Why warrior oriented countriessocieties are way more appealing to mainstream media than peacefulmerchantile...

Why warrior oriented countries\societies are way more appealing to mainstream media than peaceful\merchantile countries\societies?

Machismo is appealing to men and women alike.

Biology

Guys love violence and power, chicks like guys who are violent and powerful

Yeah war is hell blah blah blah but they never tell you about the thrill of combat

I guess so.
That's why people prefer Maoris over Aboriginals and Romans\Vikings over Phoenicians\Indians

That image is quite interesting.

It was supposed to show that Germans of the South Tyrol were victims of Italy.
The Italian is shown as an arrogant dark-skin Roman soldier humiliating a Germanic man.
This would appeal to people's compassion and the whole underdog/victim trope and show the conquers as monsters.

For today's internet nationalists, for the American and West European ones in particular, this would show that Italians are strong and Germanics are weak and "unmanly", basically cucks, fags, weaklings, "betas"...
The conqueror is strong and this makes him righteous.
This is the kind of image they would make to glorify their conquest, and insult someone on their board from the defeated nation.
No room for any compassion, Might makes Right.
Even Christians use this to mock Pagans, which is funny as hell.
This whole obsession with manliness didn't seem to exist back then.

So is there a difference between different eras?
Have nationalists changed?

You failed to realise that the poster's target are not nationalists from elsewhere, only the tirolese. The poster seeks to create the same feelings you described and therefore enrage the germans against the italians, not creating compassion in unrelated peoples.

Good point actually.
I'm OP and i chose that pic cause i too found it intriguing for the same reason.
Pheraps it has changed, deep down i think that our society has become way more agressive mostly due to the rampant neo-liberal capitalism post-URSS.

Unless the agressor is portrayed as a grotesque figure people will feel more inclined to side with the dominant figure

Insecure, fragile manchildren love imagining themselves in the life of an individual that is physically stronger than them. When you are so utterly dull that you can not possibly appreciate subtlety, you simply flock to the biggest, dumbest ape you can find in order to justify your feeble lifestyle by identifying with them.

Here's two propaganda posters who while both include a teutonic knight differ quite a lot.
In one the knight is a victim, in the other a victor.
((Note, Germany banned the modern teutonic order from their country))

...

The teutonic knight in the first poster looks quite insane. However, i think it's poorly made since it's hard to see he is being held by the guy behind him.
At first sight it seems he's jumping towards in a blood-thirsty rage

That one looks very simple for a nazi poster

>This whole obsession with manliness didn't seem to exist back then
>when norsemen would fight each other to the death if accused of unmanly activity

Sorry to tell you this betaboi but you're just a wimp

because faggots don't tend to get stuff done

NuMale detected

Some of our parents let us play rough as kids

All aboard the buzzword express!

And some of us were able to play rough without suffering brain damage or an idol worship complex with massive homoerotic undertones.
Perhaps I should pity the common manchild, after all.

Because peaceful/mercantile societies invariably get rekt by the warrior societies. Mind you, the best combo is warrior/mercantile, but then almost all appealing societies are that, see: Rome.

>peaceful\merchantile countries\societies?

Probably becuse those got assraped by warrior oriented countries

Conflict is the essence of narrative. A bunch of dudes stabbing each other for glory or plunder is more interesting than two merchants arguing over sales tax on a roll of silk

It's simply through exposure. People don't gush over the peaceful/mercantile societies simply because they usually don't leave the same exciting record to be remembered like the warrior societies, where you will often find out about the exploits of the Kings and their armies and what not.

The earliest historical records and things meant for history (think Herodotus and Thucydides) focused on wars, and wars were often what was written about in history. People will honor and mourn the soldier who died fighting so the king may claim ownership over a strip of land, but nobody holds a ceremony honoring the baker who kept his village fed or the factory worker who went to a job he disliked so that generations later his children (or children's children) could become teachers and doctors.

Also in the case of media, conflict is the basis of a good story, and good stories get a lot of readers. Not to mention that States love to instill values of civic duty and constant militarization on their subjects just as much as they love to have the media help instill those values.

