FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on June 20, 2014, 11:36:26 am
-
There are some in the tech industry who think democracy has done more harm than good, and want a return to an aristocratic system of government. These people are known as Neoreactionaries.
These guys are fucking scary. Let's hope they stay a fringe movement, because they make the most fanatical Tea Partiers look downright moral and rational by comparison.
You can read more about them here: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/ (http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/)
-
You know, one day, I'll find a way to shunt people into different timelines. When that day comes, I'll shunt fuckers like these back to the 1500s and see just how long they live. My bet is that more than half of them will be dead within a month and by a year, only one in a hundred will have survived.
-
What will they call rectionaries in 100 years time?
Neo-neo-reactionaries?
-
Somehow I don't think they've considered that they'd be peasants in a feudal system, middle class artisan is the best they could aspire to, not being good with a sword and all.
-
Somehow I don't think they've considered that they'd be peasants in a feudal system, middle class artisan is the best they could aspire to, not being good with a sword and all.
Just to clarify, most of them are more-or-less in favor of modern technology and economics.
-
Intellectual circle-jerk.
-
If you have time to kill, I recommend Scott Alexander's Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/) and Anti-reactionary FAQ (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/). The first introduces the ideas of neoreaction and explains why their proponents defend them, the second is a rebuttal of the arguments. If you can read only one, read the second.
(the original link mentions these as well in the reading list, I am highlighting them because I thought they were well-researched and argued, and also because I like Alexander as a blogger)
-
If you have time to kill, I recommend Scott Alexander's Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/) and Anti-reactionary FAQ (http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/). The first introduces the ideas of neoreaction and explains why their proponents defend them, the second is a rebuttal of the arguments. If you can read only one, read the second.
(the original link mentions these as well in the reading list, I am highlighting them because I thought they were well-researched and argued, and also because I like Alexander as a blogger)
Your second link was broken. I fixed it for you.
-
Thanks, wrote one url tag too many.
-
Thanks, wrote one url tag too many.
You're welcome.
-
I was gonna make a Dark Enlightenment - Sith Lord joke...
Then I discovered the founder of the movement, no joke, calls himself a Sith Lord.
These people are weird, and I do not know whether to laugh or feel rather alarmed.
-
All the money in France couldn't save Marie Antoinette's head when the mob came calling. At the end of the day the divine right of kings doesn't amount to a hill of shit when the ruled decide they are atheists. With these twits I would give that about a week... tops.
-
I'm not too worried. They look like an impotent group of whiners from what I've read thus far. Hopefully, one of them doesn't go postal like the "incel" shooter in California, but otherwise, I don't see much of a threat as of now.
-
I finally read the article. I have to say, if you call yourself a sith lord and call your movement the "Dark Enlightenment", you gotta be taking the piss pretty hard. The comment section was... an experience. Someone was claiming shit like having seen the future and was saying how the current era is coming to an end and a new glorious dark age was beginning. When asked what the hell he had seen drinking he said he doesn't drink but partakes in the Tradionalist warrior-priest practice of taking psilocybin ('shrooms).
Oh, and the divine right of kings shall be replaced by the "genetic right" of some master race of Asians, whites, and Jews.
I thought that watching some bullshit about "spirit science" was gonna be the stupidest thing I'd see today, but no. I've just seen what can be considered some insane fusion of the ideologies of Nazis and North Korea in the worst of the NRs.
-
Besides, these guys are not true Sith. There is a thing called the Rule of Two.
-
Besides, these guys are not true Sith. There is a thing called the Rule of Two.
Eh, Rule of Two got abolished soon after Palpatine died.
-
Besides, it was more like Suggestion of Two, anyways. They can always just, ya know, break the damned rules.
-
Besides, it was more like Suggestion of Two, anyways. They can always just, ya know, break the damned rules.
Palpatine hated the idea of doing it, but he wasn't above pretending to break it to train useful but disposable allies.
Then again, in the now-defunct EU, Sith actually started seeing each other as brothers instead of just rivals they were forced to work with. (They were still rivals but were less likely to stab each other in the back)
Incidentally, I almost misread the topic title as "The Necromancer Movement."
-
Palpatine went as close to breaking the rule as he could. He had several trainees, apprentices and lackeys who were force user but claimed that this did not make them sith since he didn't teach them everything about the sith and therefore they weren't "officially sith."
Besides, "True Sith" is hard to define. The sith and the jedi have destroyed each other completely or nearly completely several times in the old non-canon Star wars setting and both organisations have been reborn from the members of the winning side.
