Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Diopolis]

Heinlein was only arguably right wing.
If we're going for classic science fiction writers, Jerry Pournelle would be a better bet.

Well we could put him in as well.
But I think it is unfair to remove American Libertarianism entirely from right wing though, though Heinlein was more pro military than most other Libertarians.

True. There's Ayn Rand.
It just seems kind of odd to put the author of "Stranger in a Strange Land" in a list of right wing science fiction authors.

[Novus America]

Well we could put him in as well.
But I think it is unfair to remove American Libertarianism entirely from right wing though, though Heinlein was more pro military than most other Libertarians.

True. There's Ayn Rand.
It just seems kind of odd to put the author of "Stranger in a Strange Land" in a list of right wing science fiction authors.

Heinlein was a fan of Rand. It should be noted the Heinlein in “Stranger in a Strange Land” was not making it out to be some ideal utopia, it is more just exploring ideas.
It is deliberately provocative.
Sure it is dramatically different than Tolkien. Which is one thing I dislike about Tolkien. He was not willing to really push boundaries. His works are too black and white.
His world building is great, but his philosophy flat, unoriginal not not thought provoking.

A lot of Heinlein’s later work, was not saying what should happen, asking questions not answering them and positing if obviously this had changed greatly throughout history, this could continue to do so.

I mean the guy campaigned for Goldwater.

[Old Tyrannia]

It is deliberately provocative.
Sure it is dramatically different than Tolkien. Which is one thing I dislike about Tolkien. He was not willing to really push boundaries. His works are two black and white.

So according to you, an author is bad if they aren't deliberately provocative?

And Tolkien's world is far from "black and white."

[Diopolis]

True. There's Ayn Rand.
It just seems kind of odd to put the author of "Stranger in a Strange Land" in a list of right wing science fiction authors.

Heinlein was a fan of Rand. It should be noted the Heinlein in “Stranger in a Strange Land” was not making it out to be some ideal utopia, it is more just exploring ideas.
It is deliberately provocative.
Sure it is dramatically different than Tolkien. Which is one thing I dislike about Tolkien. He was not willing to really push boundaries. His works are too black and white.
His world building is great, but his philosophy flat, unoriginal not not thought provoking.

Here we're stodgy and conservative, not provocative.

[Novus America]

It is deliberately provocative.
Sure it is dramatically different than Tolkien. Which is one thing I dislike about Tolkien. He was not willing to really push boundaries. His works are two black and white.

So according to you, an author is bad if they aren't deliberately provocative?

And Tolkien's world is far from "black and white."

I never said Tolkien was bad. I really liked the Hobbit. The LoR also had some great parts.
Just because I dislike something about a writer does not mean I think they are a bad writer.

But his world is actually a struggle of good vs evil.
Not all his characters are completely one dimensional (though many are) but certainly it is a struggle of the good vs the evil. And Sauron is very flat character.

[Diopolis]

So according to you, an author is bad if they aren't deliberately provocative?

And Tolkien's world is far from "black and white."

I never said Tolkien was bad. I really liked the Hobbit. The LoR also had some great parts.
Just because I dislike something about a writer does not mean I think they are a bad writer.

But his world is actually a struggle of good vs evil.
Not all his characters are completely one dimensional (though many are) but certainly it is a struggle of the good vs the evil. And Sauron is very flat character.

Sauron is intentionally flat, and there's nothing wrong with black and white morality. Indeed, from a properly right wing perspective, there's a need for it in order to inculcate virtue.

[Novus America]

Heinlein was a fan of Rand. It should be noted the Heinlein in “Stranger in a Strange Land” was not making it out to be some ideal utopia, it is more just exploring ideas.
It is deliberately provocative.
Sure it is dramatically different than Tolkien. Which is one thing I dislike about Tolkien. He was not willing to really push boundaries. His works are too black and white.
His world building is great, but his philosophy flat, unoriginal not not thought provoking.

Here we're stodgy and conservative, not provocative.

The right wing is not just stodgy conservatives.
And I guess you missed all the hot takes and polemics that happen here.

[Old Tyrannia]

So according to you, an author is bad if they aren't deliberately provocative?

And Tolkien's world is far from "black and white."

I never said Tolkien was bad. I really liked the Hobbit. The LoR also had some great parts.
Just because I dislike something about a writer does not mean I think they are a bad writer.

Fair enough. Accusation rescinded.

But his world is actually a struggle of good vs evil.

Of course it is; there's nothing wrong with that. It's a fallacy that works of fiction have to be amoral to be good. At any rate, Tolkien's characters are more morally complex than you give him credit for. Much of the plot of the Silmarillion, and to an extent his other works, is driven by characters who are far from explicitly evil and often presented sympathetically creating problems for themselves and others as a result of their moral failings or poor judgement.