Fuck I've always loved the Carthaginians, Shoshone, Venice, and Athenians. Diplomacy and trade are fucking amazing and rarely taught about in school.

I agree with whichever user posted about how they always get ass raped in the end. That's the main reason they aren't popular or commonly known about.

Venice and Athens were total warmongers tho.

So much this

OT genocidal, mass raping, fanatical jews>whiny shekel suckers

>more interesting than two merchants arguing over sales tax on a roll of silk
Didn't stop George Lucas from making a movie about it

Hey, there is nothing gay about admiring powerful men as long as you say "no homo."

>"HEAR, O' CHILDREN! OF THE ELDER DAYS, AND THE MILD ANNOYANCE OF DEMETRIUS THE SHEPHERD WHO HAD TO WAKE UP EARLIER THAN NORMAL BECAUSE A STUPID LAMB GOT ITS HEAD STUCK BETWEEN ROCKS AGAIN"

...

Isn't this more a case of the warlike aspects of a society being played up over the mercantile aspects? Viking raiders sounds more exciting than Viking settlers/explorers/traders.

To add on to this, aren't "warrior societies" a construction, to some extent - or at the very least, the records left of them are from sources that don't necessarily want us to see them in a positive light - Spartans, for example.

Except warrior societies are probably more of a construction for the opposite. Using the example of spartans again, they were made to be compared to the supposed effeminate degeneracy of Persians and even other Greek nations at the time.

Right, but either way you're still dealing with a sort of exaggeration for the purpose of illustrating an ideal.

Also want to expand on this by saying that even though I am not a socialist and despise them for the most part, I like to give them credit for trying to glorify working people in a way similar to soldiers.

At least among the people that I know who have any knowledge of history, almost no one has any sort of interest in the Phoenicians.

Very true

>Celts were a warrior culture
>Germanics were a warrior culture
>Greeks were a warrior culture
>Romans were a warrior culture
>Slavs were a warrior culture
>Illyrians were a warrior culture
>Thracians were a warrior culture

Well who the heck wasn't? Everybody valued warfare except the odd bumfuck tribals

>massive homoerotic undertones.

>look! Men doing stuff!
>lol they must be gay!
This is why hating fags was considered normal until the Marxists poisoned our minds.

>the Marxists
Marxists did not gave a fuck about homogay people, if something they considered them mentally ill.

You are thinking Frenchmen and Americans

I wonder what's caused what seems to be a resurgence of might-makes-right philosophy/psychology/culture.

Superficial understanding of Darwinism?
Modern counter-cultural perception of Fascist (and other) societies?
The recession from standard education of classics which promoted gentility? And not only that, but the rarity of mentors who lend gentleness any kind of respectability through their own mature reverence for it.

Humans are violent apes user.

>I wonder what's caused what seems to be a resurgence of might-makes-right philosophy/psychology/culture.

Atheism and Egalitarism/Populism

>homoerotic undertones
The way that progressives tend to suggest this as the subtext of any kind of man-to-man admiration is infuriating and probably the motivation, in part, for the new kind of alt-right hyper-masculinity.

You almost can't express this natural feeling of virtus within modern western culture without causing unintended and untrue suspicion or jokes about your sexuality; it's yet another frustration which leads a man to reject it all.

I agree with you. That kind of unsexy work is noble in its own way but largely unromanticized.

>no TRUE Marxist would support homosexuals!
Marxist pls.

mercantile societies are no less violent than warrior societies. they just accord the spoils of battle to merchants rather than soldiers.

just wanted to point that out

Nice "fallacy" fallacy dear Marxist.

Look at the Eastern Bloc (which contained vast majority of Marxists that existed in history) and tell me how much of homogay paradise it was.

If people learned to truly appreciate the beauty of the mundane the world would be a nicer place for everyone.

It was legalized under Lenin, Stalin recriminalized it you dumb nigger

despite being a retard, he's half right. under communism, minorities, single mothers, homosexuals, and a few others all gained affirmative action and rights, as well as the vote, temporarily. Stalin himself was a beneficiary from this.

Of course at some point every communist realizes that the uplifted people then become competition, and are attempting to assassinate the leader, so they gte gulag'd

Phoenicians are fucking interesting as hell to me, fuck you niggas.

