Heh. Well, I've corrected it, and various other errors I spotted after the fact. I'm sure several other errors remain.
------------------------------------------
It's hard to say. I'm tempted to argue that such nonsense is just modern-day loonie cultism, and that such extravagances will just naturally die out when things "get real", and excesses of
any kind become unaffordable. Anyone remotely like Sulla, for certain, would want the elite itself to be reformed, and to make it more responsible and "dignified". So if we get something like a Sullan oligarchy, it'll be pretty austere and unforgiving of nonsense. At least more so than our current, highly "frivolous" times.
On the other hand, look at Egypt in the wake of the Hyksos ravages, at Rome (and Greece) in the latter days of the Hellenistic Era, or at China during the conclusion of the Warring States Period. Hotbeds of not just mad cultism and weird movements, but also of moral decay and all sorts of degeneracies. (In Rome, Sulla couldn't cure that, either. For that matter: neither could Marius, although to be fair, he never
really got the chance.)
We may also note that as the Populares broaden their movement, that has the downside of also becoming more open to various gaggles of perhaps not-quite-worthy interlopers. Publius Clodius Pulcher was a populist, after all. That sort of example illustrates that a Marian -- and even a Caesarian -- faction may actually end up
accepting various forms of... moral failings... in the name of "keeping everyone in the big tent".
It was Augustus who really cleaned house.
Although, to be fair, I'm pretty sure Caesar would have... if not "gotten rid of", then at least "put aside"... the less savoury types within his own faction, if he'd lived. Similar figures in other civilisations did so as well. (Essentially, a "Caesar" who lives longer saves the "Augustus" the trouble of having to kill a
lot of objectionable people.)
...But to actually answer the question: I think
certain perversities will be so associated with the establishment (which actively pushed them) that the populists will invariably hate these forever, whereas
other perversities may get a blind eye until the very end. In practice, this means that Marius would be the type of man to legislate the compulsive castration of paedophiles, and Sulla would be the type of man to alter that to a death sentence ("more practical"), while Caesar would order the summary execution of "gender loonies"... and Augustus is the sort of man who would have pimps crucified for "corrupting the social order".
All of these men will be stringently opposed to abortion, by the way. If anything is going to go out of style sooner rather than later, it'll be anti-natalism in the West.
------------------------------------------
You forget, perhaps, that this option really wasn't possible for the Germans under Hitler. They could have done it under the Kaiser, because back then their economic policies were only kind of stupid. But under Hitler, they could not do this...
because they were socialists. Their economy relied on plunder. In international socialism, this is class-plunder. In national socialism, it is race-plunder. To exist, they
must rape all neighbours and take all their stuff.
If Hitler had been nice to Slavs, he could have had allies, but his own state would have collapsed due to the lack of plunder. Indeed, his armies would starve, because German production (of everything, including food) was insufficient. So he literally just expected his armies to be like locusts in the East. To eat
everything, and make the Slavs starve.
If they left food for the Slavs, they themselves would starve, because
der Führer could not actually afford to feed them properly.
(I cannot stress enough that anyone on the right who thinks the Nazis were cool -- or right about anything at all -- is a complete imbecile.)
------------------------------------------
The truly crucial thing is that the current generation has lived through the errors of neoconservatism, which advocates the
dumbest form of interventionism. This is where
@KilroywasNOTHere is perhaps misjudging things a bit, by looking at what is
currently the MAGA belief. But you need to understand
why it is that belief. Two, three decades of dumb interventionism have simply taught people to
hate neocon interventionism.
But now consider what two, three decades of dumb
non-interventionism will teach the
next generation.
Imagine, for a moment, a fairly bad short-to-mid-term future. Ukraine loses, after Trump cuts all aid. Russia keeps its gains. Rump-Ukraine joins NATO, but is hardly happy. Russia is still fucked up. Its conquests are ruined lands, unprofitable for over a decade. Soon enough, Putin croaks. He leaves behind a wrecked economy with a whole generation dead or maimed. He has no solid succession plan in place. Russia, for all that it has "won", collapses into gangsterism-- like the '90s on steroids. By this time, it has become a total Chinese vassal. Dependent. Controlled. The Chinese sphere now borders on Poland. And on the Eastern end, the retreat of the USA and the evident weakness and discord of NATO inspire the CCP to annex Taiwan. It exerts vast economic pressure to sway Singapore into its orbit. There is no Western response. Not long after, Turkey betrays "weak and useless NATO", and -- funded by China -- commences a streak of conquests. It occupies, most crucially, Cyprus and the Suez Canal. The Chinese alliance system now has a choke-hold on
both ends of Eurasia.
We have come to the mid-point of the century. And only now, when the enemy has realised every advantage that it might have dreamed to possess, does it dawn on the Americans how foolish they have been. Eurasia-Africa is a world-island. And the Americas are their counter-island. But the former is much bigger. Has vaster numbers. Has greater quantities of all resources. If it comes to a world war between these two opposing world-islands...
the big one wins.
It is on to this stage that a Marius emerges. It is here that he makes his mark. For he is, more than anything, more than the domestic reformer that he can thereafter become, more than all epithets that history may bestow upon him---
He is is the one that beats them back.
It won't be the big world-war. Both sides want to avoid that, for even nominal victory wouyld be hideously costly. No, this is a war fought in the border regions. This Marius will grasp that. He'll go for the Turks. Perhaps for Western Russia. Not China itself. But he'll beat their vassals, and end their choke-hold on one end of Eurasia, so that they may not wholly possess it. Part of that is about resources, and part of it is about real estate, but at the heart of it... it's about
survival. It's about getting back to first place. To secure a winning position, or at least a non-losing one. To force a world-order where world war means
mutual destruction. And to ensure that, you
must deny China the resources held by Western Eurasia, and by Africa. If they possess
all of the larger world-island... they win. The smaller world-island loses. The world becomes a Chinese Empire.
I advocate for defeating Russia
now, because I see this coming. Because if we go isolationist now, then China wins. Then China's world-system functionally extends into Europe. And we'll have to fight them back to the Urals later. But we beat Russia now, and
absorb its Western regions, then that border will at least be settled early on. Fighting the China-backed Turks later on will be all the easier for it.
This is why isolationism is retarded. Your enemies are not isolationist. They are imperialist. They will not relent. What we do not take,
they will. Retreat weakens you and strengthens them. That is the core lesson that the coming decades of isolationist dumbassery will have to teach the world.
