Underexplored Reactionary Themes

[Yamaneko Butai]

Counter-Revolution must begin with the arts. Both the popular and the artistically challenging writing, film, art, music, vidya, etc. of the last half-century has been dominated by left ideals while reactionary thought is left to dig for scraps, sometimes accepting anti-heroes as their own, more often reduced to nothing more than army recruitment propaganda. Without reactionary art, we will forever live in the shadow of Hollywood ghouls, the glossy vapidness of NYT bestsellers, the smoky (and admittedly, slightly pleasant) haze of the stoner hipster.

What themes, ideals, motifs, have we neglected since the end of WWII? What should an aspiring writer, composer, director, artist seek to explore in their life and work?

[Guest]

An essential theme in a lot of great works that are able to champion a certain morality is, in fact, a focus on its darker side: Diabolism. 

Think Paradise Lost or any other story that details an arrogant and wicked hero who futilely combats insuperable higher powers. There is an essential beauty in the tragic element that has captured man since the time of the Greeks. And this cannot be done perfunctorily. You have to make the evil side look cool and heroic so that you can understand the true gravity of their actions. 

Now, although in an almost set to fail fashion I defined Diabolism in a both narrow and familiar sense this is not the true extent of diabolism. As I said earlier, diabolism has a knack for inculcating either certain spiritual teachings or moral view of the world. This is its great strength. It’s about rebellion and vitality. Yet rebellion is a profound concept. Rebellion against a cruel tyrant. Rebellion against any sort of morality while vehemently pursuing a transcendent or otherwise lofty goal. Foolish rebellion against fate and God. Rebellion is both secular and mythic. But the best part of diabolical rebellion is that it doesn’t play this gay inversion of morality where the good guys are actually evil and therefore the downtrodden marginalized side has the right to act bad because it’s good. This is what the left wants. If you want to champion your rebellious hero you don’t inverse morality, you make their object or goal nobler and worth transgressing order for.

A few final words to mitigate the unavoidable misunderstanding of what diabolism is: It’s not about gays or niggers.

[anthony]

Honestly I think we do pretty well on the whole. Where we hurt is what you can do at scale, but even then if you're savvy you can get pretty far. In terms of real spending and human effort mustered Starship Troopers is one of the biggest films ever made (Marvel costs more but it's not actually spent on making the movie).

What should we be making that we aren't? Hard to answer just because things are really going so well provided you're willing to take pulp seriously.



Redo of Healer got made. What are we lacking for?

Actually, anime has brought something to my mind. There's something they'll touch on pretty close, but generally kind of work around.



Japan will do fantasy racism plots, but generally take the line of understanding between meritorious equals. This dialogue is from Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. A funny game because it was their attempt at appealing to Americans. So the plot is about learning that racism isn't the answer and the protagonist is a moralising poorfag rather than a Lord. Of course in this game racism is actually not the answer because everyone is functionally white/Japanese. The beast-people (the source of the game's race problem, furries) are actually intelligent and decent and basically white people with tails combined with some light noble savagery.

Fire Emblem: Genealogy of the Holy War goes further with this stuff, with certain nations being perhaps dumber, cruder, more warlike (actually a few fire emblems do this to some extent), but the real bad guys are really interesting. Being that they're obviously inspired by Jews. But specifically it's their beliefs and culture which are the problem. That they are a people bound by an evil religion that means ill towards the world. This is not subtle, it is noted elsewhere.

I find that discussion funny. How these people don't really believe that anything could mean anything. It's not that it's bad. They're just so unaccustomed to the idea of anything mattering.

Now where I was going, you see. This is probably the one real theme that nobody is really dealing with even in fringes or extreme works or in meme ways. Is anybody going to make work which deals with existential dynamics between unevenly gifted human races? Is anybody allowed to explore and deal with that? Gundam (and Toward Terra and Slan) sidestep the issue by taking a pseudo-individualist or blind meritocratic approach. Anybody can be a NewType. But not everybody can be Japanese. The plight of the NewType is real, and a challenging subject. Exceptional individual elements within humanity. But what's far more challenging is exceptional elements in human races, collectively.

How much work is there on this? We have the 'Draka' novels perhaps for a start, but those are more like Heinleinian political philosophy. As much as 'Race' is a key theme, it's all kind of smoothed out by everything coming down to politics. Arguably that is an exploration of the issue, that a strong and determined race will escalate the entire human race into a condition of war and then find itself challenging equally determined rivals and either win or not. Sure. But there's so much more to do than that.