And? Homosexuality was c-tier issue only used for smearing dissidents. Only western humanists (or sjw´s how internet teens say) care about that.

My point was that Marxism doesn't have an ideologic stance on homosexuality, even Marx himself was silent about it. Marxists were always pragmatic about it:
>Are we building brave new world free of clerical oppression?
"Rejoice you fags, we don't hate you now"
>Do we need a scapegoat or something to use as smear against dissidents?
"Why are we locking up that guy? Because he´s pidor, that´s why!"
>Do we need to show imperialists how great and progressive our society is?
"Look, we don't beat fags anymore!"

no one cares about your stupid fucking ideology. we care about practical effects. we're discussing practical effects of marxism on homosexuality, and it's rather neutral, but it's not neutral because of your stupid fucking ideology, it's neutral because there are periods of promotion and periods of mass execution.

shut up about your big invisible man in the sky. no one cares.

Mercantile societies don't exist without warrior societies and vice versa. They subsist off of each other and both yearn to be like the other.

it's a continuum, but distinctions do exist. in the end, one class or another is the one is in control, and defines the law and system of upward mobility, which then defines the conditions for going to war.

at the extremes, there are societies like japan that suppress nearly all trade, and societies like china where the soldiers themselves are just tradable assets on a balance sheet.

Why are you so angry?

>we're discussing practical effects of marxism on homosexuality
We're discussing your claim whatever Marxists are responsible for normanlization of sodomy. I claim it did not, my argument is that the Marxist part of world did not care about it, the part of world that was in war with Marxists did. Your argument is that in USSR there was a brief period when sodomy was legal. I find your argument weak.

words in a book don't have a direct connection to reality. I'm angry because you cite your holy book as evidence that there is or is not X phenomenon in a society ruled by marxists. I don't care about your holy book. I care about what actually happened in history.

you sound exactly like a muslim talking about why muslims don't want to kill all jews

>I'm angry because you cite your holy book as evidence
I literally never cited any book neither do I hold any book holy.
>I care about what actually happened in history.
Gays were persecuted more in world ruled by Marxism than they were in the Free world. Thats what actually happened in history.

>you sound exactly like a muslim talking about why muslims don't want to kill all jews
Maybe because I am a Jew that wants to kill all Muslims? You haven't throught about that you studid goy, didya?

Because humans like to think the guy who got his gold by slaughtering other humans earned it more then the guy who made it by smart negotiating.

>blood-thirsty
>insane
that's teutonic order for you.

>inb4 butthurt polack
Polack? Yes. Butthurt? No.

Because it's more important to be strong than rich, everything you have right now is protected by those who are trained to be strong both mentally and physically as well as trained to fight threats to your individual.

And to cite Sun Tzu in something that should be obvious but isn't:

War is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected.

After all it's not that awful. You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

it's not a 1:1 correlation. the swiss were expert engineers at the time. those clocks are by no means some small feat.

it's similar to the japanese who made spring powered mechanical puppets, or the jesuits in china who made the first steam powered car

peace creates a different type of technology. personally, I'd rather have mechanics and steam power than the sistene chapel, although both would be nice

Peace is boring.

>never tell you about the thrill of combat


The risk of being killed or dismembered by a grenade, or other types of explosive is so thrilling.

THIS


Only betas fantasize about war and manliness, they basically fantasize about the things they lack.

Priceless.

>This whole obsession with manliness didn't seem to exist back then.

You are joking, right?

If the importance of "manliness" didn't seem so overt to you in previous times, it's because it was taken as the natural standard from which it would be ridiculous to deviate. Or did you conveniently forget all the other such 19th/early 20th c. propaganda that glorifies the soldier/warrior?

Seriously, this kind of insecure "w-what an unnatural and arbitrary standard, r-right guys?" bullshit is just as obvious and pathetic as the neckbeards jerking off over what great vikings they would have been.

Read Storm of Steel, many men enjoy warfare.

>Y-you could get hurt!

And yes, it very much can be thrilling. Which would explain all the *thrilling* accounts of such our cultures continue to produce.

