Follow TV Tropes
The author is a confirmed anti-Semite, segregationist, Luddite, anti-intellectual alt-right conspiracy theorist. The only reason he cannot be called a neo-Nazi is because Nazis are too modern for him, what with their environmental protection laws, campaigns against smoking, focus on state guaranteed education and technological research. Some of his beliefs are even more backwards and worse than those of Nazis and that takes some doing!
The book reflects aforementioned author's beliefs and, despite the author refusing the alt-right label, it is a revenge fantasy targeted at those the alt-right movement paints as enemies. Those enemies are at the same time extremely strong (as to be a huge threat) and extremely weak (so much sometimes as to be bumbling idiots), in the best traditions fascist propaganda has to offer. Look at the acceptable targets of Mein Kampf ymmv page, this book targets the same and for the same reasons.
It's bad. It's not even amusingly bad. I felt dirty after reading it, as if I have read someone's torture porn fic or similar. I advise everyone not to read it.
I would also advise deletion of the main page for this work. If you think there is too much references on other pages for it to be viable, I am ready to work for a month to remove them all. It's that bad. This book doesn't deserve any mentions anywhere.
WOW. So it\'s not enough to write a NEGATIVE REVIEW of this WORK OF ART, but you also want to DELETE the whole PAGE too? I thought it was 2020, not George Orville\'s 1984. Why would ANYONE advocate for the CENSORSHIP of-
Sorry, I\'m just kidding around. Good review, loved the pointing out that the only thing keeping the author from being a neo-Nazi is that his beliefs are somehow even more backwards.
I would also be in favour of deleting the main page and helping to delete all traces from the site - it\'s hilariously bad and easy to mock, but attempting to cover this work, finger-quotes \'neutrally\', at all feels kind of gross. Seeing all of the \'Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement\' links and the polite notes that the book \'isn\'t for everyone\', when it\'s a book about allying with Nazis in order to purge society of the Cultural Marxists who are forcing homosexuality onto white children, and the message of the book is clearly \"It would be a very good thing if we actually did this!\" then...
This shouldn\'t be the kind of work that we cover non-judgementally, I mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Paradox of tolerance, Karl Popper. Tolerating intolerance leads to the death of tolerance. I can't imagine more intolerant book I have read in 10 years than "Victoria" and that's saying something.
Joking: Right now there's 520 references to this page. I'll take 200 at the bottom, you take 200 at the top. Then we keep going. Meet you in the middle :)
Serious: For covering things "neutrally", I think the following quote explains things nicely.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
― Jean Paul-Sartre
The book is literally an inch away from "inciting violence sort of speech" and that sort of speech is not protected anywhere. It has multiple scenes that show that the right course of action is to shoot and kill those who peacefully disagree with you. Our hero, everyone!
Holy shit guys, I know the book is bad, but we can\'t just delete pages on the site just because the work is bad. We aren\'t gonna delete every work that expresses a viewpoint we disagree with. That\'s vandalism.
I was joking about that. I am not going to do the deleting. Unless some high power GM admin of Tv Tropes decides it needs deleting.
As far as I know, the vandalism started in 2016 by Rhodes 7 and Idumean Patriot. If you look through Rhodes edit history, the only thing he has been doing is either adding Victoria references or alt-history "fall of Western Civilization thanks to damn liberals" literature. In critical way, but still... Every time somebody wrote any (even mildly) critical line in YMMV tab of Victoria, Idumean Patriot would be there to write a whole paragraph defense for it.
Rhodes 7 has similar history of edits, only he is slightly more critical of the work. So... I don't know. Maybe they're just passionate about that book. Or that genre.
There was also 4chan operation to flood tvtropes around the time those two had shown up on this site. That's probably a coincidence.
Another interesting thing to note, Victoria is one of the most linked articles on this whole site. That's one of the reasons I decided to read it in the first place. I thought it was just Tropperific piece like ASOIAF or Harry Potter but I was wrong. It's just a result of two very active and focused editors with a possible agenda.
For comparison: "Harry Potter And The Philosophers Stone" has 594 references. "Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban" has 527.
Victoria has 520.
Holy crap, I thought the page was bad but I didn\'t realise it had been linked to so frequently. Yeah, that definitely seems super suspicious.
I see where you\'re coming from Warjay, but to sum up a story about creating the perfect society by teaming up with Nazis to kill the muslims, the feminists, the \'orcs\', the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, the Ts, the Qs, the Puerto Ricans for some reason and the cultural marxists, etc, as a \"work that expresses a viewpoint we disagree with\" seems wildly unfair and misrepresentative.
Perhaps it would be less unfair to characterize it as "a story Elmo3000 has not actually read"? That, at any rate, is the impression you give with your wild mischaracterizations of the book. Or would you care to tell us, for example, on which page you read about the (designated) "good guy" faction killing "the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, the Ts, the Qs"—or even professing any intention to do so? You can't, because that is not in the book. So why do you make such false claims? Victoria is certainly kooky enough without lying about it.
Furthermore, anyone who thinks Victoria is "one of the most linked articles on the whole site" with 500-some wicks seriously underestimates the actually popular franchises. Have a look at the Trope Overdosed page, and you will see that figure in a somewhat different light.
In general, you and youngstormlord honestly come across as more than a little paranoid in these comments. I will not presume to speak for Rhodes7 (though I will say that I at least have never suspected him of any foul play), but as for myself, I have been on this site since, what, 2011? I actually forget when exactly I joined. If I am an agent of some "4chan operation" to promote Victoria, they must have planted me well in advance as a sleeper. Years before the book was published, even.