Which reminds me: Most of the stuff about the history of Sith is now non-canon. Unless the new movies and new material mentions the history of the sith again we only have what little Palpatine and Joda talked about the in the prequel trilogy. ("Always there are two, a master and an apprentice" or something like that was mentioned so I assume that the rule of two is still canon. Or at least implied.)
-
Was the EU ever really canon in the first place? I always thought it was more "soft canon".
-
Was the EU ever really canon in the first place? I always thought it was more "soft canon".
It was the closest to canon the franchise had in the years between Episode VI and Episode I, and the prequels were retrofitted into it (observe that Luke's mother's identity is never revealed in the EU until the books written after the prequels, and the identity of Luke's mother is a major plot point in some of those books), but Lucas never considered them canon, and now Disney is basically saying "fuck you" to the EU.
-
I just hope ensuing Episodes at least involve on Ben Skywalker, Jacen and Jaina Solo.
Just, please, do not give Jacen lines like Anakin's Prequel Lines.
-
I finally read the article. I have to say, if you call yourself a sith lord and call your movement the "Dark Enlightenment", you gotta be taking the piss pretty hard.
To be fair, they don't call themselves Sith lords; that's a label journalists use when covering them (same with Dark Enlightenment, presumably). From what I've heard, the names they use for themselves are largely borrowed from Tolkien's works (Eldar, Númenorian, etc.)
That said, the details of what goes on in their inner circle seem heavily embellished to me, similar to how Jack Chick portrayed D&D sessions.
-
I actually think that there are benefits to a monarchy, albeit not an absolute monarchy. We've seen how politicians often focus on the short-term so they can get re-elected, sacrificing any chance for long-term planning. A monarchy would be immune from this, and more concerned with the long-term welfare of the nation. Of course, you'd need an elected legislature to give the people a proper voice.
-
I actually think that there are benefits to a monarchy, albeit not an absolute monarchy. We've seen how politicians often focus on the short-term so they can get re-elected, sacrificing any chance for long-term planning. A monarchy would be immune from this, and more concerned with the long-term welfare of the nation. Of course, you'd need an elected legislature to give the people a proper voice.
I don't think this necessarily requires a monarchy. You get much better long-term planning in coalition democracy, because all of the parties are forced to negotiate and compromise. Therefore, opposition for the sake of opposition is politically impossible, not a benefit (this seems to me to be the primary mechanism through which you get short-termism). The other advantage of coalition government is that it's far more democratic.
Another proposal: Upper Houses should be appointed, not elected (this is basically true in the US already, due to the auto-gerrymander of the Senate). Some group - like, but not necessarily, the government - appoints a new member of the upper house whenever one dies or quits. These people should be eminent scientists, academics and so on - maybe set up a quota of ignorant businesspeople tories are allowed to appoint. Once they're on, they can't be kicked off except by a judge (if they're corrupt). These guys have two roles. Firstly, they can delay legislation. If the government tries to pass the We Win Act of 2014, the upper house can delay it for X long. In extreme cases, the upper house can also force the government to put the legislation to a referendum, to give the people the ultimate choice.
The other thing the Upper House should do is hold loads of committees. Parliamentary committees are actually very useful - you can demand any document, with power of law, force anyone to testify. There would be no danger of the partisan manipulation of the committee system ala Huckleberry Graham et al because none of these people are partisans. Therefore, the government can only act secretly where an external, independent body thinks it ought to be able to. If the government keeps something from the upper house and it leaks, there is an instant election and the responsible ministers are thrown in a dungeon.
-
Boy oh boy, they do take themselves rather seriously (http://www.vocativ.com/culture/uncategorized/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/)!
(http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2013/12/Dark-Enlightenment-02701410977.png)
(http://media.vocativ.com/photos/2013/12/Dark-Enlightenment-054289812237.png)
Beyond all the verbose bafflegab they mostly sound like a bunch of old-school upper class WASP boys in techno-futurist clothing that are outraged that people more diverse than themselves exist and aren't ashamed of it!
-
*quirks an eyebrow at everything*
...You know what?
Yeah, just go do whatever.
This is kinda like when LaVeyan Satanism marries the Nice Guy movement, discards everything related to Satan, and decides that "We should be ruling this country!"
Oh, and a touch of the Illuminates of Thanateros in there, too.
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
Didn't people say this about the Tea Party?
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
It never hurts to be wary.
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
Didn't people say this about the Tea Party?