Well, Jünger was clearly mentally ill if he didn't soil himself at the thought of a boo-boo.

Dude, as terrifying and miserable as it is combat provides a rush that's better than sex or drugs

t. OIF

That's probably the dumbed post I've read today

Fucking hell

*dumbest

What is adrenaline, Alex?

>t keyboard-warriors

lmao
We're on a anime and you're just a bunch of NEETs as everyone else

you'll never experience war and even if a war does happen, it will never change your life you'll stay NEETS.

>glorifying the soldier/warrior

So you guys seriously think it's the same type of masculinity?
The real men of those days weren't loud obnoxious douchebags obsessed with beards, swag, fuckin the bitches'n shit and saying they're "alphas". These types of "men" would be considered lowlifes back then.
Manliness required honor, respect and at least some level of intelligence and culture.
It didn't value weakness but it wasn't just raw brutality.

It's hard to build a Hero's Tale out of an intrepid accountant.

A cool warrior story is much easier to write than an intense merchant/strategy/political story. That being said, both can be equally badass.

>The real men of those days weren't loud obnoxious douchebags obsessed with beards, swag, fuckin the bitches'n shit and saying they're "alphas".
That's literally what they were, bro.

I don't think that was so widespread in the 19th/early 20th.

S W A G
W
A
G

B T F O !!!

>We're on a anime

These guys in one of the most cruel periods of war pulled of "funny" stunts like having special coinpurses integrated into their codpieces, so if they paid some dirty peasant some money it had touched the guys dick and balls and the receiver had to accept it.

THUGLIFE
H
U
G
L
I
F
E

But OP, I thought Jews were onto everything.Are you telling me Shekel propaganda has been a lie this whole time!?

>we're on a anime

my bad

we're on an anime board

Dopest album cover of 1516.

Yes. We're on an anime board. Which contains normies.

We're here.

Watching you post.

Judging you.

>implying normies are warriors

My sides

action stories need action and war has plenty of action

it's not like there doesn't exist historical sit-coms, political dramas, and SoLs

Subjective morality leads to nihilism, (honest) nihilism leads to a disregard of concepts such as human ''''rights'''' and egalitarianism.

t. nihilist with authoritarian views

>nihilist
>not anti-hierarchy

Spooky.

Egalitarianism is a spook. Humans are not equal and have no inherent value.

“Although I am an anarch, I am not anti-authoritarian. Quite the opposite: I need authority, although I do not believe in it. My critical faculties are sharpened by the absence of the credibility that I ask for. As a historian, I know what can be offered.”
- Ernst Junger's "Eumeswil"

Stirner fags are just the most useless cunts, christ

I() am not a Stirnerfag, just replied to user using his own terminiology.

I said nothing about egalitarianism. Wanting to be part of a hierarchy, and thus in a position to be bound today by your values of yesterday is some seriously spooky business. It implies that you consider the values of hierarchy to be something of substance, indeed something to place ahead of your own interests.

You're a failure of a nihilist.

K. Enjoy that sore ass.

Hierarchy is both natural and inevitable, the difference lies on how it is defined and by what it is legitimized. My own interests of personal fulfillment would be better achieved under a honest meritocratic despotism than a dishonest plutocratic indirect democracy.

If you have a fetish for glorified bureaucrats led by a financial elite whose rule is justified solely by mass consent, then that's your fault for being a masochist.

Personally I'm more interested in the Phoenicians than most warrior oriented societies.

The Roman empire is a special case, it is the root of Western civilization as a whole.

I don't believe this Irish are always in movies and Irish culture was one of peace before the British, as far as I know the Irish didn't have any warriors.

cool appeal to authority

>Meritocratic despotism
A system achieving those two together is so unlikely that those two words may aswell be considered oxymoron

oh look one of these faggots

Hierarchy is as natural as masochism/cuckoldry.

Unless you're talking about the executive hierarchy which exists because it is an efficient means of organizing things, but that is different.

There is the legislative and the executive. Legislators vote on matters and represent the "will" of the nation. The executive carries out those orders. Legislators determine the goals. The executive determines the most practical way to carry it out.