Not all his characters are completely one dimensional (though many are) but certainly it is a struggle of the good vs the evil.

I can't think of many significant characters from Tolkien that are "completely one dimensional." Many of his minor characters may be- but minor characters in any fictional media are often one-dimensional. Authors can't be expected to give every named character a detailed backstory and unique personality.

And Sauron is very flat character.

Not really, he just doesn't appear in person very much in any of Tolkien's published works so there's not much room for character development. That doesn't make him a bad character- as a villain he's very well suited to the needs of the story he's in, which is ultimately all that's required to be a "good" villain. But if you read the parts referring to Sauron in Tolkien's letters, it's clear that Tolkien gave a fair amount of thought to Sauron's characters and motivations. Sauron is certainly more multidimensional than his master, Morgoth.

[Novus America]

I never said Tolkien was bad. I really liked the Hobbit. The LoR also had some great parts.
Just because I dislike something about a writer does not mean I think they are a bad writer.

But his world is actually a struggle of good vs evil.
Not all his characters are completely one dimensional (though many are) but certainly it is a struggle of the good vs the evil. And Sauron is very flat character.

Sauron is intentionally flat, and there's nothing wrong with black and white morality. Indeed, from a properly right wing perspective, there's a need for it in order to inculcate virtue.

I am not a moral relativist.
There is a need to say some things are good and some things bad.
But it does make a fictional story less compelling to me when it central antagonist is flat and the good guys almost never lose.

I do not look to fiction for moral guidance.
I barely read fiction anymore but I like it to be provocative.
After all in fiction you are bound by nothing, the great value of fiction is you can do anything with it, you are not bound by an rules or restrictions.

[Novus America]

I never said Tolkien was bad. I really liked the Hobbit. The LoR also had some great parts.
Just because I dislike something about a writer does not mean I think they are a bad writer.

Fair enough. Accusation rescinded.

But his world is actually a struggle of good vs evil.

Of course it is; there's nothing wrong with that. It's a fallacy that works of fiction have to be amoral to be good. At any rate, Tolkien's characters are more morally complex than you give him credit for. Much of the plot of the Silmarillion, and to an extent his other works, is driven by characters who are far from explicitly evil and often presented sympathetically creating problems for themselves and others as a result of their moral failings or poor judgement.

Not all his characters are completely one dimensional (though many are) but certainly it is a struggle of the good vs the evil.

I can't think of many significant characters from Tolkien that are "completely one dimensional." Many of his minor characters may be- but minor characters in any fictional media are often one-dimensional. Authors can't be expected to give every named character a detailed backstory and unique personality.

And Sauron is very flat character.

Not really, he just doesn't appear in person very much in any of Tolkien's published works so there's not much room for character development. That doesn't make him a bad character- as a villain he's very well suited to the needs of the story he's in, which is ultimately all that's required to be a "good" villain. But if you read the parts referring to Sauron in Tolkien's letters, it's clear that Tolkien gave a fair amount of thought to Sauron's characters and motivations. Sauron is certainly more multidimensional than his master, Morgoth.

I never said a book had to be amoral to be good.
For example Lloyd Alexander, his books are definitely good against evil.
But for example he his book includes a siege of the main good castle, like in the LoR.
But the good guys lose and get massacred, the castle burned to the ground and the noble king trampled to death.

Tolkien never takes risks like that.
So there is no real suspense.
Some Deus Ex Machina always saves the day.

Sauron I think is not a compelling antagonist as we do not know anything about his motives, and he is not intimidating. His forces too incompetent to be scary.

And sure his main characters might not be completely one dimensional so, but are for the most part pretty flat.
At least in the LoR.

I never read his unpublished stuff. So I cannot speak to that.

Again I am not saying Tolkien is bad, but I have significant criticisms of his work.

Something can include great moral ambiguity without being amoral.

[Old Tyrannia]

Fair enough. Accusation rescinded.

Of course it is; there's nothing wrong with that. It's a fallacy that works of fiction have to be amoral to be good. At any rate, Tolkien's characters are more morally complex than you give him credit for. Much of the plot of the Silmarillion, and to an extent his other works, is driven by characters who are far from explicitly evil and often presented sympathetically creating problems for themselves and others as a result of their moral failings or poor judgement.

I can't think of many significant characters from Tolkien that are "completely one dimensional." Many of his minor characters may be- but minor characters in any fictional media are often one-dimensional. Authors can't be expected to give every named character a detailed backstory and unique personality.

Not really, he just doesn't appear in person very much in any of Tolkien's published works so there's not much room for character development. That doesn't make him a bad character- as a villain he's very well suited to the needs of the story he's in, which is ultimately all that's required to be a "good" villain. But if you read the parts referring to Sauron in Tolkien's letters, it's clear that Tolkien gave a fair amount of thought to Sauron's characters and motivations. Sauron is certainly more multidimensional than his master, Morgoth.

I never said a book had to be amoral to be good.
For example Lloyd Alexander, his books are definitely good against evil.
But for example he his book includes a siege of the main good castle, like in the LoR.
But the good guys lose and get massacred, the castle burned to the ground and the noble king trampled to death.

Tolkien never takes risks like that.
So there is no real suspense.
Some Deus Ex Machina always saves the day.

Sauron I think is not a compelling antagonist as we do not know anything about his motives, and he is not intimidating. His forces too incompetent to be scary.

And sure his main characters might not be completely one dimensional so, but are for the most part pretty flat.
At least in the LoR.

I never read his unpublished stuff. So I cannot speak to that.

Again I am not saying Tolkien is bad, but I have significant criticisms of his work.

Something can include great moral ambiguity without being amoral.

I think we must have read different books because literally everything that you're saying here sounds blatantly wrong.

[Novus America]

I never said a book had to be amoral to be good.
For example Lloyd Alexander, his books are definitely good against evil.
But for example he his book includes a siege of the main good castle, like in the LoR.
But the good guys lose and get massacred, the castle burned to the ground and the noble king trampled to death.

Tolkien never takes risks like that.
So there is no real suspense.
Some Deus Ex Machina always saves the day.

Sauron I think is not a compelling antagonist as we do not know anything about his motives, and he is not intimidating. His forces too incompetent to be scary.

And sure his main characters might not be completely one dimensional so, but are for the most part pretty flat.
At least in the LoR.

I never read his unpublished stuff. So I cannot speak to that.

Again I am not saying Tolkien is bad, but I have significant criticisms of his work.

Something can include great moral ambiguity without being amoral.

I think we must have read different books because literally everything that you're saying here sounds blatantly wrong.

Well we both might need to reread, as we may remember things differently.

But his use of the Uber OP Eagles as a Deus Ex became a meme.
And the only real risk was killing Gandalf, which was completely destroyed by bringing him back as a Deus Ex to save the day in the Two Towers.
That still annoys the heck out of me.

My enjoyment of the series plummeted after that.

[Bienenhalde]

I personally do. Otherwise left-wing conservatives and right-wing progressives would occupy a similar space on the left-right spectrum when they are opposites.

Relatable. Missionaries trying to spread the left/right dichotomy have stopped knocking at our household's door, what with me being an economic leftist/social conservative(ish) who mainly votes for Labour and my partner being an economic rightist/social progressive who mainly votes Conservative.

Dear me. It must be difficult being in a relationship with someone with such drastically different political views.

[Tornado Queendom]

https://pluralist.com/london-mocked-for ... ing-spoon/
Spoons are weapons now, apparently. Next thing you know, they'll ban steel chairs due to them being used as weapons in the WWE.

[Loben The 2nd]

Can't say I agree with the sentiment that its better to be ruled like hell by Filipinos than heaven by Americans.

Well, let's say the invading Americans had to kill off a whole lot of us niggers -- yes, they called my ancestors that -- before they could rule over us, patronize us, administer like heaven on earth.

Heh, heaven on earth. What a joke.

Did you ask that so you could guilt trip us into feeling sorry for your ancestors or some shit?

[Nova Cyberia]

Well, let's say the invading Americans had to kill off a whole lot of us niggers -- yes, they called my ancestors that -- before they could rule over us, patronize us, administer like heaven on earth.

Heh, heaven on earth. What a joke.

Did you ask that so you could guilt trip us into feeling sorry for your ancestors or some shit?

Considering...

yes, they called my ancestors that

Yes, I'd say that's exactly why they posted it.

[Hanafuridake]

Sauron was written to embody how Tolkien saw evil, and his concept of evil was much more complex and nuanced than most give him credit for.

In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants, by a triple treachery: 1. Because of his admiration of Strength he had become a follower of Morgoth and fell with him down into the depths of evil, becoming his chief agent in Middle-earth. 2. when Morgoth was defeated by the Valar finally he forsook his allegiance; but out of fear only; he did not present himself to the Valar or sue for pardon, and remained in Middle-earth. 3. When he found how greatly his knowledge was admired by all other rational creatures and how easy it was to influence them, his pride became boundless.