I realize that to you guys, everything is political and needs to be interpreted through the lens of Jean-Paul Sartre or Jacques Derrida, but not everyone thinks that way. Some of us can enjoy crazy dystopian fiction with bizarre and anti-heroic protagonists simply as entertainment. As for me, to take one example, I like the far left comic V For Vendetta by Alan Moore quite a bit better than Victoria, even though I'm no more sympathetic to anarchism than I am to neo-reactionary politics (and even though its protagonist V commits atrocities at least as horrible as anything done by Victoria's John Rumford, in the name of his own leftist agenda).
Now, both of these novels can easily come across as offensive to some people, and that is of course perfectly understandable, given the controversial themes they incorporate. But those who can enjoy them should also be allowed to do so. If the story is interesting (or just funny, even in an ironic way), I can forgive quite crankish politics on the author's part, and I know I'm not alone in that.
In any case, TV Tropes has no policy of censorship, whether of leftist or conservative works, and indeed the moderation tends to take a dim view of people who want to implement their own private versions of that. It's probably a bad idea to even joke about deleting pages and references for political reasons, since that may be misunderstood.
shrug Then let me say that I don't think you're a sleeper agent, but I don't think you can look at this book and argue in good faith that we're unjustly imposing a partisan political lens onto a completely harmless, innocent, apolitical work of fantasy fiction, that just so happens to have a neo-reactionary takeover of a United States doomed to collapse by the horrors of multiculturalism, modernism, and tolerance, which are themselves all shields for some sort of communist agenda.
And also, arguing that a few terrorist attacks and assassinations directed at a regime openly based on a past and present foe of democracy that literally opened concentration camps and used them to exterminate the nation's non-white and homosexual population is "at least as horrible as" literally selling all the non-compliant members of a civilization based not on any culture that has ever or will ever exist but entirely on the author's imaginary conception of the world he thinks feminists want into sexual slavery, feels very intellectually dishonest and disingenuous of you, but 's your right as a person to find different things different levels of wrong, I suppose.
If you are not offended by this novel, okay? But the fact that perennial waves of readers come here disgusted and have to be repulsed by your unyielding denial speaks volumes in my eyes. I've given up on ever winning this fight, since I'm on my third strike and will be permanently banned if ever I fly too close to the sun again, but 's not like I've ever been convinced you're not arguing in bad faith with a bald, obvious political agenda hidden with just enough of a fig leaf to avoid punishment.
Well, Idumean Patriot, you seem obsessed about this work specifically. Apparently, you like it very much. It might be even your guilty pleasure. I didn't say anything about you being a plant. But you consistently defend racism in your edits, usually using arguments such as 'Fair for its day' to defend works with portrayals which were considered racist caricatures even during the days they were written. ('Shadow of the Innsmouth' for one example).
And your only defense for it is always "It's not THAT political, there are works which are more political", "It's not THAT bad, there are worse works and you don't argue about those", "It would be censorship to criticize or remove it", "There ARE more popular pages" or a variant of those.
As for killing L G B T s, literally opening lines (its even on the quote page!) are:
"The fact that the easy road was not taken, that Episcopalians turned to their difficult duty of trying and convicting, and the state upheld its unpleasant responsibility of setting torch to faggots, was what marked this as an act of Recovery. I well remember the crowd that gathered for the execution, solemn but not sad, relieved rather that at last, after so many years of humiliation, of having to swallow every absurdity and pretend we liked it, the majority had taken back the culture. No more apologies for the truth. No more “Yes, buts” on upholding standards. Civilization had recovered its nerve. The flames that soared above the lawn before the Maine State House were, as the bishopess herself might have said, liberating."
I mean, holy crap dude. It would be hard to find the "which page you read about the (designated) "good guy" faction killing "the Ls, the Gs, the Bs, the Ts, the Qs"—or even professing any intention to do so?"
because they don't use those labels, maybe?
They ("the alleged heroes") find anybody using those labels to be a Cultural Marxist and shoot them on sight? The "designated good guys" use words such as "faggot" and other slurs for them and either burn or lynch every single one of those who are not converted and "Healed by One True Faith TM" and mend their ways, by becoming celibate and chaste heroes?
Another from the quote page: "Nazi efficiency had its hellish aspect, but chaos was a greater hell."
We are literally talking about Nazi apologist here and his Magnum Opus. In fact, "the good guys" join forces with Neo-Nazis (who are consistently described as most polite and alike faction to them) and only break alliance with actual neo-Nazis when those start forming new concentration camps. And not because of the act of forming concentration camps and putting "faggots" and "Orcs" in them are bad acts itself ("Good Guys TM" prefer to shoot them on sight, hang them or burn them on a pyre), but because they actually put some of "The Good Guys TM" and "Good Christians TM" in those. And that's crossing a line for "the Good Guys", a line you should never cross, therefore they have to break alliance and destroy them despite "having a lot of good ideas" as thought by "The Good Guys TM".
"Some of us can enjoy crazy dystopian fiction with bizarre and anti-heroic protagonists simply as entertainment." Anti-heroic protagonists? No. These are not anti-heroic, because there is nothing heroic to them. These are Villain Protagonist s, all of them.
Some people enjoy reading torture porn. I have no delusions that this isn't somebody's fetish, because it is. And one of the arguments to keep this page is and publish works like those you and Rhodes used is "It has to be published somewhere, else those who enjoy it cannot have a safe vent for their horrible urges and might become violent. It might as well be published here. " and I find that argument absolutely horrible.
