i might also add “wherever you see the exaltation of a woman, that’s not the work of the Holy Spirit. The exaltation of women, that is not the work of the Holy Spirit”
So a while back, I made this post about how Sylvanas’ excuses for her unprecedented attack on the Night Elves were bullshit. One of the people who reblogged the post blamed Blizzard for Sylvanas’ popularity and not the fandom.
Today the last chapter of the War of the Thorns, the burning of Teldrassil, was released, and all the Sylvanas fanboys are out in force. Some outright applaud her actions (likely the same ones who defend Garrosh’s destruction of Theramore), usually involving marshmallows in some form or another; another more vocal and larger group of the Sylvanas fanboys are decrying Blizzard for “bad writing” on behalf of her.
In answer to the second group, let me just ask you if you found the writing in Mists of Pandaria to be “good.” If you answer yes, then I don’t want to hear you bitching about “bad writing”, because that expansion was the pinnacle of garbage-tier writing from Blizzard (with the trend continued in Warlords of Draenor and especially Legion).
As far as Sylvanas goes, she has been evil since The Frozen Throne. While obviously her part of the narrative of that game was only to play Kerrigan to Arthas’ Mengsk and knock down Lord Strawman, it merits looking into how she behaved herself in her small part, for it colors her future actions as well (and this is also the last time that Pierra Coppola voiced her: i don’t care what any of you say, she’s a superior Sylvanas to P.J. “gargles razor blades” Matheson).
In an attempt to remove the dreadlords from Lordaeron and establish it as her base (strange why she wouldn’t just go back to Silvermoon, especially since this was before Burning Crusade when the Horde became full of pansy little fairy-bois), Sylvanas finds herself short of forces. Even after using her banshee magic to control the local wildlife of Lordaeron and bringing Varimathras to cower beneath her, she is not able to have enough forces to destroy them all. After defeating Detheroc, she makes a pact with the intolerable Lord Strawman (whose only existence is to make the Alliance look bad and have the Blood Elves leave said Alliance): she saved him from the dreadlord, so now he will help her take back the Capital City of Lordaeron, after which she will give it to him. Varimathras even comments later that he knows that Sylvanas has no intention of giving Lordaeron to Lord Strawman after they’ve claimed it, which she affirms, saying that he is a means to an end (this is proven to be correct by the end of her part of the campaign). This sets the stage for betrayal and treachery toward her allies as part of her character trait. It also shows her pettiness, since she holds Lordaeron out of spite to Arthas: it is after all his kingdom, and what could sting more than having an enemy hold the jewel of his crown?
Cut to classic World of Warcraft, where out of the blue, Sylvanas – an elf – is joining the Horde, which is made up of Orcs – who slaughtered the Elves and burned their forests in Warcraft II – and Trolls, who are the ancient enemy of all the Elves. It didn’t make sense! Even in the game’s manual, it states that Sylvanas is only allied with the Horde out of convenience. This heavily implies that she intends to betray Thrall, Vol’jin and Cairne the same way she betrayed Arthas and Lord Strawman (she was even working on her own strain of the plague of undeath beneath their noses!)
All the signs in Wrath of the Lich King pointed to exactly that betrayal, even down to the Hand of Vengeance faction being led by Sylvanas and responsible for the administering of the plague in Northrend. Then she played her hand too early at the Wrathgate, hoping to kill the Lich King and severely cripple the armed might of the Horde and Alliance, and failed, having not taken the Red Dragonflight into consideration. But by this time, Sylvanas was already a fan-favorite and so Blizzard, unwilling to commit to the story they had already started – and which must have generated some negative feedback among beta testers, many of them likely Sylvanas fanboys – did a sloppy writing job and made her advisor Varimathras the one responsible for the plague. They even went out of their way in Cataclysm to remind the Undead players that she wasn’t involved: because playing through Northrend, you’d get the idea that she DID do it…because she WAS responsible!
But then Arthas dies and suddenly the reason for her existence ceases to be. So without an object to direct her hatred at, what does Sylvanas do? Well, Christie Golden (and nobbel) would have you believe that she’s afraid of the void and wants to do everything within her power to keep herself and her people from that. But the game doesn’t quite tell the same story: in Gilneas, she uses the people she apparently “cares so much about” that she’s “willing to become a monster for them” as cannon fodder just to get past the Greymane Wall. Gee, I haven’t seen this much love of a leader for their people since Garrosh stabbed Krom’gar in the back in Stonetalon for the sake of political posturing, when in all honesty, he needed those druids out of the way, since they would have opposed his clear-cutting of Ashenvale. And as for Sylvanas, she uses them as cannon fodder so much that now she has to use val’kyr to stack the decks in her favor: but apparently is such a “wise” and “caring” leader that she loses all them by Legion. Also her statement that she “serves the Horde” is meaningless, since she serves herself first and foremost.