Is there an anime where the third world meaningfully exists and has to be dealt with in some way? I'll have to think about that, I really don't know. Do I want this to be a thing? Not particularly. But there's your theme we're not currently doing.

[JohnTrent]

What themes, ideals, motifs, have we neglected since the end of WWII? What should an aspiring writer, composer, director, artist seek to explore in their life and work?

I am not confident that there can be a list of ideas learned by rote for the betterment of art. Pretty sure others have spoken about "Warehoused films" before (here or elsewhere), which could be a good starting point for explaining why this approach can fail. Invariably, a film in this broad category is centered around frequent displays of violence and "anti-heroes", but as the term suggests, there is an element that's been ruthlessly culled well before its production. Someone attempting to imitate The Mechanic today either will use weird jewish faces and/or have to construct a script that sidesteps critical distaste for its existence; something like the The Mechanic isn't held in overt disregard, but if the creator isn't an intransigent type, they can be worn down with time through subtleties. It becomes Warehoused.

A litmus test: A young director decides to adapt The Fountainhead. Will he show the intimate union of Dominique Francon and Howard Roark, or will he omit it from the script entirely?

As with certain books released in recent memory, certain people trying to make Right Wing Art are apologetic and troubled with themselves. This is a bit of an odd example but those trying to write the Right Wing Novel are usually encumbered with the risk of making a neurotic work like Yu Dafu's Sinking [early 20th C. Chinese novella]. I'm inclined to believe self-punishment is the primary issue, since a self-published author is not subjected to the whims of anyone else, only himself. If the act of creative automatism is flawed enough to introduce self-denial, that is not the fault of automatism, only the initiator.

The main issue in the West is being conceptcucked, and most of the battle involves reversing this. There are two solutions: the first obvious one is greater attention drawn towards Japan, the second a change in Western affairs (ZOG's defeat). As you can see, one is easier in the immediate moment than the other.

---

I plucked the example of the Mechanic from thin air, but found something that proves what I mean. The film was remade and a sequel to it was released a few years after. The image below is extracted from the Wiki synopsis of that sequel.



It isn't enough that Charles Bronson killed other men in the original, we now must show Jason Statham taking out "the truly bad men".

[Edge]

Now where I was going, you see. This is probably the one real theme that nobody is really dealing with even in fringes or extreme works or in meme ways. Is anybody going to make work which deals with existential dynamics between unevenly gifted human races? Is anybody allowed to explore and deal with that? - But what's far more challenging is exceptional elements in human races, collectively.

The closest I've seen to this is Shin Sekai Yori, an anime I've been wanting to post about here but I never got around to it. I suppose this would be a good time for a quick run down at least.
The opening of the series shows us the rapid appearance of Cantus users (extremely powerful psychics) among the human population who proceed to subjugate and eventually wipe out normal humans. The story truly begins in a far future with the Cantus users living an agrarian lifestyle with the primitive "Queerats" (sentient mole rats) living in the wilderness and largely incapable of anything beyond manual labor. Here we see one Queerat attempt a peasant revolt against the Cantus users who live in a longhouse of their own making, told alongside a coming of age story focusing on several Cantus users.

I think there's a lot for this forum to discuss but I've seen little discussion of this series elsewhere. Mainstream viewers were largely filtered by the unusual artstyle and slow start and more seasoned ones seem to leave things at adding it to their 3x3. I can't even find much on the author of the source material in English. My reading of this series does come close to what you're describing but I've never encountered anyone else who viewed it this way. Even when /ourguys/ discuss it they mostly seem to focus on sympathizing with Squealer. I can't blame them too much for this but if you're on a site like this I think you're definitely a Cantus user.

[Unformed Golem]

I've seen Shinsekai Yori and would gladly discuss it.  (Squealer is sympathetic, but he isn't us.  Kiromaru was the most admirable Queerat.)

It's not completely untouched, but in terms of importancealience the answer in my mind is violence and warfare (= mass violence).  Way too many on the Actual Right buy into wholesome chungus quasi-pacifism from the various angles of Longhouse Christianity, Third Positionism, Boomer Libertarianism, and just plain demoralization.  "The optimal level of violence is not zero."  The bottom line is that the ideal virtuous man is not Pacified, and neither is a virtuous people.

