re: #17 silverdolphin

Science Fiction is not really fallow ground for paleoconservatism. Fantasy works better there.

The genre umbrella is speculative fiction, which covers anything that is not about a real world.

The issue for paleoconservatism is that its very nature is atavism. It’s always about preserving old power structures, old ways of thinking.

Speculative fiction is about imagining a different world.

Which means a speculative world is not this world, but paleoconservatism by its definition wants to push an older version of the real world.

However, audiences since at least the 1960s have wanted speculative worlds that are either 1) in the future, or 2) utopian.

Even a masterpiece like LOTR, with its deeply Catholic ideologies woven into the fabric of the story, can’t really be appreciated by paleoconservatives, because Tolkien was definitely anti-fascist. His idealism in LOTR is purely religious, Illuvatar working his will in the world through his subordinates (e.g. the Valar.)

One might think since many paleoconservatives are Catholic that they could appreciate the difference, but they confuse Tolkien with their own desires, because paleos believe it is their version of the world which God wants, while Tolkien illustrated that the creatures really are just along for the ride and one does what one can with the time they have and don’t try to make the world in their image.

Paleoconservatives want the Ring of Power, the very thing Tolkien was warning.

Anyway, I don’t know if science fiction has much left in it as a genre. Anything today seems like a rerun of past ideas.

Creative authors can continue to make speculative worlds but I don’t know of a contemporary creator (novelist or scriptwriter) who is really breaking new ground.