[Mostrov]

My favorite literary characters from Mishima are an arsonist, a murderous child, and a right-wing extremist.

I'm not sure I want to know what that says about me.

I am still mid-way through the sea of fertility tetralogy—not that I mind taking over a decade to finish a series—but I think it to be the authors vision of the history of the soul of Japan, first in its primordial years as an innocent, a youth as the bakufu, the modernization of Japan as an adult and its subsequent post-war corruption; alongside the interaction between Buddhism and Japan through history and its tension with its native spirit.

I am still inordinately fond of Spring Snow as a Japanese courtly romance (being sickly as a child and being taught of the virtue of various medieval ancestors gives a certain chivalric perspective on life).

While I liked Temple of the Golden Pavillion and his various noh plays, I can't pretend I understand them—being entirely ignorant of Buddhism and its precepts, as well as what I presume to be lost in translation in koans.

I think him superb in his sublimation of the aesthetic in reality, but I have yet to read anything by Dostoevsky even if I intend to, although I do wonder at the absence of Tolstoy and Chekhov whose work am quite familiar with: Anton Chekhov's The Duel is a film that seems to have passed without notice, but one that I remember as one of the best literary adaptations I have ever had the pleasure of seeing.

[West Leas Oros 2]

What's the talks today on RWDT?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Imagine the course of Europe if the Holy Roman Empire didn't allow the rot of Protestantism and successfully began centralising to form a Catholic Germany.

While just a fantasy, there's a legitimate argument to be made that allowing the Protestant Princes to steal Church land and oppress their populace into becoming Protestant permanently crippled the Empire's strides towards centralisation, stopping it from ever becoming a legitimate nation-state in the vein of France.

[Bear Stearns]

Imagine the course of Europe if the Holy Roman Empire didn't allow the rot of Protestantism and successfully began centralising to form a Catholic Germany.

While just a fantasy, there's a legitimate argument to be made that allowing the Protestant Princes to steal Church land and oppress their populace into becoming Protestant permanently crippled the Empire's strides towards centralisation, stopping it from ever becoming a legitimate nation-state in the vein of France.

Fuck no. We'd be worse off, suffering under despotic, superstitious Catholic influence run by corrupt, pedophile popes.

NO ROMAN POPERY

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Fuck no. We'd be worse off, suffering under despotic, superstitious Catholic influence run by corrupt, pedophile popes.

NO ROMAN POPERY

I think the inhabitants (non-Protestant that is) of 17th century Germany would beg to differ. One only has to look at contemporary France to see the benefits of centralisation, art, economy, military, sanitation, science, literature, etc. And the HRE could develop either into absolutism or constitutionalism, seeing as it had an abortive parliament.

[Nova Cyberia]

Fuck no. We'd be worse off, suffering under despotic, superstitious Catholic influence run by corrupt, pedophile popes.

NO ROMAN POPERY

I think the inhabitants (non-Protestant that is) of 17th century Germany would beg to differ. One only has to look at contemporary France to see the benefits of centralisation, art, economy, military, sanitation, science, literature, etc. And the HRE could develop either into absolutism or constitutionalism, seeing as it had an abortive parliament.

Protestantism did not prevent the HRE from becoming a nation-state. The inability of the emperors to curb the power of the nobility and centralize the state did.

[Bear Stearns]

Fuck no. We'd be worse off, suffering under despotic, superstitious Catholic influence run by corrupt, pedophile popes.

NO ROMAN POPERY

I think the inhabitants (non-Protestant that is) of 17th century Germany would beg to differ. One only has to look at contemporary France to see the benefits of centralisation, art, economy, military, sanitation, science, literature, etc. And the HRE could develop either into absolutism or constitutionalism, seeing as it had an abortive parliament.

Calvinist England and the Netherlands did more than despotic France ever did. The same France that carried out a practical genocide against its Huguenot population?

The mostly Catholic countries degenerated into corrupt shitholes while the Protestant nations brought the Enlightenment to the world.

[Nova Cyberia]

I think the inhabitants (non-Protestant that is) of 17th century Germany would beg to differ. One only has to look at contemporary France to see the benefits of centralisation, art, economy, military, sanitation, science, literature, etc. And the HRE could develop either into absolutism or constitutionalism, seeing as it had an abortive parliament.

Calvinist England and the Netherlands did more than despotic France ever did. The same France that carried out a practical genocide against its Huguenot population?

The mostly Catholic countries degenerated into corrupt shitholes while the Protestant nations brought the Enlightenment to the world.

There's also the fact that once the mostly Protestant Germany did finally unify it rapidly industrialized and became the 2nd largest economy in the world.