Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Going back to Tolkien, I just realized that in contrast to the agrarian, decentralized Shire-ism philosophy (for lack of a better term), I suppose that I have the opposite. A “mind of metal and wheels” if I recall the phrase correctly. Oof, I guess.

You’re one of the Orcs then.

I vaguely remember reading that in earlier drafts of LOTR, Tolkien gave the Orcs roughly WWI-era military technology. I believe that sentiment(?) persisted somewhat, in the phrase “they made no beautiful things, but a great many clever things” (possibly paraphrasing, since it’s been years since I’ve delved into Tolkien’s works.

[Old Tyrannia]

Going back to Tolkien, I just realized that in contrast to the agrarian, decentralized Shire-ism philosophy (for lack of a better term), I suppose that I have the opposite. A “mind of metal and wheels” if I recall the phrase correctly. Oof, I guess.

Tolkien said of Sauron, "it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction." Sound familiar at all?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Going back to Tolkien, I just realized that in contrast to the agrarian, decentralized Shire-ism philosophy (for lack of a better term), I suppose that I have the opposite. A “mind of metal and wheels” if I recall the phrase correctly. Oof, I guess.

Tolkien said of Sauron, "it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction." Sound familiar at all?

... Do pardon my language, but shit, am I the villain?

[Nea Byzantia]

Going back to Tolkien, I just realized that in contrast to the agrarian, decentralized Shire-ism philosophy (for lack of a better term), I suppose that I have the opposite. A “mind of metal and wheels” if I recall the phrase correctly. Oof, I guess.

Tolkien said of Sauron, "it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction." Sound familiar at all?

Ja!

[Nova Cyberia]

Tolkien said of Sauron, "it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction." Sound familiar at all?

Ja!

Hitler thrived on confusion, though. Twas how he kept his subordinates fighting amongst each other so that none would become powerful enough to overthrow him.

[Nea Byzantia]

Ja!

Hitler thrived on confusion, though. Twas how he kept his subordinates fighting amongst each other so that none would become powerful enough to overthrow him.

Is it not the same with Sauron? Order within Evil is but an external illusion.

[Old Tyrannia]

Tolkien said of Sauron, "it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction." Sound familiar at all?

... Do pardon my language, but shit, am I the villain?

It's not too late, Swaglord. You can still pull a Prince Zuko and be redeemed.

[Nova Cyberia]

Hitler thrived on confusion, though. Twas how he kept his subordinates fighting amongst each other so that none would become powerful enough to overthrow him.

Is it not the same with Sauron? Order within Evil is but an external illusion.

The parallel isn't really the same. Sauron controlled the Orcs who were little more than mindless savages without him. Hitler took an established government and turned it into a complete mess of infighting and overlapping government/party offices.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Hitler thrived on confusion, though. Twas how he kept his subordinates fighting amongst each other so that none would become powerful enough to overthrow him.

Is it not the same with Sauron? Order within Evil is but an external illusion.

Sauron wanted to make what he saw as a perfect world (i.e. one under his ability to control so that it would not be chaotic). The source of his evil was his desire to avoid the consequences of free will, and so he tried to rob the world of true virtue, as true virtue can only exist in the face of temptation.

[Nea Byzantia]

Is it not the same with Sauron? Order within Evil is but an external illusion.

Sauron wanted to make what he saw as a perfect world (i.e. one under his ability to control so that it would not be chaotic). The source of his evil was his desire to avoid the consequences of free will, and so he tried to rob the world of true virtue, as true virtue can only exist in the face of temptation.

So more like Genghis Khan, then?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Sauron wanted to make what he saw as a perfect world (i.e. one under his ability to control so that it would not be chaotic). The source of his evil was his desire to avoid the consequences of free will, and so he tried to rob the world of true virtue, as true virtue can only exist in the face of temptation.

So more like Genghis Khan, then?

It's hard to come up with an allegory for Mairon that is not from scripture. Mairon fell to the temptation which was offered to Christ, which Christ overcame, but for which Mairon became Sauron.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

So more like Genghis Khan, then?

It's hard to come up with an allegory for Mairon that is not from scripture. Mairon fell to the temptation which was offered to Christ, which Christ overcame, but for which Mairon became Sauron.