[thankyoucomeagain]

I apologize for not sticking to the proper question of the thread, but I believe that the ability to create and push popular art is far downstream of having political and financial power. This wasn't entirely the case before, when novels and magazines were popular entertainment and the editors would be happy to public anyone who wrote well. This allowed people like Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard to be pushed to national, then international fame and influence their genres forever. Now however, such magazines mostly do not exist, the few that do are either for very niche audiences and the work published within is usually just forgotten. Web fiction is more successful but still serves a niche audience of young weirdos or other aspiring writers.

Modern day entertainment has been so thoroughly taken over that there are political filters on every level. Other than for manual labour roles on film sets, you will need to be an apex shitlib to get through these filters. The people imposing these filters are managers, editors, and other mid level roles who are assumed to simply be Doing Their Job instead of taking such poisonous action, and as such will never face consequences for letting in so many stupid, untalented people.

In my opinion, the best way to push ideas through popular art may not be actually creating art, if you are a creator you will have to become a self promoter on social media permanently, basically. The actual best way may be to push into mid level creative roles, like translators, localizers, editors, and maybe even mid level managing roles that let you filter people toward your ends.

[a system is failing]

The entry level most popular "serious" electronic musician is an anti-vaxxer. At some prior to this I also saw a news article about Laetitia Sadier issuing an apology for retweeting Jordan Peterson. Most "contemporary" artists and musicians and film makers were liberal mostly due to the odiousness of conservatism of the time. Some of these people have a history of flirting with nazi and fascist themes. It's possible to OVER-INTERPET the importance of an artists nominal politics on their work. But the main thrust to most of them is they bristle at the concept of etuiquette and self-censorship. This is by far the biggest obstacle the left presents for artists now, but of course, most of the legacy figures, like Aphex Twin, have had their fun and can drop out of the industry with contentment and so they aren't really seen fighting back against ZOG to any meaningful degree. That's not counting the MANY who are simply old and set in their ways even if they are on the side of the status quo now. 

But let's go even deeper. Afx is spergy music, spergy electronic music, and he's one these guys who seen as a mysterious, chaotic figure. Art is far too grand to be subducted beneath politics, and this is a good example. One upon a time, spergy weirdo electronic music with creepy music videos was considered "impolite" and "improper" and thus its existence in contrast with the "mainstream" of the 90s made it implicitly left wing. Even if this "mainstream" was more like the last holdouts of thatcher and reagan's legacy and not an actual status quo. 

Is that still the case nowadays? Timeless art is timeless because it endures and its status remains. People still like afx, maybe even now more than ever. But is being a very obviously male electronic music sperg, one with a clear sense of ego, one who will naturally be vaxx skeptic, one who makes fun of nigger rappers in his most famous music video IMPLICITLY LEFT WING today? In the context of the 90s it was...but is it still in the context of the 2020s? You can probably guess my answer, and this is what I'd raise at the question of unexplored themes. These themes do exist, and certainly exploring them is worthwhile, but just as likely, is that themes that were once implicitly left no longer are. I feel this is worth saying simply because so much of the shlocky RW twitter writing is bad because of the author trying to force a right wing theme to it. Sure, you can try to write about rightist ideals, but maybe it's worth considering also that there is a broad list of "timeless subjects" which were formerly unavailable to us that we can use now.

[FrenziedFish]

To say that the majority of art since the Second World War has been left-wing or at the least tainted by left-wing beliefs/ideals is incorrect, again, not to say anyone is explicitly saying this here but that is the generally advanced position even on more "proper" right-wing Xitter. I think ASIF is correct to say that many of the artists post WW2, through the various stages of the nominally left-wing counter-culture, fell into the lap of the political left via the perceived or real opposition to artistic expression on the "right" of the time.

The art of the period from 1965-1985 (generally) and more broadly from the end of WW2 to the turn of the century is ripe for examination with keen eyes, and this has been done (if in a limited fashion) by more mainstream adjacent Xosters, most notably with the consistently re-arising Starship Troopers discourse which has now solidified (more ossified) the left-wing position to that of a claim of "media-literacy" where power is used to define the "meaning" of "pieces of media" so to prevent any counter or parallel interpretation which keeps the history of art (primarily that of post-war art) in the domain of the political left furthermore.

