I guess this question goes here considering it's philosophical and therefore under humanities
Monarchists and reactionaries of Veeky Forums other than right of conquest, what is the legitimacy of the Empire in Star Wars? Looking at it from a perspective of Guenon or Evola I can't identify anything that would point to legitimacy.
What makes any form of government "legitimate"?
Honest question
The same thing that's made every other nation or empire legitimate... A military.
I've yet to meet the Guenon or Evola who can dodge bullet.
Well from the perspective of Guenon and Evola that answer would have a lot of "Tradition, Metaphysics and Transcendentalism"
Essentially spiritual Traditionalism, without that, it would be in a state of "becoming" therefore wholly material and doomed to fail at some point in the future, in opposition to a state of "Being" which has a lot of metaphysical nonsense that would take me a book to explain
According to international law, effective control of the territory and population. It's really just that, read it yourself.
t. someone who has done research on the subject/almost law fag
The voluntary pooling of resources by honorable free men for the benefit of the greater good, i.e. the will of the people
According to Guenon and Evola either the Jedi or the Empire would be legitimate, as both are traditional orders that strive for self-mastery. I think the difference between the two would be more like the difference between the right and left hand paths within the framework of the same tradition. IIRC the Jedi don't fight to completely exterminate the dark side, they fight to maintain balance, a point often missed. But it's hard, nay impossible to analyse this under a traditionalist point of view because there's too much modern ideologies, pandering to specific audiences and watering down. The only authentic elements the franchise had came by way of Joseph Campbell, Jung, which themselves already are second and third+ hand sources.
What I'm trying to say is, it would be impossible for Hollywood to aknowledge the light and the dark forces as two ways of the same tradition. No, they have to distort everything and present it to the consumer in the form of good versus bad.
One could argue that neither are actually seeking self mastery, as the Sith would be fighting for power at the sake of losing themselves to their feelings, and the Jedi are striving for a status quo, never advancing but never falling behind either.
I know OP probably meant to start this thread as a joke, but I'll go on until the faggot mods delete it.
In Evola's book Yoga of Power there is an almost exact analogy between the light and dark side of the forces and the Vedic and Tantric traditions of Hinduism. The Vedic is the regular, slower path. The Tantra is more "dangerous", but you get faster results. The left-hadn path is supposed to be the alternative path, but in the Age of Kali, all the rules are subverted and it suddenly becomes the only path that works. The light side is Vaishnavism, the Vedas, and Bhakti Yoga. The dark side is Shaivism, the Agamas, Tantra Yoga.
It is legitemate due to the abolition of corruption and degeneracy by the Emperor.
While that's actually really accurate, it doesn't truly answer OP's question, unless you're attempting to say that the galaxy is in the Age of Kali and so -at the time- it was the only way to see society through.
That's the problem with discussing this in the framework of the Hollywood narrative. There's nothing wrong with the dark side wanting to rest power for themselves and restore order if the system has become corrupt. That they intend to restore order is explicitly stated in the latest movie. In this context the Jedi are the subversive ones, supporting rebelions that seek to place corrupt politicians in power for the sake of moralistic values. The Jedi become a charicature like superman and capitain america fighting against racism and LGBT rights.
wrest*
>the galaxy is in the Age of Kali
I think so, yes. But I don't know much about the story of the series t b h.
against racism and for* LGBT rights.
Another analogy (discussed in Radix's latest podcast) is between the Batman and the League of Shadows. The Batman is the cuckservative hero that tries to save a helplessly corrupt system, and the League are the Evolian types who try to destroy the old world in order to restart the cycle.
If you equate the galaxy to what a real world equal (under the pretext of OP's Guenon and Evola that would be contemporary Western Culture) then yes the wheel would land at the Kali Yuga. a waning golden age where the material is placed above the metaphysical. Although the empire would throw the Kshatriya caste at the top instead of what the rebels (or republic) placed at the top being the Vaishya.
Though neither places the ultimate authority on any sort of Brahmin class as far as I know.
Hey Ryan
muslim dog
I find myself agreeing most with this. However, what does "honorable" mean?
Which is more correct?
Not to toss Evola under a bus, but, the biggest question of monarchy is: why should YOU have power?
In our world, that's a good question. So it comes down to tradition, to bloodline, education, military might, etc.
The Emperor is literally a psychic space wizard who can read minds, see the future, shoot lightning out of his fingers, and if you aren't a moron can hop bodies, manipulate hyperspace, and is technically immortal. Why should he rule? He's objectively the best person for the job.
A person on /to/ awhile back asked "how can I legitimize a monarchy in my games?". The simplest answer was that the King literally is the superior wise man who knows how to best rule the land. That superior man is Palpatine. Sure, maybe someone other than Palpatine is just as qualified while also not being a douche (although the "the sith are a long term galactic virus meant to fight off the Vong thing isn't THAT stupid) it that doesn't take away from the fact that he's objectively better at the job than the vast majority of the galaxy.