Having finally read Victoria, I find this page to be going too soft and uncritical on this work, listing examples of tropes which do not fit trope definitions. Next time I find those while reading some trope page, I will remove them. Such things as: "A plot point in Victoria, because good guys do not have those." or "Good guys in Victoria are not like that" as an example on trope pages which would otherwise be completely unrelated.
I mean, there is playing with tropes, there is reversal of tropes, but you can't put something as an example of the trope if it is not mentioned in the work itself. And that's not censorship, that's just obeying the rules of this site.
In any case, I personally agree that the work itself is trash that espouses horrific viewpoints. I just don\'t think there\'s any case for deleting it or getting upset that it has a lot of wicks- if people crosswicked more, many pages would have that many wicks; it just means it\'s a tropeworthy work that someone went through the effort of crosswicking, nothing more, nothing less.
I\'m going to bow out of the debate otherwise, as I\'ve only come to point out the issue with the whole \"The page should not exist\" idea being tossed around. If people are taking it too far and actually defending the work on the page itself while the rest of it is objective, that\'s something to deal with at ATT I think.
IDK. It is what it is.
Enjoy the rest of the debate I guess, just please don\'t take out your anger toward the work on the page itself, ya know?
I\'ll bow out now.
@War Jay 77 " it just means it's a tropeworthy work that someone went through the effort of crosswicking, nothing more, nothing less. "
Or somebody has an agenda to spread and/or those crosswicks are not valid examples of the crosswicked tropes but were put there just to promote the page and popularize the work itself. But okay, if there is Mein Kampf page, there is no reason for this page not to exist. I just find it odd that it is handled with a lot less nuance and much more fawning than the above page, all in the name of "balanced" and "anti-censorship" view.
Fair enough. I\'d seek consensus before changing it though, like through Ask The Tropers or a forum thread or something- it does sound like there\'s issues with the page. But hey, the review is about the work itself, right? I\'ll stop derailing this already and let ya\'ll debate.
That is a strawman of my position. I have never claimed that Victoria is apolitical. Its author is very obviously simmering in ideologically conditioned resentments, just as is the author of V For Vendetta. That is not in dispute. Indeed, the works attain their originality and force at least in part precisely due to the bizarre beliefs of their creators. In the case of Victoria especially, the writer creates an almost surreal atmosphere at times through the odd characters he peoples his story with.
That said, I do think both Alan Moore and William Lind produce more militant politics in their books than they would support in real life. So far as I am aware, neither has been charged with plotting terrorism or violent revolution anywhere outside of their fiction.
My point here, however, is not to defend the views of these authors, or the even more extreme ones vented in their works. I respect their right to hold them, but I personally find them atrocious as pertaining to real life. What I am arguing is that I can still enjoy reading a novel that reflects these beliefs, if that novel is enjoyable reading.
As for atrocities, I would say Rumford and V are about even. Rumford sells feminists into slavery, V tortures teenage girls. Rumford nukes Atlanta, V causes chaos and seemingly the downfall of civilization in England. Both are honestly very bad. The arguable saving grace for Victoria is that such atrocities as Rumford commits are often presented in a rather cartoonish fashion that is impossible to take seriously. For example, when Atlanta is bombed, this is done using a restored World War II bomber, piloted by National Guardsmen dressed as Civil War reenactors. It effectively becomes a Big Lipped Alligator Moment. By contrast, all the violence and horror in V is portrayed in deadly earnest.
I am not going to address that screaming Wall Of Text line by line, but if we take a few important points:
Given your poor grasp of the source material, and/or willingness to misrepresent it, the personal insults against Rhodes7 and myself (and the pompous quote from Sartre earlier on about arguing in good faith) are rather gratuitous. Clearly you are very emotionally invested in this issue, and I can understand that, but your behavior is still inappropriate. I would very much prefer if we could courteously discuss the subject matter, rather than see this discussion degenerate into a conflict of personalities.
Well, forgive me for taking being told that "I realize that to you guys, everything is political and needs to be interpreted through the lens of Jean-Paul Sartre or Jacques Derrida, but not everyone thinks that way. Some of us can enjoy crazy dystopian fiction with bizarre and anti-heroic protagonists simply as entertainment," as an argument against the political reading of the book. I guess taking you at your word is strawmanning your position now?
And, not to get stuck on a pebble and crushed under an avalanche, the major difference between the two characters is one of scale, though, really, wasn't a big enough fan of V to bother arguing he's not a piece of shit even if he's mostly done bad stuff to people and cities rather than nations and peoples. I will say that V's novel is significantly more ambiguous about his character than Lind ever is about his own set of protagonists. And that Moore hasn't been investigated by any kind of right-wing equivalent to the Southern Poverty Law Center for his ties to the left-wing equivalent of violent white nationalist groups, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and open pro-Confederate historical revisionism.
But, bluntly, what you take to be silly over-the-top characters that indicate to we the readers that the following is not necessarily to be taken seriously, most readers seem to take as simply a sign that Lind is not a particularly good or subtle writer, and if over-the-top silliness is supposed to be the order of the day, it clashes with the novel's obsession with technical details for the arbitrary level of technology it feels was the perfect apex of society.
The simple formula for determining if a thing is actually parody, and not just a straight example of a thing, is asking ourselves, if it were not parody, if it were actually just a fairly straight example of a thing presented in a sincere-if-stylized fashion, what would have to be removed or changed? You allege that the utter stupidity of many of the details fit that criteria.