This "media-literacy", of course, is simplistic and uninformed even on their own level as illustrated by Anthony with Starship Troopers. The anathema to this "media-literacy" is an informed and cultured set of critics who can write (or recover) a history of culture to counter the increasingly fragmentary and half-remembered left wing narrative.

[Guest]

Now where I was going, you see. This is probably the one real theme that nobody is really dealing with even in fringes or extreme works or in meme ways. Is anybody going to make work which deals with existential dynamics between unevenly gifted human races? Is anybody allowed to explore and deal with that? - But what's far more challenging is exceptional elements in human races, collectively.

The closest I've seen to this is Shin Sekai Yori, an anime I've been wanting to post about here but I never got around to it. I suppose this would be a good time for a quick run down at least.
The opening of the series shows us the rapid appearance of Cantus users (extremely powerful psychics) among the human population who proceed to subjugate and eventually wipe out normal humans. The story truly begins in a far future with the Cantus users living an agrarian lifestyle with the primitive "Queerats" (sentient mole rats) living in the wilderness and largely incapable of anything beyond manual labor. Here we see one Queerat attempt a peasant revolt against the Cantus users who live in a longhouse of their own making, told alongside a coming of age story focusing on several Cantus users.

I think there's a lot for this forum to discuss but I've seen little discussion of this series elsewhere. Mainstream viewers were largely filtered by the unusual artstyle and slow start and more seasoned ones seem to leave things at adding it to their 3x3. I can't even find much on the author of the source material in English. My reading of this series does come close to what you're describing but I've never encountered anyone else who viewed it this way. Even when /ourguys/ discuss it they mostly seem to focus on sympathizing with Squealer. I can't blame them too much for this but if you're on a site like this I think you're definitely a Cantus user.

X-Men and its consequences have been a disaster for fiction.

[anthony]

To say that the majority of art since the Second World War has been left-wing or at the least tainted by left-wing beliefs/ideals is incorrect, again, not to say anyone is explicitly saying this here but that is the generally advanced position even on more "proper" right-wing Xitter. I think ASIF is correct to say that many of the artists post WW2, through the various stages of the nominally left-wing counter-culture, fell into the lap of the political left via the perceived or real opposition to artistic expression on the "right" of the time.

The art of the period from 1965-1985 (generally) and more broadly from the end of WW2 to the turn of the century is ripe for examination with keen eyes, and this has been done (if in a limited fashion) by more mainstream adjacent Xosters, most notably with the consistently re-arising Starship Troopers discourse which has now solidified (more ossified) the left-wing position to that of a claim of "media-literacy" where power is used to define the "meaning" of "pieces of media" so to prevent any counter or parallel interpretation which keeps the history of art (primarily that of post-war art) in the domain of the political left furthermore.

This "media-literacy", of course, is simplistic and uninformed even on their own level as illustrated by Anthony with Starship Troopers. The anathema to this "media-literacy" is an informed and cultured set of critics who can write (or recover) a history of culture to counter the increasingly fragmentary and half-remembered left wing narrative.

I had an exchange with Mikka recently about Alan Moore along these lines. It's a point that's come out a few times when I see the subject. There is virtually nothing innately leftist in Alan Moore's work, but it's an assumption a lot of people hold to the point it's the cultural default read of the man. Mikka was making some comments on how it's kind of irrational to disagree with the bad government in V For Vendetta, but I replied that as presented the story doesn't paint V's resistance as rational either, or suggest that there is a good practical option not being taken by anybody.

The picture of human nature that emerges all through Moore's work is not very flattering. Moore is a misanthrope. A misanthrope who clearly sees himself as better than most people. One can offer suggestions as to where this type naturally belongs. Mikka I think called Moore a "closet fascist". A point which I don't really disagree with.

As I think I've already said in this thread, this post-war era we're talking about wasn't really even dominated by left-wing art despite the fact it was basically illegal to be a public facing right-winger. If anything the trends that prevail in all times are rightward ones. My conclusion in this Moore exchange was that if we cared to we could probably start claiming massive numbers of artists through honest appraisal of their work and character. If we cared to, that is.

Men who were the right wing type during this post-war era did not express or manifest themselves as we do today, but I believe that they are still the type. Moore had the mixed blessing of living in a type when right wing politics were impossible, but life was still bearable and offered consolations. If you thought everything was retarded and stupid and the world was oriented lowly and would pay for this, you could kind of wash your feelings in the ascendant leftist politics and sentiments of the time and get away with this elitism, pessimism, and misanthropy. Mention that corporations, among other things, are capable of behaving stupidly, and you're fine. Not just fine, celebrated. And you haven't really even sold out. These people are just stupid, and you're still saying what you really believe.