For the next several expansions, she played only a token role (and even less in Warlords of Draenor), but then finally emerged from the doghouse where she had been hiding since her failure at the Wrathgate…only to do just what she had been doing at the Wrathgate! I mean, if you wanted to convince people that you had nothing to do with the Wrathgate, then why go back to brewing the same damn plague that “your adviser clearly stole out from under your very nose”? But that’s not the case: I don’t know what kind of ganja Vol’jin be smokin’, but it must be some POWERFUL stuff for a troll, who even admitted on his deathbed that he doesn’t trust her (ages of hatred will do that to you), to knowingly give the rule of the Horde to a treacherous witch like Sylvanas! I mean, her first act as Warchief was to have everyone retreat from the Broken Shore (i must have forgotten the ‘save our sorry asses’ clause of “lok’tar ogar”, but then again, Elves have always been more human than Orc). Of course her fanboys will argue that “oh but the Horde would have been destroyed if she remained.” Well, this highlights the poor writing of Legion: if the Burning Legion had managed to wipe out the armed might of the Horde and the Alliance so easily on the first go, why were they dragging their feet after the Broken Shore, allowing us to empower these priceless artifacts, and become strong enough to not only defeat them, but push them back to their own world and fight them on their own ground? Also, I don’t think the Horde and the Alliance were so soundly broken, especially since the tattered survivors were indeed able to push back the Legion’s invasion efforts on Azeroth prior to Dalaran being teleported to the Broken Isles.
But let’s not get too deep into the mess of Legion’s poor story-writing, we might fall into a Suramar and Illidan-shaped plot-hole. Back to the true evil here. Her fanboys will argue that “Genn Greymane was the aggressor against Sylvanas on Stormheim”, which…is utter bullshit. If you actually bothered to pay attention to the quest-line, she sets sail to Stormheim FIRST and antagonizes the Alliance once she sees them. Also Genn Greymane has plenty of good reasons for wanting vengeance upon Sylvanas.
And then there’s this…the conclusion to the War of the Thorns…
…where Sylvanas at last shows her true colors, the side of her that I’ve seen since Warcraft III, but all of you chose not to see, blinded by your delusions of “grey morality”: that Sylvanas is no different than 90% of the goths and introverts that I’ve met in real life. To wit, that they feel that they’ve been hurt by the world, so fuck the world and fuck everyone else in it.
Sylvanas has always been evil, and fuck whatever bullshit excuse taliesin and bellular give for her actions. The “morally grey” line has been done to death, and it needs to stop. I know I shouldn’t put the cart before the horse, especially when it comes to Blizzard (after all, Legion started out 8/10 and by 7.3 had become a 4/10, thanks to the illidan fellatio-fest, moral relativist bullshit, and story that was falling apart at the seams), but I sincerely hope that Blizzard grows a pair of balls and sticks with their decision. If Sylvanas is under the control of other entities (like the old gods), then that would be the possession trope and it would rob her of any agency (and would be the same mistake they made with the Scarlet Crusade). But maybe I’m not being fair: who knows, Blizzard might grow a pair? I mean, it’s not like they showed their lack of balls by giving in to the whiny fanboys with the nostalgia servers. Oh, wait…
what did Voltaire say? ‘if you want to know who runs society, see who you’re not allowed to criticize’
i know he was talking about the church (which is absurd, ridiculous, and asinine, considering the strongly anti-religious culture of the 21st century), but if you apply it to the current feminist paradigm, it fits like a hand in a glove
Yes, the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, otherwise known
as the Nazi Party, was indeed socialist, and it had a lot in common with
the modern left.
Hitler preached class warfare, agitating the working class to resist
“exploitation” by capitalists – particularly Jewish capitalists, of
course.
Their program called for the nationalization of education, health care,
transportation, and other major industries. They instituted and
vigorously enforced a strict gun control regimen.
They encouraged pornography, illegitimacy, and abortion, and they denounced Christians as right-wing fanatics.
Yet a popular myth persists that the Nazis themselves were right-wing
extremists. This insidious lie biases the entire political landscape,
and the time has come to expose it.
Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline
Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized
that conventional socialism wasn’t working.
He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class
than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition
of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult.
So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it
Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a “Third Way”
between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would
exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism,
the corporations would be left in private hands.
Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi
party was “socialist” and that its enemies were the “bourgeoisie”
and the “plutocrats” (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler
eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor
organizations.
Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival
leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler
waged unrelenting war against small business.
Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in
speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, “On the
Jewish Question,” Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike
a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx’s theory
to work in the death camps.
The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used
to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question
whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no
more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer.
The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least
posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the
Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were
socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets “internationalists”
and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
Yet many who regard “national” socialism as the scourge of humanity
consider “international” socialism a benign or even superior form of
government.
According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the
political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with
the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely
unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which
needs “right-wing” atrocities to divert attention from the horrific
communist atrocities of the past century.
Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi
war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective
measure.
R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by
Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were
both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of
their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese
citizens.
The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews,
Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges
occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North
Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course.
Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills
wholesale. And so did “national socialism” during the Nazi reign of
terror.
But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite.
The Nazis have been universally condemned – as they obviously should be
– but they have also been repositioned clear across the political
spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right –
even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous
demagogic speeches.
At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist
regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is
largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a
fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly
“implemented.” Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember the past
are condemned to repeat it.” God help us if we forget the horrors of
communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.
The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race.
Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course.
Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white “liberals” condescend benevolently.
Hitler’s blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively
quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of
the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.
Modern “liberals,” who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial
quotas, seem to agree. They apparently believe that non-white minorities
(excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the
free market without favoritism mandated by the government.
The media often focuses its microscope on modern neo-nazi lunatics, but
the actual scope of the menace is relatively miniscule, with perhaps a
few thousand neo-nazis at most in the United States (mostly
“twenty-something” know-nothings).
The number of communists and communist sympathizers in the United States
dwarfs that figure, of course – even among tenured professors!
And while the threat of neo-nazi terrorism is indeed serious, the chance
of neo-nazis gaining any kind of legitimate political power anywhere is
virtually zero.
That is why the ACLU can safely use them to advertise its supposed
commitment to free speech. Neo-nazi rallies incite violence, but they do
not persuade bystanders to join their cause! If they did, the ACLU
would have nothing to do with them.
In his essay, “On the Jewish Question,” Marx theorized that
eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist
exploitation
To be fair, Marx thought eliiminating ALL religions (including Judaism)
would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation, Marx did not
call for just the elimination of Judaism. And Hitler defined Jewishness
as racial and not religious.
Of course, Hitler DID want to destroy Judaism and Christianity, and all
other religions, except HIS religion, neo-pagan Hitler worship.
Under Socialist Governments, a tyrant eventually appears who will convince the majority that the minority has to go.
Because the minority won’t be able to fight due to their non-chalant
give away of their freedoms and in particular the right to defend
themselves (Clinton is the best president ever), one day their
usefulness will run out and they will have to be exterminated.
Socialism always decays into genocide because all it takes is one
charasmatic leader to dump the whole thing on it’s head. WWII was only
sixty years ago.
Liberals Lie About Everything All the Time
Here are some further points: Hitler, in “Table Talk,” said that
everything in his program came from Marx. Mussolini started his career
with a book on Marx. Both men were smart enough to see that state
ownership of the economy had been a disaster in the Soviet Union. So
they modified socialism to continue private ownership, but they
maintained complete control through regulation over those matters that
affected their programs.
Hitler learned about the use of concentration camps from the Soviets
during the period of friendship 1938 – 1940. Stalin in fact regarded
Hitler as a close ally, until the Germans attacked the Soviets,
whereupon he issued orders they should not be called Nazis (national
socialists), but “Hitlerites.” Soviet Communism was of course highly
nationalistic during WWII.
The idea that Hitler and Mussolini were of the right grew out of the
period of the Spanish Civil War, when the Soviets entered Spain on
behalf of the Republicans, and proceeded to murder all their opponents
on the left (anarchists, democratic socialists, etc.). Stalin then
decided to identify all opposition on the left as elements of
reactionary capitalism, or the right.
The right in Europe was always associated with the maintenance of the
established social order, favored the primacy of “altar and throne,” and
rule of the best (aristocracy of some kind or another). This of course
was the opposite of Hitler’s and Mussolini’s project of overturning
society through proletarian mob action.
When confronted with these facts, those on the left usually try to say
that collaboration of business with these regimes made them
“right-wing.” However, many businessmen will collaborate with government
no matter what it is in order to survive or to succeed. Their objective
is the bottom line, not politics. Involvement of business with a regime
proves little or nothing about its characteristics as left or right.
The Viking Blog 