Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by PachPachis, Feb 20, 2017.
these internet born ideologies are fascinating. do you know any more of internet born ideologies?
Mad Max: USA.
Some people really want the strangest things...
I feel like there's an odd tension here-- if most of these guys want to be warchiefs, it follows that they wouldn't want to be the grunts, the engineers, and certainly not the hostages and expendable envoys that will be the bread and butter of what passes for diplomacy. Now, if the "frontier armies" in this world are big and strong, then you'll have a lot of fodder for Turner-Diaries-style world-conquest fantasies, but you (as an inhabitant in this world) are way more likely to die for world conquest (like Turner himself) than be one of the warlords who lives on to enjoy the fame, riches, and glory. And even if you are a commander, your individual power is likely to be subordinated to the war effort, you'll be held in some kind of check (legally or informally) by your colleagues. And if the French experience shows you anything (absolutism one century, republicanism the next) the status of a noble, stuck between king and people, is precarious.
Conversely, if there are many, many armies then you have room for a lot more warlords, and with each having less resources at hand you'll have much less centralization of decisionmaking, so second- or third-rank leaders can have a lot more personal power. Seems perfect, but then there's very little that's "supreme" about these warring camps. None have the resources to bring devastation to the Orientals or Homo afers or whoever, and each is only one or two defeats away from absorption by a neighbor.
I think a lot of people fantasize about being kings as kids (or as adolescents), but eventually you have to realize that "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
This is pretty thorough. Mind if I threadmark it?
I’d be curious to see the hero-villain/individualist-collectivist boxes for it tbh if it was threadmarked.
So could The Turner Diaries, a neo-Nazi book which features Neo-Nazis committing nuclear genocide, be the Mein Kampf of so-called "futurists?"
Heroic individualists. One man survives the apocalypse. Racism, tyranny etc have ended.
There is something bitterly amusing about an ideology this deeply reactionary calling itself futurist.
That's the thing, it's so reactionary that it can't appeal to the past. This is an inherent thing with pagan reconstruction in particular, you have to approximate what you want, which is why we end up with pagans who want free love and universalism alongside pagans who are neo-nazis.
The past link is severed (well, nonexistent really, but severed from their viewpoint) and so it appeals to the future instead.
For my Rapt world, where everything past the 1770s is butterflied away: the French Revolution(s), the Congress of Vienna, etc. do not happen. The failure of the American Rebellion (without a clear British "victory") has some very interesting effects on upcoming ideologies:
Religious thought in the British colonies takes on a more inward-looking flavor: Why did we lose to the impious and loutish Brits? Perhaps it was because of our supporting slavery... Expect abolition to be even earlier and stronger than OTL.
Between the lack of debt the French got saddled with financing the Americans, and a weaker hand dealt to the Enlightenment French in general after losing both Corsica and America, Louis XVI would not be pressed to call an Estates General, which means the very idea of "left" and "right" wings in politics will simply not exist.
No French Revolution means that Wilberforce and his supporters in Parliament abolish the British slave trade in the early 1790s, as abolitionism is not tainted by association with sans-culottes or Guillotines.
Sounds too good to be true, right? Of course, the luck of the old regime runs out in 1801, when France implodes in civil war...
I'm not so sure any of these hold...
Okay, so, generally people don't respond to a military loss by saying that its a sign of them lacking in moral character, and when they do the people saying this are almost always arguing for a more conservative/reactionary stance than one that is less so. That aside, given how much of the (early) revolution was a 'New England thing' I'm pretty sure that, if the colonists did respond to their failure by re-examining their social structure, the result would be a shift towards more southern values or a shift towards anti-democratic (if still secessionist) attitude rather than a move towards abolitionism. This would go double if the 'impious and loutish Brits' were, themselves, anti-slavery.
The term 'left-wing and right-wing' might not come to exist, but the fundamental disagreements people of these OTL wings would still exist and they'd probably still get grouped together in some way. You'd just have it get called something other than 'left' or 'right' - I think Look to the West had it be based off metals?
Well, okay, this one does seem to hold up, actually. I guess.
Regardless, this stuff isn't really what this thread is for.
I dont know, a lot of left wing and right wing beliefs are not nearly as inherently connected to each other as we like to think IMO, especially if you put both social and economic issues under the two wings.
The original Italian Futurists who they named themselves after were also fascist-aligned FYI
They started as an articstic movement though
In their original phase they were more revolutionary (with a militarism fetish), the reactionary part crept in later as the fascist movement coalesced from the various strains of proto-fascism.
You can go right ahead. I wouldn't call it a full entry, though, unless I added stuff about them as individualist/collectivist heroes/villains.
Not exactly what I was thinking about. This seems like just more generic alt-right fantasies, but with the twist that they're observant enough to realize any halfway-functional state would crush them as soon as they started trying to murder everyone who didn't live up to their definition of purity/usurping the monopoly of force, thus the only way their ideology/fantasies could stand a chance is if literally everyone else had collapsed to post-apocalyptic barbarity. I was imagining some kind of ideology based around the premise that if civilization collapses, the more old-world scientific and technological knowledge is retained, the better and the retainers have all the power.
Not sure if this is what you'd asking about, but I'm reminded of transhumanism. Transhumanism's appeal seems to center around the fact that you can get all the technology and none of the political/social baggage--essentially, evolving past the need for politics/states and society in general, and living as one pleases in a world of one's own making. Making organized society obsolete could be seen as a "civilizational collapse" of sorts.
So, the enclave from fallout?
Actually, I immediately thought of Asimov's Foundation
Foundation and A Canticle for Leibowitz are the two big classics of the genre, yes. In Fallout terms I think the Brotherhood of Steel is closer than the Enclave - the Enclave is more about "continuity of government" and preparing to retake the continental US and "cleanse" it from "mutants" (i.e. everyone living there since the War) than keeping knowledge as such.
Separate names with a comma.