become global). Variations on a theme. I like the idea that culture should be able to control it's own destiny. Hindu nationalism also seems to support the view of self determination (similar to the UN).

Society is a hierarchy- property ownership is embodied at each level sometimes in different ways. Individuals, streets, towns, cities, states, nations, regions, planets- all have property rights at scale- property means personal property or real estate.

God's argue property rights too. Those that can't agree must be separated to avoid war- some want war.

In ancient times "people and weapons were stockpiled in preparation for war". The industrial revolution replaced labour with machines- but some nations still stockpile people for war.

Considering population and war: a critical and neglected aspect of conflict studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781832/

Population and Conflict: Exploring the Links
The State of the Field: Demography and War
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Toft.pdf

Dear Canem Malum,

You presented a very interesting hypothesis - are you aware of the implications?

If non-violence is only a Hindu-specific cultural trend and not a universal principle, if the true representative of Western Anglo-European culture is Caligula rather than Jesus Christ, if the best example of Christian life is the Spanish Inquisition rather than St. Francis of Assisi, if the descriptions of Charles Dickens represent the height and ideal of British civilisation, if claiming foreign lands as one's own because one has a stronger navy, is a virtue deserving of statues, if an environmentally hostile land justifies a culture of hostility towards other human-beings, if a deepening of personal identity is considered an advantage rather than a handicap, if attachment to material things is looked at as an advantage rather than as a shackle as taught by Diogenes, who was a Greek, not a Hindu - then being born Anglo-European is a curse, a pitiable epitome of misery and low life.

But in reality, Europe too had great men and women who taught compassion and that might is not right - and many who follow them.
In reality, India too is full of selfish people, fanatic nationalists and violent dispossession of Muslims by misguided Hindus who think that might is right.
In reality, human nature and the principles surrounding it are not fundamentally different between India and Europe.
Both Europe and India have arrogant fools who consider themselves to be lords of their destiny.

I mentioned nothing against owning the rightful fruits of one's labour, like roads, schools and churches. Ultimately there comes a time in life when one is called to renounce them and be free, but till then they should enjoy.

But while one may enjoy the improvements achieved and earned by their handcraft, the land itself that carries all life, was not created by man, who therefore has no right to claim to be its owner.

I therefore bow down in salutation to Mother Prithvi, the earth goddess: nobody owns their mother, nobody has a right to deprive their brothers and sisters of her love!