But I look at Lind, a man who's spent a career complaining about the South losing the Civil War, about a Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy straight out of Mein Kampf being behind all those pesky minorities wanting the same rights and respect as straight white men, about how much he hates modern technology and wishes the world would go back to the way he remembers it being as a boy, and I don't see that. Of course Civil War reenactors, who push a narrative of the War Between the States he supports, flying a plane he remembers, are the ones who nuke those horrible black gangsters in "urban areas" where he's argued in real life that the death penalty should be applied via hanging in the streets.
I've said already that a major difference between the work you cited and this one is that Alan Moore is attacking a society literally built to resemble a failed-but-perpetually-refreshed ideology, one that's seen a resurgence in every subsequent generation, one whose excesses are based in real events that actually killed real people, while, as this review points out, Lind is writing a book about the imaginary excesses of what he imagines a bunch of people he hates from the depths of his heart would want to do if they had the chance, based on no evidence but his contempt for them.
Well, another major difference is that Lind has actually advocated for many of the awful things that his protagonists do in this book. He has advocated for the Christian world to come together in a new crusade for the extermination of Islam, has argued that "in urban areas," a blatant dog-whistle for black people, hanging should return as a public spectacle to keep the populace in line, that moving away from the modern world, where we enjoy communication like we're using right now, access to lifesaving drugs, such incredible access to nutrition that obesity is a legitimate societal ill, where more than ever before we are judged not by the color of our skin, the shape of our holy symbols, the pattern of our flag, or the type of our genitals and the type of genitals we prefer to masturbate over, but the content of our character, and back to a regressive, agrarian world where disease, mutilation, starvation, and death, death, death are everywhere is the only way to save civilization from... something bad, probably.
You can find it an absurdist over-the-top fable that you can only laugh at if you like. He didn't write it that way. This is not a man with a sharp sense of humor.
That's why people are offended, why a concerted effort to list it on trope-pages where it doesn't belong as examples of aversions smells bad even beyond the policy violation, and why people look at you funny when you raise a stink over comparisons to The Turner Diaries.
And man, nothing's ever stopped you from just writing your own review and calling it a day. I eventually had to do the same thing for Man of Steel. Life goes on.
Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly, but I would think setting Victoria up in sharp contrast to V For Vendetta (a very political leftist work, as I also specifically noted in my commentary) as well as explicitly referring to it as "neo-reactionary" (a right-wing ideology) would carry the point that I acknowledge its political nature. What I object to is the hermeneutics that measures a work only or primarily by its political content or impact, as per the 1960s intellectuals, which is what many Victoria-haters tend to bring to these threads. Often, they have not even read the book—or at any rate show no evidence that they have, touting wildly incorrect descriptions of it that have presumably been gleaned from Amazon reviews and such places.
Again, in case I need to stress this point before an inquisition of hostile critics, I of course do not support the crazy politics of Victoria (or those of V). But I can also separate reality from fiction.
As for the authors' politics in real life, there are some pretty horrible statements from Alan Moore. For example, he has unironically(?) called the conservative Thatcher government in Great Britain fascist, and at least seemingly in earnest held up the terrorist Guy Fawkes as a model not just in V, but in real life as well. Indeed, he has openly said that he based his Norsefire Putting On The Reich party of bad guys in V on the English Tories (who I agree are bad, but certainly not Nazis). But again, he restricts it to words, not action (at least as far as I know). Lind's beliefs I am much less familiar with, but his Wikipedia page at least does not list anything nearly as bad as much of what he puts into his novel.
I do think Lind is purposely writing much of his craziness tongue in cheek. Of course, I may be mistaken about that. But given his background as a fairly respected figure, it seems likely. If he talked to the senators and generals the way his characters do in the book, he would have been kicked out of Washington a lot quicker than was really the case.
His book actually has no obvious anti-Semitism in it, IMO (although it has Unfortunate Implications at best about many other minorities). Lind even goes out of his way to include a token Jew among his heroes, who is accepted as an equal in John Rumford's "Christian Marines" organization without any fuzz. In fact, it has little or no hard "biological" racism of any kind. All complaints about minorities made by the protagonists are based on their culture, religion and such. The Nazis are considered bad guys in part because they are old-school racists.
That is one of the things that makes Victoria quite "nicer" than the Turner Diaries, however relative such qualifications are. Another is that its (designated) good guys do not carry out continent-spanning genocides of billions of people. Which, admittedly, is again a low bar to pass, but Victoria does, and Turner doesn't.
Hold on, I need to ask about this one section you claimed was not about burning gay people:
\"\"The fact that the easy road was not taken, that Episcopalians turned to their difficult duty of trying and convicting, and the state upheld its unpleasant responsibility of setting torch to faggots, was what marked this as an act of Recovery. I well remember the crowd that gathered for the execution, solemn but not sad, relieved rather that at last, after so many years of humiliation, of having to swallow every absurdity and pretend we liked it, the majority had taken back the culture. No more apologies for the truth. No more “Yes, buts” on upholding standards. Civilization had recovered its nerve. The flames that soared above the lawn before the Maine State House were, as the bishopess herself might have said, liberating.\"
You claim that the use of \"faggots\" here means fire-wood, but then who is being executed in that paragraph? Can you explain what is actually happening in that scene if it\'s not about murdering gay people? The mentions of religion, \"taking back\" culture, and having \"standards\", all seems pretty clear about what it\'s referring to, no? I could be wrong, but you didn\'t state what this paragraph was actually about, so please clarify.
