I think I can see it now.
Hedonism is more "moderate" than most assume.
In most (i.e. Abrahamic) religions, you have all these "sins", where, allegedly, society can't engage in them because they'll corrupt or destroy it.
Yet, in times of war, there are no inhibitions on "sin" anymore. People go out and rob, rape, murder etc... at will. One of the great ironies about the "Crusades" was that many "Knights" went on them to remove their "sins" from previous wars in Europe. It was a "cleansing" (both internal and external) operation.
So, that begs the question.
Which society is more moderate?
The one that aknowledges pleasure and does not seek to restrict it (or at least, to restrict it only when it leads to physical or psychological harm to others - i.e. when there is no consent) or the one which represses pleasure until it explodes during war leading to things like the destruction and looting of cities and ancient artifacts, mass-murder, mass-rape, sex-slaves etc...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide
"Voltaire believed everyone had the right to liberty and hedonism. He believed people had the right to question everything to find truth. This made him an advocate for the freedom to question societal practices."
"Voltaire fought for free will. He believed free will was enabled through one's freedom of liberty, hedonism, empirical science, and skepticism."
Now it makes sense why "rightist" "far-right" "Nazi" "Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/Jewish fundamentalist" people harp on and on about how much they hate the "Enlightenment" and how "the French Revolution was a disaster!".
They hate pleasure itself. They hate pleasure and true freedom.
"Hoppe envisions the French Revolution as the crucial collapse of the foundations of property rights in Europe. In these works and numerous articles, Hoppe elaborates on theme of the aggressive and acquisitive nature of the republican democracies that followed. Hence, his chief historical moment of truth is the shift beginning with the French Revolution. In Hoppe’s view, the old aristocratic order of Europe and to some extent the European monarchies emerging in the Middle Ages were hardly ideal forms, but as “owners” of their their territories or their realms, monarchs tended to operate with very low time preference. They were looking above all for the continuation of their realms (and their dynasties) into the future."
The Mises institute says that they're basically against the French Revolution because it led to an Empire that tried spreading the Enlightenment via force.
Right before that, they quote Hoppe saying that the Imperialist European Monarchs were actually good people because they respected "property rights" (i.e. the rights of them to treat their population as slaves).
You couldn't make this shit up.
And they start their article by saying evaluating the French Revolution is a "Rorschach Test for educated people", lol
https://mises.org/mises-wire/was-french-revolution-good-or-bad
https://newdirection.online/2018-publications-pdf/ND-Report-ConsFreeMarket-preview%28low-res%29.pdf
"...the French Revolution, leading to terror and then to Napoleon’s military coup and war in Europe, scarcely can be considered a success..."