The Tea Party wasn't and isn't really anything new, though. It is essentially the far right pretending they speak for the everyman. The branches of the Tea Party who do oppose the Republicans are shooting themselves and the Republicans as a whole in the foot. Open contempt for the democratic process and preference for monarchy, though, is a pretty radical idea in the context of American political thought.
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
Didn't people say this about the Tea Party?
The Tea Party wasn't and isn't really anything new, though. It is essentially the far right pretending they speak for the everyman. The branches of the Tea Party who do oppose the Republicans are shooting themselves and the Republicans as a whole in the foot. Open contempt for the democratic process and preference for monarchy, though, is a pretty radical idea in the context of American political thought.
True, but people still dismissed them as not going anywhere.
And now several of them are holding decently powerful political positions.
-
It never hurts to be wary.
Precisely, just because it comes from someone who looks damned silly doesn't mean they can't be damned dangerous in the right place at the right time. A frustrated, inadequate twit can be incredibly dangerous given the means. Take Saloth Sar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot#Paris), son of a rich farmer goes to study in Paris to become a mediocre student and later-given the right set of circumstances becomes one of the most scary mass murdering dictators of their age.
Also, Elliot Rogers for more small scale example of an inadequate twit with delusions of grandeur becoming actually lethal.
Also, Godwin accepted happily thank you very much-but still topical.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg)
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
It never hurts to be wary.
The sad part is, you're not wrong. After the Teatards, I'm wary of any crazy motherfuckers like this.
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
It never hurts to be wary.
The sad part is, you're not wrong. After the Teatards, I'm wary of any crazy motherfuckers like this.
Agreed.
Though for me it was more Elliot Rodgers that cemented the idea that we should take idiotic cults and movements seriously.
-
At least, for our generation. Things like Waco and Heaven's Gate likely did it for our parents.
-
Eh, just another group of 2edgy4me dickwads. thankfully their ideology is so stupid that it will never reach wide popularity.
It never hurts to be wary.
The sad part is, you're not wrong. After the Teatards, I'm wary of any crazy motherfuckers like this.
If there is anything I took away from the old FSTDT site and that's that crazy motherfuckers can still be funny as fuck! That's half the reason WHY they are funny, don't ever make the mistake of writing them off as harmless though!
-
Yup, just look at the Joker. He's funny as hell and a murderous psychopath.
-
At least, for our generation. Things like Waco and Heaven's Gate likely did it for our parents.
Fuck, we really are doomed to make the same mistakes as the last generation, aren't we?
-
Even their beliefs are based upon a Star Wars character...
Yeah, they seem silly, but given who they aspire to, it never hurts to be wary. A good number of them are involved in technological business and such. They could potentially become dangerous. Not in a killing many people sort of way, in a Leading the NSA sort of way.
-
Incidentally, I almost misread the topic title as "The Necromancer Movement."
Oh, good, it wasn't just me. Also, that would have been infinitely cooler that what we got.
-
So....Basically these people are fascist nerds?
-
So....Basically these people are fascist nerds?
Not exactly. Fascism is populist, this isn't. They're also opposed to fascism for other reasons; namely, the fact that it's a system they call "demotist", a term they use to describe somebody who rules in the name of the people.
However, the system they want would most likely be very authoritarian.
-
At least, for our generation. Things like Waco and Heaven's Gate likely did it for our parents.
Fuck, we really are doomed to make the same mistakes as the last generation, aren't we?
Not necessarily. Waco and Heaven's Gate cost a lotta lives. Bullshit like this may cost a few, but those would be indirect losses. If the trend continues, then we'd prolly see a complete loss of...most of this kind of fuckery by the time we're grandparents. It'll be a long time, sure, but we're learning. Sometimes, unfortunately, it just takes time.
So....Basically these people are fascist nerds?
Not exactly. Fascism is populist, this isn't. They're also opposed to fascism for other reasons; namely, the fact that it's a system they call "demotist", a term they use to describe somebody who rules in the name of the people.
However, the system they want would most likely be very authoritarian.
Exactly, they're not fascists. Fascists at least try to come off like they care about someone other than themselves. These people are just plain old feudalists, while not having the self-awareness to realize that, in a truly feudal society, they'd more than likely be serfs like the rest of us.
-
So....Basically these people are fascist nerds?
Not exactly. Fascism is populist, this isn't. They're also opposed to fascism for other reasons; namely, the fact that it's a system they call "demotist", a term they use to describe somebody who rules in the name of the people.
However, the system they want would most likely be very authoritarian.
Oh bleeding heck, so they aren't fascists because it's "too mainstream". They really are 2Edgy4U!