The person being burned at the stake is being executed not for homosexuality, but heresy. Specifically, a female Episcopalian bishop who (among other things) denied the Bible and God, made propaganda for foreign enemies, and worshiped the pagan goddess Isis.
So, it's still something that looks rather harsh to most people today. The narration tries to soften it in various ways, by making her unsympathetic and vicious, as well as giving her a chance for an easy out (if only she admits she is not a Christian, she will be pardoned—the law calls for death for insidious heretics specifically, not honest pagans). All the same, it sort of doesn't work, and the protagonists end up looking pretty bad (IMO).
However, it has nothing to do with persecution of homosexuals. In fact, I don't think there is ever any mention of homosexuality even being criminalized under the regime of the (designated) good guys. They seem to just consider it improper in polite society, from what little is said about it. Sort of like a Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell thing.
Well, you can't take anything that bitter, doped-up old hippie says about his glory days at face value anymore. He doesn't remember 'em. And hell, at the time he wrote the book, the Thatcher government was openly discussing locking up all homosexuals in concentration camps to halt the spread of AIDS, so it's not like there's no precedent. But even then, I'll defy my instincts and defend him on the grounds that Norsefire may be subtextually meant to refer to the Conservatives, but textually are plain Nazis.
While in Victoria, there's no subtext at all, and the villains are just modern groups he hates.
Remember, when he talks about "cultural Marxism," he's referring to a conspiracy theory about Jewish intellectuals trying to destroy Western civilization through spreading civil rights. A conspiracy theory he is an infamous proponent of, no less. That he's willing to give the protagonists a "good one," a Jewish sidekick who isn't in on it, doesn't negate the fact that a major cornerstone of his novel's worldview is based in purest anti-semitism, or that Lind himself is a holocaust denier who speaks at such rallies.
As to whether he uses coarse language while conversing in the hallways of power, I don't know. I do know he's not in those hallways anymore, and hadn't been for a long, long time when he wrote this novel.
Hence the unrelenting "hostile inquisition." We are not a bunch of fragile snowflakes swooning at a filthy joke we didn't get that offended our tender sensibilities. We are reacting to a revenge-fic written by a man who has, at various points in his career, espoused almost all of the horrible things his protagonists do very, very seriously. Especially the parts where, in his mind, an awful, awful lot of real people need to die to save civilization.
Again. You don't get an entry from the Southern Poverty Law Center by just sharing an innocent, over-the-top silly story.
This is a novel about how we need to "take back our country" on a river of blood and a mountain of the mutilated, irradiated, chemically-burnt corpses of people who disagree with us with regard to issues of race, religion, gender, and sexuality, and brutalizing everyone we don't kill into compliant serfdom, and in that regard any and all comparisons to "The Turner Diaries" are fair even if the protagonists draw the line at open racism and actual genocide. And that's also why it's rightly subject to the same "hostile inquisition" as that other novel, and why you get a lot of side eye. It would not be terribly different if you were over on that novel's page arguing it needed to be treated with a neutral, unbiased eye.
You can try to draw that line in the sand if you want... but why do you want to? Because it's so much better that these protagonists "merely" strip the black people of their rights and put them to work in the fields rather than exterminate them? Because the corrupt, secret masters are crypto-Jews rather than explicitly Jewish? Because the Mexican people conveniently and inexplicably revert to cannibalistic paganism despite being a more Christian nation than the United States before the protagonists wipe them out? Like it or not, it's a fair comparison in every sense that matters.
You can say it needs to be judged as a book first and a political tract second, and that's a weird position to take for a book that's so openly, totally political, like arguing 1984 needs to be first and foremost taken as a tragic love story rather than a critique of totalitarianism... and your defense of it as a book always seems to boil down to the fact that you found its shitty writing so stupid it was funny. At that point, man, it makes it hard not to think you're just grasping for excuses, even if only out of contrarianism when everyone else hated it more than you thought was appropriate.
I haven't really thought that way before, but I suppose one reason I defend it as much as I do is perhaps that I feel people are being unfair to it. As well as the dishonesty of many critics, who clearly have not read the book, but merely latched onto the outrage train. I dislike unfairness and dishonesty, even if the victim of them is not blameless. Kind of like defending the unpopular kid in class against bullies, I guess, something I occasionally did in real life. He wasn't exactly the most likable guy, but at least from what I felt, he didn't deserve all he was getting.
Again, I feel even you misrepresent Victoria here. As the book portrays things, for example, blacks are not stripped of their rights by a white supremacist government. Instead, they are given autonomy under their own elected government, with power to legislate domestic affairs for themselves. This also comes as an initiative from the blacks, not a dictate from the (mostly white) "good guy" leadership. And it is said that their community eventually becomes successful and prosperous as a part of the Confederation the "good guys" build under that self-government. That is a very different solution from disenfranchisement, enslavement or genocide, no matter how one looks at it.
Similarly, I wonder if the word "cultural Marxist" can perhaps mean different things to different people. I almost never hear it in real life, but when I come across it on the Internet, it usually seems to read as (more or less) a slightly stronger, slangy term for "liberal" or "SJW" or the like, meaning persons perceived as obnoxious leftists, without any obvious Jewish connotations. Perhaps it is an anti-Semitic codeword to some, but that does not seem to be how it is usually used. Or perhaps, I simply misread it due to unfamiliarity.