Of course they're more desperate and paranoid now. But I believe that this kind of character and behaviour was the engine of popular art during the period in question. Appraisal of this era, like everything else, I believe will vindicate us.

[Guest]

I just watched the first episode of An Archdemon's Dilemma: How to Love Your Elf Bride. Certified kino, I would like more media exploring the theme of purchasing an elf girl slave at auction to marry.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

The closest I've seen to this is Shin Sekai Yori, an anime I've been wanting to post about here but I never got around to it. I suppose this would be a good time for a quick run down at least.
The opening of the series shows us the rapid appearance of Cantus users (extremely powerful psychics) among the human population who proceed to subjugate and eventually wipe out normal humans. The story truly begins in a far future with the Cantus users living an agrarian lifestyle with the primitive "Queerats" (sentient mole rats) living in the wilderness and largely incapable of anything beyond manual labor. Here we see one Queerat attempt a peasant revolt against the Cantus users who live in a longhouse of their own making, told alongside a coming of age story focusing on several Cantus users.

I think there's a lot for this forum to discuss but I've seen little discussion of this series elsewhere. Mainstream viewers were largely filtered by the unusual artstyle and slow start and more seasoned ones seem to leave things at adding it to their 3x3. I can't even find much on the author of the source material in English. My reading of this series does come close to what you're describing but I've never encountered anyone else who viewed it this way. Even when /ourguys/ discuss it they mostly seem to focus on sympathizing with Squealer. I can't blame them too much for this but if you're on a site like this I think you're definitely a Cantus user.

I've seen Shinsekai Yori and would gladly discuss it.  (Squealer is sympathetic, but he isn't us.  Kiromaru was the most admirable Queerat.)

It's not completely untouched, but in terms of importancealience the answer in my mind is violence and warfare (= mass violence).  Way too many on the Actual Right buy into wholesome chungus quasi-pacifism from the various angles of Longhouse Christianity, Third Positionism, Boomer Libertarianism, and just plain demoralization.  "The optimal level of violence is not zero."  The bottom line is that the ideal virtuous man is not Pacified, and neither is a virtuous people.

I watched Shinsekai Yori because these posts made it sound interesting, I mostly enjoyed it and have some thoughts.

Show Content

Spoiler
When you're first introduced to Squealer he seems like a comic relief obsequious rodent, but it turns out he harbors a ruthless resentment. Meanwhile Kiromaru is proven to be honorable, despite the imposing impression he creates when you first meet him. It turns out that judging the creatures superficially on their appearances was the right decision, but the kids make the wrong judgement by assuming that there is counterintuitively a heart of gold within the battered Squealer, and that Kiromaru is a cruel warlord who takes pride in a false exterior of nobility. This seemed intentional, you're supposed to find Squealer's development as a character unexpected and concerning. It subverts the expectations of the audience who naturally expect the weak underdog to be morally righteous since it's so common in other media.

In general though, I think the author was just trying to tell a good story so I don't think it's useful to argue which side is more "based". Many of the story's themes are inherently political, and some effort is made to contrast the militaristic Queerat meritocracy with the communitarian human villages. Note however that the humans are not really all that soft-hearted when they discuss whether or not to exterminate entire Queerat tribes, or when they disappear their own problem children. I think these things say more about the supernatural premises of the story (which I found quite unique and interesting) than some attempt to preach morality.

Regarding the "longhoused" nature of the humans who restrict the Cantus of their children and genetically modified themselves to be unable to harm other humans, I don't think an analogy can be necessarily drawn to something like gun ownership: it's not as if our children are born with guns attached to their bodies. From the early historical flashbacks, random people developing Cantus destroyed society, and Fiends are mentally damaged by Cantus in some way that is more than just school shooters with magic. This element of the story seems unique to its setting, and the drawbacks of the Cantus restrictions are still explored in a realistic way. The story wants you to think critically about how the problems of Cantus should be solved and develop a nuanced perspective. Think back to episode 1, didn't it feel very cruel and wrong that a child's magic was being sealed away before she could understand what that really meant? At that point I expected the story to be about children regaining freedom stolen by corrupt leaders, but it took many turns that were much more interesting. You probably should arrive at the conclusion that sealing Cantus and death feedback are necessary evils, but that's not something that can be generalized at all beyond the context of the story.

