>If one goes back to the childhood of nations or if one comes down to our own day, if one looks at societies in every possible stage of development from barbarism to the most advanced civilization, war will always be found.
...
>There is, moreover, good reason for doubting if this violent destruction is in general as great an evil as is believed; at least, it is one of those evils that play a part in an order of things in which everything is violent and against nature and which has its compensations. First, when the human spirit has lost its resilience through indolence, incredulity, and the gangrenous vices that follow an excess of civilization, it can be retempered only in blood. It is far from easy to explain why war produces different effects in different circumstances. What is sufficiently clear is that humanity can be considered as a tree that an invisible hand is continually pruning, often to its benefit. In fact, if its trunk is hacked or if it is pruned badly, a tree can die, but who knows the limits for the human tree? What we do know is that a great deal of bloodshed is often connected with a high population, as has been seen particularly in the ancient Greek republics and in Spain under Arab domination. The platitudes on war mean nothing: no great intelligence is needed to know that the more men killed, the fewer at that moment remain, just as the more branches are cut, the fewer remain on the tree. It is the results of the operation that must be considered. However, to stick to the comparison, the skilled gardener prunes less to ensure growth as such than to ensure the fructification of the tree; he requires fruit, and not wood or leaves from the plant. Now the true fruits of human nature - the arts, sciences, great enterprises, noble ideas, manly virtues - spring above all from the state of war. It is well known that nations reach the apex of the greatness of which they are capable only after long and bloody wars.
Is he right?
>>955989
>It is well known that nations reach the apex of the greatness of which they are capable only after long and bloody wars.
WWI and WWII gave us post-modernism and modern art. He's wrong.
>>956185
also gave us the very internet you typed your shitpost on you humongous hypocrit
>>956202
>Arts are corrupted by the Bourgeoisie
>Great enterprises are corrupted by Globalization
>Noble ideas are corrupted by Political Correctness
>Manly virtues are corrupted by feminism
>Sciences became a dogma, replacing religion or/and any kind of transcendental union
"But atleast w-we've got the internet, right g-guys?"
De Maistre himself would be fucking crying if he was still alive.
>>956222
Neat little opinions you got there. You failed to form a coherent argument however. Also nice trips.
>>956222
>humanity is enjoying unprecedented prosperity and freedom in every conceivable way
>b-but muh arts, noble ideas and manly virtues! le born in the wrong era
Neoreactionaries are literally anti-human scum and should be eradicated like pestilent insects they are
>>956240
>this anal agony
Grow up.
Yeah, I'd agree. There's plenty of examples.
>>956185
WWI and WW2 also happened to be an extreme exception in most respects.
>>956245
Really though, one day your ideology will cease to exist.
Not because of any arguments or social changes, but because we find the genes that produce autism and expectant mothers abort would be practitioners.
It'll cut down on tankies and stormfags too.
>>956275
> not realising your two posts demonstrate exactly the same damn mentality as those you despise
I don't like tankies, stormfags etc, because they are weak narcissists who merge with some big other to feel okay. you don't like them because...that's exactly what you want to do but something is stopping you
>>956275
Get laid or something, all this built up anger is not healthy. You genuinely remind me of this guy: https://youtu.be/avep_1vbUOA
>>956240
>humanity is enjoying unprecedented prosperity and freedom in every conceivable way
Your meta-datas are currently collected by the intelligence services of your country, that's some real freedom for you. :)
Neo-liberalism enslaved the western civilization, that's some real freedom there. :)
>>956236
This is a reminder, not an opinion.
>>956240
You forgot one meme arrow
>I have neither proof nor a causative argument
>>956266
But do you reckon it is something fated? Like people will fight until extinction? Or will people eventually unite and fight against some alien threat?
>tfw when he has the best contract theory
>>960483
He does?
>>960490
He himself thinks that there is no contract, but if the agreement after the violent war(which gives birth to great societies) is anything but a contract, then what is it?
It seems to be that de Maistre dismisses any contract theory was secular gibberish, when at the same time Hobbes and Locke use God for their arguments.There are a bunch of legalist essays about constitutions of de Maistre that sound extremely like Locke's method of argumentation(with God being a first cause).
>>956185
from a materialist standpoint, he's absolutely correct though
>>960518
I don't think Maistre is even remotely contractualist, unless you have a highly different definition from most accounts. With respect to god and contract theory, it's true there are some semantic similarities, but otherwise Maistre and Locke are almost diametrically opposed. Locke's theory of government regards natural rights as grounded in empirical precedent (the bible), while Maistre grounds it in innate ideas, i.e. the complete anti-empiricist supposition. Maistre's point is not only that government is not founded through contract (that in itself is not very original and is quite typical to late-18th c. thought), but that its source is divine inspiration which is manifest in history. This is why he recurs to probabilistic language all the time, as human history is merely a huge probability distribution of a myriad of cases. He's actually a very modern thinker, despite his traditionalist resolutions. Not many thinkers can replicate his argumentation style.