Looking it up, I see now that the Urban Dictionary includes both purely political definitions, and ones that allude to anti-Semitic tropes. For what it's worth, the former have been upvoted much higher than the latter.
In any case, as Lind uses it in Victoria, I detect no anti-Semitic subtext. I think all of his named "Cultural Marxist" characters have Dutch or Anglo-Saxon names. The one Ambiguously Jewish villain, a woman named Levine, is not (IIRC) called a Cultural Marxist. All things told, Lind seems to present his "Cultural Marxist" conspiracy more as Anglo Masonic plotters (or just "liberal elitists" as per Ben Garrison). If he does, there's plenty of precedent for that in conspiracy fiction (as well as real life conspiracy theories).
As best I can tell from a quick Web search, Lind is also not a holocaust denier. At one time, he addressed a forum organized by an anti-holocaust group, but then he told them that the holocaust did happen:
First, although Lind might hold many objectionable views, denying the Holocaust is not one of them. Indeed, he explicitly told Holocaust deniers in 2002: "I do want to make it clear for the foundation and myself that we are not among those who question whether the Holocaust occurred."
In the novel, likewise, his hero John Rumford also accepts the veracity of the holocaust and death of six million Jews without any doubts (although he goes on to note that the Communists killed many more people than the Nazis).
Again, none of this is to defend real irrational anti-Semitism, or to defend the bad stuff that is indeed in Victoria on a political level. But Victoria is kooky enough without us making up half-truths or outright falsehoods about it. And calling Lind, a real-life person, a holocaust denier without strong evidence (and, apparently, against his own clear words) seems almost like defamation, however bad his opinions may be on other issues. Moral issues aside, that could potentially even result in legal trouble for TV Tropes.
"I am not going to address that screaming Wall Of Text line by line" So, you can dish out walls of text but can't be bothered to read one. Nice. Btw, you are acting like somebody who never heard of dog whistles and crypto-fascism. And when reading the book chock-full of those references, you can claim ignorance. Which is what you have been doing for a while.
- "Setting fire to "faggots" in the context of a burning at the stake refers to the firewood used for the execution. This has nothing to do with the slang use of the same word as a derogatory term for male homosexuals." Actually, it has, with the tiniest veneer of deniability. The same as if I wrote "We were hanging a lot of spades those days. After a honest day of work, it feels good to relax." Well, what am I tried to say with that sentence? Because they have been setting fire to a lot of them "faggots" in that book. And they do have certain punishments for prostitution, Cultural Marxism, heresy and thievery. And the punishment is death. That Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the book you so loudly defend? Openly showing any sexuality that is not straight in public is both heresy and Cultural Marxism in that book. So dead either way. Or maybe sent to some sheikhs as sex slaves.
- Halsing of Landwehr? "About three months later, I got a nice letter from Captain Halsing, postmarked Milwaukee, thanking me for my hospitality. He was the model Nazi, cold, competent, and perfectly polite." What other faction was ever described like that? None. The only problem in the book is they were going too far. And once their leader is no more, they are at peace with our "protagonists". They refused the formal alliance only because of slightly different ideology. But do for some reason respect the order those Nazis made. They have the same enemies, after all. The Nazis get respect unlike Azanians. And unless I misread the book (English is not my native language), those Nazis provide the troops to the Victorians later.
- "Deleting a work page, or trope examples pertaining to it, because it disagrees with your personal political beliefs is censorship." Agree. Deleting examples pertaining to a trope page because they don't pertain to the trope on the other side is not censorship. Because they don't fit the trope definition. And thus are free game.
Btw, now you claiming it's a parody and therefore fun, because "There's no way anybody can have such insane beliefs in real life!" while pointedly ignoring that the writer of the book does have those beliefs in real life!
Now, why is it so important for you to defend that book?
Before we continue, I would like to ask you one question. On what page is the Halsing quote? It would be a great help to me if you could tell me that, so I can check the context.
"Before we continue, I would like to ask you one question. On what page is the Halsing quote? It would be a great help to me if you could tell me that, so I can check the context." The context? After Victorians broke the truce, refused the offer of formal alliance, lost the battle of wits, captured Halsing and he escaped. Then sent them a letter. But there are more quotes praising the efficiency with which Nazis hunt and fight barbarian hordes in their territory. And praising efficiency with which they organized their state.
Can you give me the page number, so I can check it out for myself in my copy?
Page 32 here. No need to look for your book for the dodge. You'll probably say
"Oh, they never allied with Nazis but with militia that replaced them" . That used Nazi built gas chambers and ovens to kill those same Nazis. But they are somehow better.
But still, why are you so intent to defend that book? Especially since what happens on the next page, with Cascadia. And with the creation of 4th Reich near the end of the book, with whom they also allied with.
That is a pirate site, though. I'm not going there and picking up all their malware. Furthermore, it's against the wiki rules to post copyright-infringing links. You'd better remove it before a moderator sees it.
Didn't you say you had bought the book back in one of your earlier posts, before you edited it? So why now link to pirates? Don't you have your legal copy on hand? If you need a bit to get ahold of it so you can give me the page number, I don't mind. Take the time you need.
Because it is faster than going to my parent's house which is 2 hour drive to pick up the physical copy just to win a pissing contest on the internet? Then 2 hours long drive back. It's slightly after half of the book, if you want details. Answer the question, though.
Why is it so important for you to defend this book?