All that said, I can see why some people might root for the Queerats since they overthrew their matriarchy and Squealer explicitly states he's creating a meritocratic society before engaging in military conquest, but personally I could only sympathize with the humans. I felt nothing watching hundreds of ugly numerous creatures get exploded by magic, but I was affected by every human death.

I liked that there wasn't much of a fuss made over discussions of a Queerat genocide. The sympathy offered by the humans was limited to the few Queerats that they directly encountered while they were on screen, which felt refreshing and appropriate. Empathy is not meant to be applied to groups or imaginary ideas of what certain people are like. It was also interesting how the humans couldn't understand why the Queerats were attacking them. It was cool how the Queerat wars near the beginning were portrayed as inconsequential to the humans while Squealer was desperate to save his tribe, this worked well to emphasize the differences between the two races. The ending can be interpreted as explicitly racial since the Queerats are actually genetically human but Satoru remarks that they aren't really human. There is no wholesome multicultural reconciliation at the end (a popular trope), because that would be completely unrealistic and undermine the gravity of what happened.

The story and world had a lot of depth that was probably disrupted by the process of adaptation. After finishing episode 8 of the anime (those who know know) I considered reading the manga instead because the anime didn't seem able to strike a consistent tone, but I discovered that the manga was very poorly received so stuck with the anime. People were saying that the original novel and the anime were of similar quality, but I suspect that the novel might solve all the problems of the anime making it a masterpiece, I'm not going to read a translated novel albeit. The anime was great at conveying feelings during certain moments like the hospital scene, but the timeskips and tonal shifts where characters feel like they disappear from the story were weird.

The animation style looked good, but sometimes the faces were drawn with lopsided eyes in a way that would look amateurish in a screenshot, which I think sums up how I feel about the anime as a whole. There were some basic things that were fundamentally off, but it succeeded in telling a very unique and impactful story regardless. Libtards aren't able to engage at all with these themes in a way that feels honest and realistic, so I do think this show belongs in this thread despite its moral grayness, and I do recommend it despite its flaws.

[Unformed Golem]

The details around Cantus and the adaptations to it are implausible maybe. But, it's entirely possible that some sort of freely available energy source or just loose nukes cause some of the problems in SSY (although not the part where children have access to them, or they could be used involuntarily) and similar responses -- smaller, dispersed communities with high tech but a bucolic appearance as obtaining energy requires little manpower. The comparative attitude of the egalitarian (but casually ruthless in fact) human society and the more fractious and violent Queerats is probably a good model though, as was the danger of human outcasts attempting to take shelter with the lower race.

People sympathize with the Queerats either because they more generally sympathize with The Lower, or because they're actually taken in by Squealer's talk about democracy and self-determination (which isn't a total lie).

The goofy moeshit artstyle is very much a product of being made in the early 2010s -- similar to SAO or K-On.

[Polytropos]

SSY is as obvious a depiction of the archetypal slave revolt that you'll find in media, I have no idea why someone would sympathize with Squealer. He's shown throughout the anime to be cunning, opportunistic, and cowardly, if the grandstanding about egalitarianism at the end (itself not something I'm sympathetic to anyway) were sincere it wouldn't be in line with his character. The premise of the story is a group of humans forcibly creating a mass slave caste for the sake of the preservation of civilization, perhaps the author himself intended it to be nuanced, but again I don't know how you could see the Cantus users as anything other than the "based" side. 

The organization of their society is interesting to me, touches upon certain historical problems of integrating the beast of prey into the state. The analogy isn't exact and I don't know if it was necessarily intended, but if you have a situation in which a roving band of mercenaries/barbaric foreign group impose themselves on a subordinate population (Aryans, Normans, Franks, probably most aristocracies throughout history), the qualities that made them conquerers don't lend themselves to maintaining an orderly and efficient society. So the eternal political problem is how to create institutions that provide an outlet for/mitigate these aggressive, barbaric drives and preventing the emergence of tyrannical, Alcibiades type figures who would subjugate the rest of the population given the chance. The essential problem is the same, controlling a very powerful group in which there's always the risk of an individual with a criminal psychology destroying the delicate social balance.