Speaking of which, have you finished The Grand Inquisitor (and in a broader sense, the rest of the book) yet? Because I was going to make reference to that text, and I don’t wish to “spoil” it for you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's hard to come up with an allegory for Mairon that is not from scripture. Mairon fell to the temptation which was offered to Christ, which Christ overcame, but for which Mairon became Sauron.

Speaking of which, have you finished The Grand Inquisitor (and in a broader sense, the rest of the book) yet? Because I was going to make reference to that text, and I don’t wish to “spoil” it for you.

I want to read it when I get to it in The Brothers Karamazov. I know the basic narrative, but not the particulars of it.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Speaking of which, have you finished The Grand Inquisitor (and in a broader sense, the rest of the book) yet? Because I was going to make reference to that text, and I don’t wish to “spoil” it for you.

I want to read it when I get to it in The Brothers Karamazov. I know the basic narrative, but not the particulars of it.

Ah. Erm... heck. I don’t want to ruin it for you.

[Novus America]

That’s not exactly an improvement.

Their downfall was letting that Grima creature give King Théoden council. But an army of horsemen did a fair bit of damage. I like the whole herding culture and horse-centricity.

Which is useless in today’s world, from a military perspective.
I mean like Poland and the US you can let your helicopter and tank troops keep some horse symbols as a reminder, but massive factories cranking out tanks and helicopters is what you need.

The problem with Tolkien is the glorification of the past. We cannot bring back the past.
Sure you can bring back some past aesthetics, and implement ideas proven to work, but no matter what you have to create a NEW system, even if it takes some aspects of past ideas and builds on them.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I want to read it when I get to it in The Brothers Karamazov. I know the basic narrative, but not the particulars of it.

Ah. Erm... heck. I don’t want to ruin it for you.

I mean, you really don't have to ask much. The Brothers Karamazov is the most Eastern Orthodox piece of literature ever penned.

[Novus America]

Ja!

Hitler thrived on confusion, though. Twas how he kept his subordinates fighting amongst each other so that none would become powerful enough to overthrow him.

And Hitler saw a world of eternal warfare. Even in his vision for Eastern Europe, warrior farmers in fortified settlements would be in constant warfare against continuing uprisings by the serfs and slaves, and guerrilla warfare, and raids from beyond the Urals.

[Old Tyrannia]

Their downfall was letting that Grima creature give King Théoden council. But an army of horsemen did a fair bit of damage. I like the whole herding culture and horse-centricity.

Which is useless in today’s world, from a military perspective.
I mean like Poland and the US you can let your helicopter and tank troops keep some horse symbols as a reminder, but massive factories cranking out tanks and helicopters is what you need.

The problem with Tolkien is the glorification of the past. We cannot bring back the past.
Sure you can bring back some past aesthetics, and implement ideas proven to work, but no matter what you have to create a NEW system, even if it takes some aspects of past ideas and builds on them.

You... Do realise that The Lord of the Rings is supposed to be a fantasy, yes?

[Novus America]

Which is useless in today’s world, from a military perspective.
I mean like Poland and the US you can let your helicopter and tank troops keep some horse symbols as a reminder, but massive factories cranking out tanks and helicopters is what you need.

The problem with Tolkien is the glorification of the past. We cannot bring back the past.
Sure you can bring back some past aesthetics, and implement ideas proven to work, but no matter what you have to create a NEW system, even if it takes some aspects of past ideas and builds on them.

You... Do realise that The Lord of the Rings is supposed to be a fantasy, yes?

Yes. I do. Many on this thread seem more interested in past fantasies rather than constructing a plausible vision for the future, which is something problematic.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
The Great Gatsby

Which is a book the brutally tears down many mindsets we find here. It is the Anti Tolkien in a way.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You... Do realise that The Lord of the Rings is supposed to be a fantasy, yes?

Yes. I do. Many on this thread seem more interested in past fantasy’s rather than constructing a plausible vision for the future, which is something problematic.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
The Great Gatsby

Which is a book the brutally tears down many mindsets we find here. It is the Anti Tolkien in a way.

The only future I look to is that of the resurrection. There will be no salvation to be found in the future which men will construct.

[Kowani]

You... Do realise that The Lord of the Rings is supposed to be a fantasy, yes?

Yes. I do. Many on this thread seem more interested in past fantasy’s rather than constructing a plausible vision for the future, which is something problematic.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
The Great Gatsby

Which is a book the brutally tears down many mindsets we find here. It is the Anti Tolkien in a way.

