Vignette that didn't make the final cut into this post:
I (briefly) dated a leftist girl in college and one time she was talking about the American revolution and referred to Washington's army as "the Allies". It occurred to me that this is some sort of archetype that Star Wars Syndrome-ers have engrained into their little brains: there is always some "Alliance" working against a singular bad guy.
Most of us think WWII when we hear "the Allies" and I realize that she thought every "alliance" is just "The Allies". Like, the mere act of allying with someone other than yourself makes you a good guy in a vaguely diverse sort of way. I wonder if she realized that the Germans were **allied** to the Japanese or that several **alliances** tried to stop Napoleon, etc.
Also, who were we allied to? The French? Nobody won the revolution except for the Revolutionaries.
That Reddit post you linked made me recoil with contempt. Every single /r/NonCredibleDefense user deserves to be strapped to an aerial drone and sent careening towards the Russian battle lines. Reddit midwit historical determinism is a plague on historical discourse.
They do this crap for every single historical conflict or phenomenon. Such and such is always “inevitable.” The Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, the rise and fall of the British Empire, the Industrial Revolution, the Christianization of Rome, the list goes on. If you asked them about their spiritual cosmology, they probably are going to say something about the “uncaring cruelty of the universe.”
Excellent article. The eternal underdog is definitely another annoying part of our culture and I'm tired of it. On the rebel alliance: TheKnoxPapers had a pretty good article on the rebel alliance and how they could be seen as the Anglo-Celtic American colonists rebelling against England.
That specific portion of the article was actually written by me, and Knox quoted it. I’m a big advocate for the original Rebel Alliance in OT Star Wars. The Empire are definitely villainous and evil, but they aren’t irredeemably evil and they have an admirable aspect that makes them a worthy foe, like the British Empire or (before America lost its mind) Nazi Germany.
The Empire has Palpatine as an evil, passionate villain like Hitler. He’s so evil and he loves it, so he’s fun to watch and root against. The top men in the empire are ruthless, calculating, and highly competent: Vader, Tarkin, Veers. Then you have all the petty, spiteful, arrogant middlemen below them. Sterile, self-obsessed, and devoid of passion. These are the sneering Death Star officers and incompetent Star Destroyer captains—these are the guys that remind you why the empire needs to go. At the bottom are the stormtroopers, faceless goons who are just doing their job, but that’s their role and the heroes have to brush them aside. Like an actual German stormtrooper or a British redcoat.
Oh wow. Thanks for letting me know. It was a great article. And yeah, the Empire is evil, but there are good/competent people within such a huge entity. Thrawn and Pelleon being my favorite.
I never got into the EU, so I am only speaking about the movies. But I hear that there is enough expanded material to frame the Empire as straight-up good guys, in certain circumstances. In the movies (specifically the OT, which sort of exists in multiple contexts when factoring the prequels and sequels), the empire are definitely just the villains, but they are worthy villains, and it’s an honor for the heroes to challenge and defeat them.
Are you talking about me? haven’t been given sufficient reason to believe that the Holobunga didn’t at least resemble the popular narrative of the 6 gorillion
My position is that a) it has been greatly exaggerated, as per Rabbinical tradition, and b) to the extent it actually occurred, they earned it a hundred times over.
The underdog worship also prevalent when it comes to Vietnam War, the attitude towards the Vietcong (oppressed) against the US-backed South Vietnam (oppressor) is that despite being the rag-tag guerrilla the Vietcong was, it defeated the bigger dogs anyway, this actually slightly pissed off the actual conventional fighting force that did the most fight, the NVA, that they pointed out their distaste in their official publication.
Mind you the VC didn't go toe-to-toe against USAF and USN fighters, developed advanced SAM tactics they outperformed directly Soviet-backed Arab states, or able to rout well defended positions in the South, they were all NVA's doing. The VC most known attack, the Tet Offensive, despite being treated as somewhat a big thing, was actually a cumbstomp on their part without actual significant damage, it still fuck up the public minds though
If voting was a legitimate way to achieve change, it wouldn't be an option. Think about it. Why would the system give us the means to dismantle the system? It wouldn't.
Voting only works on a small scale in a ethnically homogenous community. It doesn't scale well at all, especially in a diverse ecosystem. People have different levels of intelligence, they don't all share the same knowledge, and they have different values. And value, as we know, is non-negotiable.
I thought you might be a serious person until I saw the unfounded falsehoods about FBI planting bombs on Jan 6 and the 2020 election being rigged. Ironically, you decry leftists being too stupid to countenance ideas outside the Overton window, but you yourself have been duped by nonsensical dogma from cult media.
Sorry Matt, but there is a clear consensus on the election fraud (committed by both sides every election) and the FBI's involvement in January 6th. You're allowed to *feel* like you don't like these objectively correct conclusions, but you're fighting an uphill battle against cold, hard facts that are never going to change.
I love your hate for conclusion paragraphs and I will be using that line at the end of your piece forever now. Also you hit on a really great point good ideas.
Vignette that didn't make the final cut into this post:
I (briefly) dated a leftist girl in college and one time she was talking about the American revolution and referred to Washington's army as "the Allies". It occurred to me that this is some sort of archetype that Star Wars Syndrome-ers have engrained into their little brains: there is always some "Alliance" working against a singular bad guy.