Full quote, with all the Nazi apologia and Jew blaming for some holocausts:
"I looked at the letter from Halsing's Leader as it lay among the crumbs on the breakfast table. My inclination was still to toss it into the stove. But I’d learned the hard way that first impulses were not to be trusted. I picked the letter up, took it with me into the study where my barely-begun history looked up invitingly, and lit a cigar. I knew a cigar before lunch was garment district, but I needed to think and tobacco wakes the mind.
The reasons to refuse Herr Braun’s request were easy enough to catalogue. I didn’t like Nazis. I thought the past, what America had and was from around 1865 to about 1965, was better than what had followed, better even than what we had now in the N.C. Bill Kraft’s Retroculture appealed to me. The Nazis were nothing if not modern. Hitler would have loved computers and color television and the rest of the video screen infernal devices.
The Nazis also disliked Christianity – Nietzsche’s “slave religion”–and had tried to revive Norse paganism in the Third Reich. Funny how the real pagan revival had come from the radical left, the goddess-worshipping feminists and the Gaia-worshipping greens, in the last years of the American republic. Little did they realize whose hand they were holding. My own Christian faith had grown stronger, year by year, as realities like war and poverty and the deaths of too many friends stripped away my spiritual impedimenta. Besides, I knew enough history to know where Nietzsche’s philosophy came from: his syphilis.
There was the Holocaust to reckon in the account. I didn’t put as high a value on that as some people did. History, ancient and modern, was full of holocausts, one people wiping another people out. Met any Carthaginians lately? Jews had carried out plenty of holocausts of their own. The Old Testament was full of them. As a butcher and a tyrant, Hitler ran a distant second to Stalin. That didn’t excuse him, but I found it difficult to put a higher moral value on six million Jews than on eight million Ukrainian Christians, not to mention the other 52 million killed by Soviet communism. Or the 78 million C
hinese and Tibetans killed by its Maoist strain.
Of course, I was also partly responsible for nuking Atlanta, so some might question my moral own abacus. With reason.
What made the Holocaust unique was its impersonal, industrial efficiency. That, more than the killing itself, got towards the heart of why I didn’t like Nazism. In an ideal Nazi state, every aspect of life would be icily efficient. The whole place would be one vast factory, with every machine working perfectly, and every person merely another, identical machine. My Utopia came from Tolkien: The Shire, where fuddy-duddy hobbits smoked their long pipes, endlessly re-told the same stories and liked their meals regular. The Nazis would have built an autobahn through The Shire and turned it over to the Strength Through Joy department, with mandatory calisthenics at 05:30.
But there was another side to the coin. Leader Braun and his boys were up against the same canaille we’d had to fight: Black Muslims, the Dykes on Bikes Motorcycle Cavalry Brigade, the Theban Band, Deep Greeners, the whole zoo. Minnesota had long been loony-left country, and they had a real chance of winning out there. If the lunatics won, the Christians would go up the chimneys. This wasn’t the kind of war where anyone took prisoners.
Nazi efficiency had its hellish aspect, but chaos was a greater hell. It wasn’t called pandemonium for nothing. The first need of any people is for order. In most of the old industrial Midwest, chaos had already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. Nazism would restore order, no question about that. More, it would restore competence. Captain Halsing was probably one of their best, but he was also a model. There would be more Captain Halsings in a Nazi state, and they would bring relief to a people groaning under a hopeless present and a future of despair. That was, after all, why Hitler came to power in Germany, through an election, not a coup. And he delivered in a way, he made Germany work again and gave hope to a beaten, suffering people. "
Oh, I don't mean to be unreasonable. Do pick up the book entirely at your convenience, and please don't feel stressed out over it on my account. Just do it the next time you swing by your folks' place—whenever that is. I know how bothersome these things can be, so I don't mind waiting. After all, this thread will hardly be going anywhere.
EDIT: Oh, and while I'm not sure, I think quoting whole pages of the book on here ported over from the pirate site also qualifies as copyright infringement. You might want to avoid that as well, just to be safe.
There is no need. Why are you defending a book with such stances? This is direct quote from it. Answer the question. Pages 359 - 362
Btw, there's your answer when "Good Guys TM" fight and kill L and G.
"The Dykes on Bikes Motorcycle Cavalry Brigade, the Theban Band"
Edit: Well, you asked for quote. I provided it. I already own a copy of the book. And this is just a quote, so it is not a copyright infringement.
So, why do you keep defending the book?
Are you sure the pirate site doesn't have different pagination than the legal copy? Because those numbers don't look quite right to me, now that I'm checking.
Don't know, don't care. It's around the 350 -380 page mark. Btw, what's your comment on The Dykes on Bikes Motorcycle Cavalry Brigade ?
How about the Theban Band, which got a name from historical band of Theban warriors made of all male lovers which defeated Spartans a few times?
Btw, why are you defending this book? Even after I provided you with direct quote?
Generally speaking, if the side you are rooting for ever finds itself on the same side as Nazis, it is not a good thing.
I think I'll just wait for you to get your legal copy. There are other passages I would like to ask you about anyway, based on your comment 21 in this thread, from more about Halsing to where you get your quote that homosexuality counts as heresy in Victoria (which I can't seem to find anywhere in my book), and more. And that will probably get unwieldy very fast when the page numbers in my copy don't match your pirated one. But as I said, do feel free to take your time. Maybe PM me when you get back, and we can get back to business?
We are already in business. You are not answering my questions. I answered yours. Stop dodging. Why are you still defending this book?