When I say that, people get mad at me. Maybe I should use more quotes from literature.

[Old Tyrannia]

You... Do realise that The Lord of the Rings is supposed to be a fantasy, yes?

Yes. I do. Many on this thread seem more interested in past fantasy’s rather than constructing a plausible vision for the future, which is something problematic.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
The Great Gatsby

Which is a book the brutally tears down many mindsets we find here. It is the Anti Tolkien in a way.

Finding inspiration in the past doesn't mean we have nothing constructive to say about the future. The future is determined by the past. Your attitude is just a typically snotty write-off of conservative attitudes.

[Nakena]

Yes. I do. Many on this thread seem more interested in past fantasy’s rather than constructing a plausible vision for the future, which is something problematic.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
The Great Gatsby

Which is a book the brutally tears down many mindsets we find here. It is the Anti Tolkien in a way.

When I say that, people get mad at me. Maybe I should use more quotes from literature.

Alt-history wankery is also highly sought out ^^

Yes. I do. Many on this thread seem more interested in past fantasy’s rather than constructing a plausible vision for the future, which is something problematic.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
The Great Gatsby

Which is a book the brutally tears down many mindsets we find here. It is the Anti Tolkien in a way.

Finding inspiration in the past doesn't mean we have nothing constructive to say about the future. The future is determined by the past. Your attitude is just a typically snotty write-off of conservative attitudes.

Nothing wrong with that, but when it used to turn into self-complacent and willfull ignorance, its another thing.

[Novus America]

Well I screwed that up. I meant the 1850s was less economically interventionist than today.
We have much more economic intervention now than the 1850s. Actually economic interventionism became a big thing here in the 1930s.

Of course it was less interventionist, but it could of been more interventionist if it had maintained postmillenialist thought. Which is what I’ve said multiple times.

“My point is that it could of happened sooner”

Which completely screws with your timeline. We became more economically interventionist AFTER your claimed shift, and stayed that way.

For God sake, where did I once say; “the US was more economically interventionist in the 1850’s”? My point is that if it had continued under social amerlioration, as per post-millennialist though, which the like of MLK jr revived in the 1950’s the acquisition of rights would of happened more rapidly than the the more early acceptance of pre-millenialist thought.

That’s the point. That society actively chose an ideology that diminished the acquisition of rights and liberties - I.e. in this example pre millennialist thought is the conservative option, while post millennialist is the liberal option. So it is an example of a society becoming more conservative, while increasing the liberties available (because no-one in their right mind believes that the 1950’s where less liberal than the 1850’s)

So no, the idea that we became more economically libertarian after the 1920s is manifestly false.

Well I’m very glad I didn’t say this then, and that this idea of yours that this is what I was proclaiming is manifestly false.

Also we have much strict gun control now than then. That started in the late 1960s.

Yeah, and you could of had them sooner. That’s my point.

And you really just do not understand the US.

I understand it fine depending on the matter at hand.

Maybe in a world where only the US and North West Europe existed.

Which was also my point - the idea of progression and regression cannot take into consideration all societies, not without separating the vast network of overlapping factors.

The US in size and complexity is more like EU than any single European country.

Please, this is just the “The US is too big to implement social policy on a European quality”. This absurd American exceptionalism you propose is bullshit of the highest order.

Besides, this just shows you know nothing at the EU the EU is currently a confederation not a federation - when the EU federalises do you think it won’t have universal healthcare for some reason?

Just as Europe has no single healthcare system neither do we. But our healthcare is in large part government funded.

You realise that those statements are contradictory. If the government can fund the majority of the heathcare system, then it already has a universally applicable funding scheme, ergo, it is universal - your government simply fails to offer that at an individual level.

And don’t give me some nonsense that “states have real variation in the nature of their healthcare” because yes, they do, just like in the UK, where NHS Scotland is still universal with the UK but is also independent. Literally yesterday, in defiance of NHS England, they said they would give free service to EU citizens. So clearly the autonomy of the US states doesn’t impact in any meaningful way the federal government’s policy on who to provide healthcare too and at what cost.

Yes our federal government does not distribute the funding well, but lack of funding is not the issue.

It never was lack of funding, the US spends dramatically more per capita than any other nation for littlr benefit. A universal system would dramatically cut costs, while being slightly less effective in treatment.