Most of us think WWII when we hear "the Allies" and I realize that she thought every "alliance" is just "The Allies". Like, the mere act of allying with someone other than yourself makes you a good guy in a vaguely diverse sort of way. I wonder if she realized that the Germans were **allied** to the Japanese or that several **alliances** tried to stop Napoleon, etc.
Also, who were we allied to? The French? Nobody won the revolution except for the Revolutionaries.
Vermont
That Reddit post you linked made me recoil with contempt. Every single /r/NonCredibleDefense user deserves to be strapped to an aerial drone and sent careening towards the Russian battle lines. Reddit midwit historical determinism is a plague on historical discourse.
They do this crap for every single historical conflict or phenomenon. Such and such is always “inevitable.” The Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil War, the rise and fall of the British Empire, the Industrial Revolution, the Christianization of Rome, the list goes on. If you asked them about their spiritual cosmology, they probably are going to say something about the “uncaring cruelty of the universe.”
Excellent article. The eternal underdog is definitely another annoying part of our culture and I'm tired of it. On the rebel alliance: TheKnoxPapers had a pretty good article on the rebel alliance and how they could be seen as the Anglo-Celtic American colonists rebelling against England.
That specific portion of the article was actually written by me, and Knox quoted it. I’m a big advocate for the original Rebel Alliance in OT Star Wars. The Empire are definitely villainous and evil, but they aren’t irredeemably evil and they have an admirable aspect that makes them a worthy foe, like the British Empire or (before America lost its mind) Nazi Germany.
The Empire has Palpatine as an evil, passionate villain like Hitler. He’s so evil and he loves it, so he’s fun to watch and root against. The top men in the empire are ruthless, calculating, and highly competent: Vader, Tarkin, Veers. Then you have all the petty, spiteful, arrogant middlemen below them. Sterile, self-obsessed, and devoid of passion. These are the sneering Death Star officers and incompetent Star Destroyer captains—these are the guys that remind you why the empire needs to go. At the bottom are the stormtroopers, faceless goons who are just doing their job, but that’s their role and the heroes have to brush them aside. Like an actual German stormtrooper or a British redcoat.
Oh wow. Thanks for letting me know. It was a great article. And yeah, the Empire is evil, but there are good/competent people within such a huge entity. Thrawn and Pelleon being my favorite.
I never got into the EU, so I am only speaking about the movies. But I hear that there is enough expanded material to frame the Empire as straight-up good guys, in certain circumstances. In the movies (specifically the OT, which sort of exists in multiple contexts when factoring the prequels and sequels), the empire are definitely just the villains, but they are worthy villains, and it’s an honor for the heroes to challenge and defeat them.
Yes, they are worthy and the EU really dives deep into Imperial characters and their motivations.
The Holobunga myth really needs to end. Supporting the narrative really undercuts the credibility of people who try to write about WWII.
Are you talking about me? haven’t been given sufficient reason to believe that the Holobunga didn’t at least resemble the popular narrative of the 6 gorillion
My position is that a) it has been greatly exaggerated, as per Rabbinical tradition, and b) to the extent it actually occurred, they earned it a hundred times over.
The underdog worship also prevalent when it comes to Vietnam War, the attitude towards the Vietcong (oppressed) against the US-backed South Vietnam (oppressor) is that despite being the rag-tag guerrilla the Vietcong was, it defeated the bigger dogs anyway, this actually slightly pissed off the actual conventional fighting force that did the most fight, the NVA, that they pointed out their distaste in their official publication.
Mind you the VC didn't go toe-to-toe against USAF and USN fighters, developed advanced SAM tactics they outperformed directly Soviet-backed Arab states, or able to rout well defended positions in the South, they were all NVA's doing. The VC most known attack, the Tet Offensive, despite being treated as somewhat a big thing, was actually a cumbstomp on their part without actual significant damage, it still fuck up the public minds though
In summery: most people are incapable of thinking.
Solution: remove the privilege to vote from the majority of people.
You are assuming the efficacy of voting. Do I really have to dredge up that old Mark Twain quote again?
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
If voting was a legitimate way to achieve change, it wouldn't be an option. Think about it. Why would the system give us the means to dismantle the system? It wouldn't.
I'm not an advocate for democracy. If we are to have voting, it should be heavily restricted to a certain subset of the population.
Voting only works on a small scale in a ethnically homogenous community. It doesn't scale well at all, especially in a diverse ecosystem. People have different levels of intelligence, they don't all share the same knowledge, and they have different values. And value, as we know, is non-negotiable.
I think we are in agreement, but I get a sense that you are trying to argue with me about a topic we agree on?
Brilliant!
I thought you might be a serious person until I saw the unfounded falsehoods about FBI planting bombs on Jan 6 and the 2020 election being rigged. Ironically, you decry leftists being too stupid to countenance ideas outside the Overton window, but you yourself have been duped by nonsensical dogma from cult media.
Sorry Matt, but there is a clear consensus on the election fraud (committed by both sides every election) and the FBI's involvement in January 6th. You're allowed to *feel* like you don't like these objectively correct conclusions, but you're fighting an uphill battle against cold, hard facts that are never going to change.
I love your hate for conclusion paragraphs and I will be using that line at the end of your piece forever now. Also you hit on a really great point good ideas.