The book with such quote as:
"But there was another side to the coin. Leader Braun and his boys were up against the same canaille we’d had to fight: Black Muslims, the Dykes on Bikes Motorcycle Cavalry Brigade, the Theban Band, Deep Greeners, the whole zoo. Minnesota had long been loony-left country, and they had a real chance of winning out there. If the lunatics won, the Christians would go up the chimneys. This wasn’t the kind of war where anyone took prisoners. "
Dude, if you are writing a book and your main character ever says
"We and Nazis have the same enemies. And we cannot let those enemies win!"
and those enemies are not literal aliens or demons, you are in trouble. 'Cause your main character is not a good guy by any stretch of the imagination.
As I said, I think it's best we wait with further conversation until you have your copy, so you can give me accurate quotes with page numbers. This should be no big trouble for you, since you have already affirmed more than once that you own the book legally, and only have to get it at your parents' place. Just pick it up the next time you're there, no big deal. Come back whenever you feel ready. But until you can give me correct page numbers, this conversation is pointless. I don't trust your pirated edition, which might have lost lines or whole chapters in formatting errors, scanned letters wrong or whatever. I want to be able to verify the quotes for myself. Surely you can't think that is unreasonable?
Sod off. I am not driving for 4 hours on Sunday to win an internet pissing contest. I gave you close page numbers, it is easier for you to move your fingers over 30 pages than for me to drive 4 hours. And I am not going to make it easier for you. I don't owe you that.
I am ready. I feel ready. Please continue the discussion by answering my questions. Go on. I am waiting.
As I said, take your time. Surely you visit your parents some time every now and then? We can just postpone this conversation until you've been there, at a time of your convenience. I can wait until Christmas, if that's what it takes. I'm in no hurry. I refuse, however, to rely on uncorroborated pirated scanlations or any quotes taken from them.
Stop dodging. Stop running.
The time of my convenience is right now. I will rely on uncorroborated scanlations. You rely on a physical copy that is on your side. You have clear advantage there. I'm fine with that. As unsporting as you believe those conditions to be.
Now, will you continue or not? Because if not, I will claim this as a victory and move on with my life.
And if you want to continue discussion after running away, write your own positive review for this book when you are ready. I'll comment on it, I promise.
Edit: All 3 reviews on this site are extremely negative. Do it. Bring some much needed balance.
Feel free to leave and move on if you please. Should you later change your mind and wish to come back, once you have your proper copy on hand, I'll be happy to resume the discussion. But if not, I wish you all the best.
Ok. I claim victory in this internet pissing contest by the reason of you forfeiting it and running away like a coward that you are. 1 internet point for me. Yay!
Best of luck to you. I'll be waiting for your positive review of this book. See ya around.
So, uh, who here likes Rollercoaster Tycoon?
I do, although I only played 1 and 2. Are 3 and later any good?
...So, on the one hand, I want to dig into the fact that even if within the context of the novel the black people stripped themselves of the right to, for example, live in urban environments and are magically happy to work as field hands, it stinks of dog-whistling in the context of many of the author\'s real-world views, and how it\'s no more acceptable than, for instance, a Nazi writing a book in which the Jews are convinced to exterminate themselves.
Or dig into the deeply anti-Semitic roots of the Frankfurt school conspiracy theory that birthed the term \"cultural Marxism\" in the first place, and how just because it\'s not explicitly about international Jewry trying to undermine the lantern-jawed 50\'s morality of the American race by introducing the disgusting, radical ideas that women and black people deserve civil rights doesn\'t mean that it\'s not a bunch of awful gobbledygook kludged and cobbled together to reinforce existing viewpoints by reframing every movement of liberation from oppression in American history as a communist plot to destroy America.
And also that all of his writings on black people is tainted by his open Confederate apologism even within the context of the novel, that it too rings of dogwhistling and putting a fig leaf over open racism by making it just subtle enough to be deniable.
And also that I apologize for getting the Holocaust denialism wrong even if he\'s spent much of his career openly associating with such figures and legitimizing them in the manner of many such proto- and modern alt-right personalities.
But man, I had to go to sleep, then get up early to go to work at the Church, and this conversation went on for a million years while I was sleeping and working and fuck that noise.
Not a Rollercoaster Tycoon man though. I don\'t like those kinds of meticulous building games; I need a story or point to build towards like in Alpha Centauri. Otherwise, I get very frustrated with the fiddly controls and wish I could just play with my Legos instead, since Legos have a great tactile sensation to them you can\'t get through a computer monitor.
If we\'re just pimping our favorite games ever though, I\'ve got an on-the-record review of Super Robot Wars Judgement that no one reads but I\'m very proud of. \'s a great game in every sense and by every metric, and I highly recommend it. \'s a better war sim than Victoria, at least, and it literally has man-shaped giant robots in it.
I heard three wasn\'t as good as the first two, but I never really liked the roller coaster tycoon series. Zoo tycoon was superior. (the first one and its expansions, not the sequel, which I never played. Dropped the disk after getting it, it cracked, just as well, I heard it wasn\'t quite as good.)
@Spectral Time if you remove all the racism, antisemitism, chauvinism, sexism, homophobia, technophobia, nationalism, bigotry, fascism, incorrect information and Christian Fundamentalism from that book, you would have quite a good book. Size of a postal stamp maybe, but a good book nevertheless.
...Yeah, come to think of it we actually should see what does a positive review look like.
AND THEN TEAR IT OPWN LIMB FROM LIMB
Leave a Comment:
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?