And that’s the problem: your government is just too shit to make it universally usable to all.

We spend just as much on healthcare. Just as much on education.

You spend way more, and in the league tables your mediocre at best in terms of cost to effectiveness ratio.

Many European countries have privatized the Post Office, we have not.

The US government has a concerted effort on parcels, but when it comes to human life - nah, fuck it. That’s the most American thing I’ve ever read.

We have fully government owned and operated passenger trains at the federal level, out passenger rail system is more government owned the UK’s.

Which makes the US’s lack of universal government interaction on healthcare an example or her apathy to the situation rather than some genuine road block.

So no, the idea of the US as uber libertarian is not true.

Yes it is. The idea that nationalised post offices and rail competes with the social democracies of Europe - which emphasise the group, at the expense of some individuals is vehemently opposed to the Vey things you have stated.

A poll on the proportion of libertarians in your country compared to other’s puts your’s firmly in the hands of individualistic tendencies which heavily overlap on the Venn diagram with Libertarian ideals.

And the idea that the US is more economically liberal now than it was in the 1850s is simply absurd.

Well stop saying it then, because I sure have heck haven’t.

The US much more economically interventionist now than it was in the 1850s AND 1920s.

I’m aware, but it could of been more interventionist sooner, to back up the liberties of workers, families, the homeless. Instead it emphasises corporatism - which fucks over the prior mentioned categories.

The Great Depression was the end of real classical economic liberalism here.

Good thing I did not deny that then.

The conservative ideology here is nothing representative of the US as a whole. Most people here are beyond the fringe too.

You elected an Orange Idiot. Google what the word fringe means - because in terms of modern democracies - his idea are definitely fringe - he makes our right wing look like socialists.

So here is the real issue. Since classical economic liberalism dramatically declined here from the 30s onward, how does that fit your timeline?

Already said above.

The problem is you fail to realize the US is not, and has never been Northwest Europe.
And will not be exactly, though I agree Northwest Europe has many things we can learn from, (but flaws too, it is not paradise).
But we are back your world in which only the US, Maybe Canada, and Northwest Europe exist.
Yes “progression and regression cannot take into consideration all societies, not without separating the vast network of overlapping factors.” So stop trying to do it!
Stop trying to distill this vast network of overlapping factors into one single thing.

Yes the US is different. Which is why you also have to compare the US to other places, not JUST Northwest Europe.

And your focus in on the Third Great Awakening as the primary point of divergence is flawed.
You are ignoring the strong anti government streak we had from the beginning, Hamiltonian vs Jefferson (and later Jacksonian) approaches to economics, the North South divide (probably the biggest issue up through the 1800s).

You will see they same problem with the EU, and indeed already do where the countries seeking more integration run into the Eastern European countries seeking less.
Which is why Europe probably will never have a single universal healthcare system, amongst other things, barring maybe a civil war.

See as we are seeing in the EU too, it is easier in a large complex structure to implement piecemeal, incremental reforms, not sweeping changes.
Which is why we have the US Healthcare the way it is. Yes we could, and indeed should have a more integrated system. But we when balancing these complex interests it is easier to get consensus on one thing. So we created a military healthcare system, then one for the retired, then one for the poor, then one for Native Americans, then one for Veterans. This is not however Libertarian, as it is still massive government involvement, just by multiple government programs, not one coordinated system.
Again we see this in the EU, where large sweeping reforms are help up by Eastern Europe so that only a piecemeal compromise gets through

Then there was the Great Depression, Cold War (which actually saw more focus on government intervention) the end of the Cold War, amongst other things.

You are focusing far too much on one thing which may have played a minor role but certainly was not the critical factor.

And no, you still do not understand the US. Trump first of all is NOT a Libertarian, but represents a backlash to the failures of modern globalization that caused so much damage here.

The US is not some libertarian dystopia, we are more interventionist than the the individual countries in Northwest Europe on some things, less on many other things.

For a variety of reasons. Not any one historical movement (that maybe never existed as any coherent movement). The Third Great Enlightenment never created a coherent universal ideology for the US, and we do not have one.

Anymore than Orban’s Hungary and Merkel’s Germany have a single coherent ideology.

[Kowani]

When I say that, people get mad at me. Maybe I should use more quotes from literature.

Alt-history wankery is also highly sought out ^^

What, so I invade France after the Peninsular War?