![Papers PLEASE [680x542 - 57KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/T6nYc0.jpg){kind=link}
Did you know, that there's an argument to be made, that the gun-laws implemented by Adolf hitler were more libertarian, than the current laws in even the most pro-gun US states? Rifles were pretty much unregulated in nazi germany. No registration, no background check, no age restriction, and so on.
The problem with tyrannical regimes is you can make a lot of statements that were technically true but also transitory. Things can be afforded and then taken away. The main advantage of National Socialism is that it didn't last long enough for any of that to happen. But many quite similar post-enlightenment philosophies have risen and fallen entirely on their own. We never actually question the premise, "perhaps Enlightenment thinking is flawed in some way?" We only question the correct "blend" of dysfunctional ideas that don't work and have never worked, when there are other ideologies that lasted 1,000+ years, with high levels of stability, happiness, accountability to the government, etc.
Why is that? In the period since the great enlightenment we have seen the most volatility and largest purges in human history. At what point do we say "well, these other things actually worked pretty well. Let's just go back to the wisdom of our ancestors, maybe they were onto something"
I actually agree with you, when you say, that enlightenment was a mistake, and we should go back to what was there before that.
There's this peculiarity in history, that quite often some new ideology comes up and pretty much becomes genocidal after reaching some critical mass, and wipes out things that were there before, which has been stable and functional for a long time. Then those new ideologies badmouth the things they've genocided for eternity. That's something National Socialism fell victim to, funnily at the same time, while it tried to be at the other end of the stick.
That's also how the enlightenment came about, which replaced a feudal system, that was rather limited in it's scope of abuse, with absolutism, in which everything is within the state, and nothing is against or outside it.
However, christianity came about in the same manner. Christianization wasn't peaceful in the past, and christianization wouldn't have worked without large-scale terror and genocide. Which of course was mostly committed under the watch of rome, not some feudal lords. Besides, people tend to forget, that all prominent figures in christianity were jews, and that the christian god was invented by jews, so it's an middle eastern ideology, that has been foreign from the beginning.
Oh cool. A thoughtful response. I appreciate that.
I think the extent to which Christianization was accomplished by the sword is massively overblown. I'm sure there's a lot of truth to these claims, especially discussing the Western Roman Empire and the Papal States, but it's also easy to forgot the Roman Catholic Church was actually the weaker empire for the majority of it's lifespan until the crusades, and they were the ones who preferred that method. Unlike pretty much every fucking other ideology on the face of the planet, the Holy Roman Empire actually worked to preserve the traditions and history of pretty much every culture it came across. People really don't understand how fucking rare that is. We take it for granted. Think of these leftists today who would love nothing more than to tear down and erase every remnant of our history. Muslims destroying ancient artifacts. China cannibalizing all of its own history. Doesn't that say something for the philosophy behind Christianization, juxtaposed beside the image portrayed of knights on horseback burning down villages and killing infadels?
But that aside, it's a far cry from regimes that literally have to perform regular purges on its own population in order to continue functioning. I'm thoroughly convinced this would've been the ultimate fate of the National Socialists.
Not even out of malice necessarily, but because central planning doesn't work, and the only way to keep it rolling is increasingly brutal force. It's like whack a mole. But as time goes on the rubber mallet doesn't work and you need an iron fist. An economic issue here, a little unrest there, these things snowball into larger and larger issues. They were employing slave labor, for example. You will not find any strong economy employing slave labor. So they "got around" the issues other regimes faced by enslaving and pillaging surrounding countries rather than their own people.
(post is archived)