Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
World War 2 has basically created modern morality. Problem is, that morality and the conditions it was created in are nothing but smoke and mirrors.
The narrative of World War 2 is basically that of a black-and-white struggle between good and evil. Essentially Free West against Sauron, except this Sauron has absolutely no redeeming qualities unlike the original.
Problem is, that narrative is bullshit - and so is the worldview created by it.
NatSocs and Fascists were evil, yes - but their enemies were not good. Soviet Union, one of major Allied powers, was essentially responsible for German rearmament and thus responsible for the Second World War. Communism itself was a genocidal ideology. And the western Allies were not exactly nice themselves - concentration camps, mass murder etc. were done on all sides. Difference was that Nazis and Communists had as their goal genocide, but in the end - World War II was at best "black and gray" in moral terms, and there was black on both sides.
Yet somehow the "black and white" narrative I had described before had gained traction. Nazi crimes were focused on so much that Communist crimes flew under the radar, or got excused. "But you see, we didn't mean to murder those milions of people, it was a mistake, honest".
And this is a problem, because it also affected the understanding of how said genocides came to be in the first place. "Nazism" and "Fascism" were upheld as ultimate evils while Communism was ignored - and this allowed the Left to bury and conceal the crucial role that socialism had played in causing the genocide. "Nationalism" became a go-to scarecrow, while "socialism" is seen as something perhaps misguided, but ultimately harmless - when the opposite is far closer to the truth, though not entirely true either.
But the main issue is that it created a tendency towards absolutist solutions and away from balancing. As I described in another thread:
But this entire construct is now falling apart, and we are yet to see how bloody its downfall will end up being.
Or as poster says:
The narrative of World War 2 is basically that of a black-and-white struggle between good and evil. Essentially Free West against Sauron, except this Sauron has absolutely no redeeming qualities unlike the original.
Problem is, that narrative is bullshit - and so is the worldview created by it.
NatSocs and Fascists were evil, yes - but their enemies were not good. Soviet Union, one of major Allied powers, was essentially responsible for German rearmament and thus responsible for the Second World War. Communism itself was a genocidal ideology. And the western Allies were not exactly nice themselves - concentration camps, mass murder etc. were done on all sides. Difference was that Nazis and Communists had as their goal genocide, but in the end - World War II was at best "black and gray" in moral terms, and there was black on both sides.
Yet somehow the "black and white" narrative I had described before had gained traction. Nazi crimes were focused on so much that Communist crimes flew under the radar, or got excused. "But you see, we didn't mean to murder those milions of people, it was a mistake, honest".
And this is a problem, because it also affected the understanding of how said genocides came to be in the first place. "Nazism" and "Fascism" were upheld as ultimate evils while Communism was ignored - and this allowed the Left to bury and conceal the crucial role that socialism had played in causing the genocide. "Nationalism" became a go-to scarecrow, while "socialism" is seen as something perhaps misguided, but ultimately harmless - when the opposite is far closer to the truth, though not entirely true either.
But the main issue is that it created a tendency towards absolutist solutions and away from balancing. As I described in another thread:
Yet the World Wars created notion that there is an absolute morality, that "ideal" answers and solutions can be reached and that said answers can then be implemented across any and all societies worldwide, regardless of their sociocultural and historical characteristics.It is a balancing act, and answer for each society will be different based on its cultural, historical and geopolitical characteristics.
- If you implement liberty of no borders, you have to remove liberty of personal choice and freedom from spying - simply because multicultural societies are inherently murderous.
- If you want to maintain personal liberties, you have to maintain well-protected and at least culturally (ideally also ethnically) homogeneous society... which can only be maintained by denying liberty of migration.
- If you want to implement tolerance, you have to remove all liberties... the only way for no conflict to happen is if nobody has any liberty.
- If you want to maintain liberty in your personal life, you cannot tolerate somebody trying to come into your personal life without invitation.
But this entire construct is now falling apart, and we are yet to see how bloody its downfall will end up being.
Or as poster says: