Reviewing my 2016 Presidential Choice

Hello people. I want to write a review of the Marco Rubio presidential campaign, in order to let people know why I have made my choice as well as what makes me proud of my choice and what makes me embarrassed to.

Like in any review I do of a Mountain Dew flavor, a red meat, a white meat, a video game, a movie, a TV show episode, a metal-music song, etc; I will start this political campaign review with the negatives, then merging into positives, and I will issue a Final Verdict.

The Negatives

  1. Rubio claims that defining marriage should be left entirely to the States. I can respect the fact that he is trying to enforce the 10th Amendment, I can also respect the fact that the word “marriage” does not appear once in the Constitution. However, given that the recent marriage equality ruling is is a boost in personal freedom, given that the 4th Amendment does not allow government on any level to breach private contracts, and given that marriage is rightfully a private contract between consenting adults; I cannot at all get behind Rubio’s stance on marriage equality.
  2. Rubio is not in the middle on abortion, being fully Pro-life. Which is regrettable because I see nothing wrong with drawing the line at the Quickening stage, which there is a 5-month waiting increment for. This comes form me thinking the process should be legal in most cases, and so long as it is not partial-birth. However, I will not factor this in as purely negative…

The Positives

  1. Rubio aims to make this century a second American Century, “second” meaning the 20th Century (1901 – 1999) ended up being the first American Century as a result of Laissez-faire economics. The policies he offers, for the most part, will achieve this for us.
  2. Rubio knows all very well that it’s a bad idea to make policies about Tyrants like Obama made about declaring Cuba’s dictator legit. Rubio knows that Cuba, like other Tyrannies, also works against US interests like Free Trade 100% of the time.
  3. Rubio knows exactly as well as Libertarian Party alternative Gary Johnson that the biggest threat to our national security as our national debt. He therefore offers to Reduce government spending first and then reduce government regulation.
  4. He knows that a stronger, more capable military does not mean provoking more aggression, that a more dynamic US military instead means that far fewer tyrannical genocidal empire governments plan to assault us than with a less dynamic US military.
  5. This candidate desires to honor our commitment to preserving the sacred ideal of Liberty in Europe and beyond, even quoting a line from the World War II Memorial in Washington DC that is actually a fact.
  6. Rubio knows that Obama has not taken the threat of the Islamic-world Authoritarian Regimes anyhow seriously at all, and cites real life events as evidence: ISIS controlling half of Syria and a third of Iraq, Iran becoming fearless in their desire to colonize Israel and commit genocide on its ethnic Jewish majority, Syria’s established Tyrant gassing Syrians to death. Rubio therefore wants to get us doing foreign policy right again. He recognizes that to ignore human rights situations abroad is inexcusably criminal. I wish I could say the same about all of my fellow libertarians! Instead I can only say that about a minority of them…
  7. Iran is a vastly bigoted Authoritarian Regime that the doctrine of Sharia controls every aspect of life in. And our response to their evil is nothing short of weak, and this candidate knows what’s right is to strong against such cruel Regimes worldwide.
  8. Rubio has a willingness to stand strong against Sharia expansionism in general, which is made evident in him having two separate pages about Iran
  9. This person desires for our military to stand strong against ISIS, and while Rubio does mistakenly think we have any legit partners in the West-Asia-North-Africa [WANA] region aside from Israel, at least he is ready and willing to stand strong against ISIS.
  10. He also knows we need allies like Israel, especially in the WANA region; basically Laissez-faire Republics. In other words, Rubio knows our non-allied partners apart from the freedom-loving Israel.
  11. Rubio knows that free-market healthcare is vastly superior to government-subsidized healthcare, and offers to reform medical policy accordingly
  12. Rubio recognizes the absolute right to gun ownership as something government is required by Constitution to respect. I put this as a positive because even though I am not interested in guns myself, I have no problem requiring the government to let people choose whether to own guns or not.
  13. Not only does this candidate know that majors like business and Science are employing half as many people as they should be, but he wants us to know all of the facts and for Student Loans [known to college goers like myself as “financial aid”] to be entirely optional.
  14. Even though I am embarrassed by Rubio’s lack of support for the FairTax proposal, I am happy and grateful that he at least wants to simplify income taxes to just two simple brackets: 15% and 35%, and he wants We The People to decide whether to eliminate or reform deductions.
  15. Rubio is vastly against Internet regulation, and vastly supports Freedom on the Net. He has his hostility to FCC control of the internet to prove that he knows as well as I do that science NEEDS the light of Free Speech in order to make any progress. And given that Merchants are as much heroes of humanity as Scientists are, he has his pushes for internet to belong entirely to We The People and his emphasis on Merchant luck on the Net, those are what he can and should use as evidence of his support for Internet Freedom. And as a person looking to use the internet to sell most print copies of the Dark Fantasy comics I have going on; I see Rubio as an ally of Science’s go-to fuel: Free Expression
  16. As the offspring of two Veterans, and as I have inherited my looks from another veteran, I am disgusted to know the VA is mistreating out Veterans. I will not give personal info, but when I hear that Rubio has more desire than any other 2016 candidate and see evidence of it in his push for the VA Management Accountability Act, which basically gets abusive VA Managers fired, I easily see voting for him as me standing up for not just the Vets of my family but for all the Vets of the US.

Final Verdict

So… it is time for the Final Verdict. And this is all based on what I see, like, and dislike from Rubio’s campaign site. The Final Verdict for Rubio’s Presidential campaign and policy offers… is a 92. I say this person has most of politics done right, and is the most qualified of all the candidates. Yes, he is a Conservative and I am a Libertarian, that’s true but I don’t care about Social issues nearly as much as I care about our Economy and Foreign Policy being repaired, and Ending All Nanny Laws is my number-Two priority in between. And most are with me on my number-two priority! Most are with me on Economy being my absolute Number-1 priority to! And that same chart tells me the public’s number two priority is Defending Against Tyrannies, as is my number 3. And I haven’t seen Rubio’s actions or words on Ending the Nanny State, aside from in regard to media like the Internet, but he does offer the correct policies for Strengthening our Economy and re-legitimizing our Defense policy. Which is why I will vote for him in the Primaries, and hopefully also in the actual November 2016 elections. Thank you for reading and understanding this whole review,

~TLD

By the way, if you like my Reviewing style, know that I have been 21 long enough to declare Stouts the only booze I ever drink, and I am happy to review Stouts, even though I only have one of them per week. Thanks again!

Another Explain of my Libertarianism

I am doing this just as a friendly reminder to EVERYONE on the planet, no matter their political party affiliation.

Personal Freedom & Economic Freedom

I am a Libertarian, not a Conservative!

No matter how many e-mails the Republican National Committee may send me asking me favors while calling me a “Conservative”, I will have them know I am absolutely not a Conservative, even though I do support Fiscal Conservative economics.

Every online quiz I take in politics based on how I honestly feel about social and economic issues of the US… tells me I am a libertarian, as opposed to a conservative. Some examples:

  1. the World’s smallest political quiz ranks me at 90% and 90% for Personal Freedom and Economic Freedom, respectively. This puts me deep in their corner, but not insanely deep in their corner.
  2. the I-side-with Candidate finder ranks me as being 71% Libertarian Party material [though I wouldn’t vote for them]. But they incorrectly call me a Centrist but in reality I am a libertarian.
  3. the libertarian purity test gives me a similar score: 75 points of 160, calling me “medium core” and “self consciously so”.

Socially;

  1. I support any form of Free Speech as sciences like Zoology need free speech & I LOVE Zoology,
  2. I oppose Gun Control as tyrannical,
  3. I support legalizing Gay Marriage,
  4. I support legally holding Cannabis to the standards we currently hold Tobacco to,
  5. I am in the middle on Abortion as to me Quickening [which happens after 5 months] is the line between personal freedom and violent crime,
  6. I support pure Internet freedom as a key to growing scientific thought,
  7. I support letting people fly any flags they want, even if it’s, for example, a fictional nation’s flag [looking at the Confederate Flag issue as a waste of time and resources],
  8. and I support Net Neutrality, but I do not support giving FCC regulatory power to achieve Net Neutrality.

Fiscally;

  1. I support replacing current federal Taxes code with the FairTax [but with a 12% rate, not 23%],
  2. I oppose raising the Debt Ceiling & call for Cuts To Spending,
  3. I oppose Government Medicinal programs like Obama Care and Medicaid and call for health to be purely between doctor and patient,
  4. I oppose the Drug War and call for hard drugs to be dealt with through mandatory rehab in place of war,
  5. I oppose Common Core and other government repressions of education as garbage,
  6. I support replacing social welfare with NGO-owned charities,
  7. I support multilateral Free Trade agreements,
  8. I oppose Labor Unions while opposing Subsidies

Homeland Security & Foreign Policy

I am a Neoconservative, not a Paleoconservative.

Okay, obviously my support for personal freedom and my belief in Multilateral activity prevents me from being 100% Neo-con with regard to Security and Military stuffs. However, of the conservative archetypes, the closest ones to me are Fiscal conservatives and Neoconservatives, while the ones farthest from me are Social conservatives and Paleoconservatives. And ultimately I am not a conservative and also not a liberal.

Differences:

Paleoconservatives…

  1. Oppose a strong military that ends tyrannies globally
  2. Support stringent immigration laws
  3. Oppose making legal immigration easier
  4. Oppose multiculturalism
  5. Oppose foreign aid
  6. Oppose Free Trade [WHY!?]
  7. Oppose affirmative action
  8. Oppose the secular-state
  9. Oppose the spread of Capitalism
  10. Support letting foreign tyrants endlessly abuse their populations

Neoconservatives…

  1. Support a strong military that ends tyrannies globally
  2. Oppose stringent immigration laws
  3. Support making legal immigration easier [gee, just like most libertarians!]
  4. Support multiculturalism [The West is the only multicultural culture, right?]
  5. Support foreign aid
  6. Support Free Trade
  7. Support affirmative action
  8. Are split on the secular-state, some support it & some regrettably do not
  9. Support the spread of Capitalism
  10. Oppose letting foreign tyrants endlessly abuse their populations

As a libertarian, I myself…

  1. Support a strong military that ends tyrannies globally
  2. Oppose stringent immigration laws
  3. Support making legal immigration easier
  4. Support multiculturalism
  5. Oppose foreign aid [unless it is to true allies like Israel and other Capitalist Republics]
  6. Support Free Trade
  7. Oppose affirmative action [I see this as something that teaches women & such minority people as atheists and fellow deists to rely on minority status instead of on personal talents to get ahead]
  8. Vastly support the secular-state [not just because I am deist but far more because I have nothing against people expressing their religious or non-religious beliefs and I also have nothing against people explaining how religious or non-religious they are]
  9. Support the spread of Capitalism
  10. Oppose letting foreign tyrants endlessly abuse their citizens

Other ways I differ from “Neocon” Conservatives include my opposition to Nation-building and my support for letting newly liberated populations import ideas from our civilians so they can organically build a republic of their own. So basically “Paleocon” or just “Paleo” libertarians, as most libertarians are, are not real libertarians to me but rather liberty-leaning Centrists. The “Neocon” or simply “Neo” libertarians like myself can prove that our support for spreading Capitalism and our much fiercer opposition to Authoritarianism and belief that a libertarian principled republic is the best government for any nation of humanity and not just for America all make us the Legit libertarians

Why I keep using the word “republic”

I keep using that word “republic” in this essay – what kind of republic am I advocating here? The answer is simple: I am calling for, as all my fellow libertarians should be calling for, the best kind of government for any nation of humanity – a Republic, to be exact a Free-Market, Secular-state, Permissive-society Republic. Or, in short, a Classically Liberal Republic. But as an aspiring zoologist, I wish to use animals as metaphors of what kind of national security and military defense a classically liberal republic should have. The classically liberal republic should not be a Hedgehog republic as most libertarians regrettably call for. Instead, what we need is a Horned Owl republic. In ornithology [the science of birds], horned owls are known to be some of the physically largest as well as the most mentally vigilant kinds of owl alive today. This metaphor, though, highlights that the classically liberal republic should have a strong, robust, intelligent and capable military that is also highly intelligent and highly wise, as intelligent in this case means knowing which foreign governments deserve to live and which ones do not, while wise means knowing how to go about addressing what’s wrong with humanity. Also owls of any category are often associated with wisdom.

So, to define a Horned Owl republic as a dictionary would:

  • A horned owl republic is a permissive society that operates as a Republic upholding civil liberties and political freedom with universal suffrage, limited authority, and emphasis on economic freedom, and also has a foreign policy of spreading capitalism, defending fellow republics and getting rid of sectarian tyrants.

No other utopia will work for humanity. But for every nation on Earth to be its own Horned Owl Republic will work well permanently.

Closing thoughts

Well, I think I have explained why my libertarianism is true libertarianism. Thank you all for reading,

~TLD

Republitarian label vs Neolibertarian label

Remember in my reaction to yesterday’s ruling I said I would explain the ‘republitarian’ label meaning?

Well, here it is; my definition of republitarian:

The term republitarian, at least to me, puts the word ‘republic‘ for ‘a government where elected individuals represent the population’ and the suffix ‘-arian‘ for ‘advocate’ together. This means a republitarian, disregarding party affiliations, is a person who advocates a government where elected individuals represent the population. This basically makes Classical Liberalism, the liberalism I identify with, a republitarian ideology.

At least to me, a republitarian is someone who constantly pushes for Civil Liberties and Political Freedom with republicanism [not as in the GOP, but as in government by a republic] under Rule of Law and for economic Laissez-faire. Now this may sound like libertarianism, but where republitarianism differs is that it solidifies its support for Republics, and cannot be hijacked by Anarchists as libertarianism was.

In foreign policy, the republitarian seeks to implement an active global policy to spread civil liberties and political freedom, to spread laissez-faire economics, and to defend foreign republics like Israel. Now, this part may sound similar to neoconservatism, but republitarianism differs drastically by calling for Laissez-faire Regime Change. This is the process of letting the Free Market take over for our troops after they defeat an Authoritarian Regime. This process allows a newly liberated population to organically arrange a type of Republic [be it Geniocratic {candidates needing to be highly intelligent and factual to run for office}, Meritocratic {candidates needing to have a particular talent in at least one related area}, Timocratic {candidates needing to have done honorably by their communities to qualify, the kind of republic America started off as}, Constitutional, Democratic, Parliamentary, or Federal] and therefore allows them to work with the ideas they’ll be importing through unlimited, Multilateral free trade and to recognize which ideas work for their chosen kind of Republic, and which ideas do not. And this is all as opposed to the thuggish Nation-Building of Neocon-approved Democratic Regime Change.

Yes, I am defining “republitarian” to mean “a libertarian who supports making every government on Earth including one’s own a Republic”. Many people out there already do. Oh, and to answer potential questions of party affiliation, I am basically libertarian partisan with a lower-case L on economic, domestic policy, environmental, healthcare, education, and social issues; but I am also republican partisan with a lower-case R on foreign policy and immigration issues. And the immigration part is to say I simultaneously support policies that make freedom-seeking immigration a breeze and policies that make tyrannical immigration impossible.

So, in conclusion, republitarian is a superior label to Neolibertarian because it has fewer syllables, making it a smaller word, and also because it implicitly implies support for republics with limited authority, both overseas and domestically. Thank you all for understanding my use of “republitarian” in a Nonpartisan context,

~TLD

The June 26th 2015 Marriage Equality Ruling

So, I hear today [or was it yesterday?] that the Supreme Court ruled that all states must legally recognize Same-sex Marriage, claiming that it’s in the U.S. Constitution. I have a slew of things to say about this subject.

First thing to say, as a republitarian [“republic advocate”, I will explain how this is a better term for Libertarian Hawk than ‘neolibertarian’ in a different post] I believe in defining marriage as between CONSENTING Adults, and I therefore applaud that LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender] couples can finally marry legally in any state.

Second thing to say, I actually examined the Constitution many times, and found that the word “marriage” does not appear once. However, Amendments Four, Nine, and Fourteen contain provisions that make it Unconstitutional for government to make marriage laws, make it possible to define Marriage Equality as a Civil Liberty, and make it illegal for government to discriminate against either LGBT folk or straight folks like me; respectively. The Ninth Amendment has a lot of defining to have done for it, but we’ll get to that when we get to that.

Third thing to say, as a deist, I want to bring up two things the Bible and the Koran have in common: lack of statement on Marriage Equality, and Prescription of Death Penalty for one having what we may know today as the LGBT gene. But in Political Practice, this is where we observe modern Christianity as vastly morally superior to modern Islam: the vast majority of Christian politicians all over today’s world believe in some form of Gays being legally recognized as human beings, including or excluding marriage equality depending on the nation or province, as you will see on the map below:

Gay Legality By Nation

Darkest Blue means Marriage Equality is included in a fully Pro-Gay-equality edict. Lighter blues mean different levels of being generally humane toward LGBT folk. Israel, for example, recognizes LGBT marriages but does not perform them. As for Islam, most Muslim politicians prove themselves through policymaking to prescribe Imprisonment, Life in Prison, and in seven different nations’ cases Death Penalty for being of LGBT orientation.

Fourth thing to say, I honestly do not think government needs to be involved in marriage. No, I seriously don’t, rather I call for marriage to instead be a privately owned contract between consenting adults, and it should also be entirely up to the marrying couple whether to make their own marriage a secular decision or a religious one. If I was marrying a woman I loved enough to wish to marry, for example, odds are her and I would both want it to be a secular decision, and both her and I would want to own our marriage privately, as opposed to the government owning our marriage even though it’s not their ceremony.

Final thing to say about this ruling before I move on to posting about other things, I see this ruling as evidence that the NGO [Non-Government Organization] we know as “Log Cabin Republicans” knows exactly what they are speaking of when they say “inclusion wins”. I read up their response to this ruling and here you can read it to.

Well, that about concludes my thoughts on this ruling, so let me recap with super-short versions of what I think:

  1. I am happy and grateful gays can marry legally anywhere in America as of today.
  2. The Constitution doesn’t use the word marriage once but marriage equality can be defended by the 14th Amendment and/or included in the 9th.
  3. That politicians of Earth, most of whom are personally Christian, got Marriage Equality legal all over America; is one example of many how generally civilized modern Christianity is.
  4. Take the government out of marriage and make it a privately owned decision between the marrying couple instead.
  5. Log Cabin Republicans’ educating the GOP about how “inclusion wins” finally paid off

Now, I shall move on to other topics in other posts. Thank you all for hearing my thoughts,

~TLD

Sausage Marshmallows Review

I once said to a friend on Facebook there should be Mutton marshmallows. Well, that was before I had grilled and tried Sausage Grillers, or as I see them Sausage Marshmallows.

This… is my review of this food item

The Negatives

  1. Takes relatively long to cook right

The Positives

  1. Excellent pork flavor
  2. Available as Sweet or Spicy
  3. Three marshmallows in one serving
  4. Very low in pricing
  5. Phenomenal Summer food
  6. Tastes wonderful with Mtn Dew Baja Blast [which I will review later]

Final Verdict

LDS [Legendarily Deistic Score] earned by Sausage marshmallows is an 86! A very great food!

Thank you readers for looking at this review, and I look forward to doing more reviews,

~TLD

Meaning in LotR of Men of the East

This Middle-earth lore post will be about how the term “MotE” which stands for:

Men of the East

is the geographically correct term for the Haradrim and the Easterlings [yes, and Variags of Khand to] together.

First, we examine the world map of Arda from the Second Age [Third Age it’s like this but with no Numenor and with unnamed continents in place of Valinor]:

Second Age Middle earth map we will be using for this examination.

Before I dig into this, I will be honest: I find it strange that letters of the alphabet were used for Latitudes.

Now that I got that out of my system in a zone where many can see that thought, let us analyze why the term “Men of the East” makes near-perfect geographic sense. And I advise that maybe you might need a ruler:

The lands of Khand, based on what I can gather, extend from Latitudes R to U, and from Longitudes 41 to 47. And perhaps the river between Rhûn and Harad is a border of Khand, along with the eastern Shadow Mountains [Mordor’s western and southern mountain range]

Much of Harad is desert that can not have civilization set up on it. However, like any humans, Haradrim can set up civilization on Rivers and Beaches, most of the rivers and beaches the Haradrim can have all to themselves [as opposed to sharing with the Corsairs like in Umbar] are on Longitude 39 or further east. Longitude 39 is east of the Kingdom of Dale, whose west-east borders go from Longitudes 37 to 38. Latitudes S and U mark Haradrim borders with Mordor and Khand, respectively; and Harad does have land west of Longitude 39 but most independent Haradrim lands be east of said longitude.

Now, the lands of Rhûn for the Easterlings extend from Longitudes 40 to 54, and from Latitudes K south to X. This is geopolitically excluding the lands I mentioned earlier as belonging to Harad and Khand, and also in that sense excluding eastern Mordor. And yes, this does also exclude Iron Hills and the River Carnen, that’s the river going from the Iron Hills to the Easterlings’ lands in case you’re wondering. At one time in the Third Age this also included Rhovanion, the Wilderland, but during the events of the four novels Hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers and Return of the King; Wilderland was & is not owned by anyone.

Then we have the knowledge of Gondor and Rohan both being Men of the West, even though Rohan is made up of a human people called Northmen. So the conclusion: it’s only geographically correct to call the Haradrim, Easterlings and Variags all Men of the East. Corsairs of Umbar? Hm… you could include them as technically they are part of Haradrim population.

That’s all I got today. Thank you,

~TLD

Deism vs Pantheism

Hello people of the Net

I have decided to break from politics for long enough to address a lot of religion topics, starting in this essay with the difference between Deism and a similar but NOT synonymous Secular Ideology called Pantheism.

So for the remainder of June, my argue-ideology essays will focus on Organized Religions and Secular Ideologies. I will re-include politics on first Monday of July [7/6/2015 AD]

What is the difference, you may ask at your leisure?

Well… it is actually infinitely simpler than you may think:

Pantheism says that maybe God might be an impersonal force in the universe. It’s basically to Deism as Agnosticism is to Atheism, being similar but NOT synonymous due to lack of absolutes.

Whereas Deism guarantees that God is obviously an impersonal force in the universe.

Deism on Wikipedia

vs

Pantheism on Wikipedia

Although these two are mainly secular ideologies, there do exist Deistic religions [‘Disorganized’ religions] and there also do exist Pantheistic religions [many traditional East Asian religions are pantheistic religions]

In discussing the innocence of concepts, in this case of God, we can say that Deistic and Pantheistic concepts of God are law-abiding concepts with at least some form of empathy. No one in human history Died at the hands of one forcing a Deistic concept, or Pantheistic concept, of God onto another. In fact, let’s make a list of human life tolls from human history, based on human history massacre statistics, sorted by the concept of God motivating the toll:

  • Deistic secularism & Deistic religions: 0
  • Pantheistic secularism & pantheistic religions: 0
  • Bible’s Theistic concept of God: 23 million from 476 AD to 1945 AD
  • Koran’s Theistic concept of God: 270 million from 632 AD to 1999 AD, and still growing
  • All third Theistic concepts of God combined: 83 million, tolls and time zones vary by concept

Now, keep in mind, I have nothing against people who adhere to Theistic Concepts of God, its the histories of the concepts and the alleged “morals” they promote that bother me. I think I will get my morals from empathy, please and thank you.

Now, back to the differences!

Deism is often summed up with “God made the universe, lets it run according to laws of nature, and just sits back with a box of popcorn and watches the show”. Well, I shouldn’t say often, as I got this line from a novel I highly recommend called “Philosophy on the Go”.

This book sums up Pantheism with “Everything in the universe is a part of God, including the punctuation mark at the end of this sentence.”

Which highlights a far better-known and astronomical difference:

  • Deism plays God for a person that refuses to ever intervene in the events of the cosmos, he’s outside of it entirely, willfully stays out of it entirely.
  • Pantheism on the other hand plays him for being the entire cosmos itself.

According to Pantheism’s logic, the entire internet including this online thought journal that happens to be my official site, is composed of parts of God; where Deism’s logic just means God is sitting somewhere eating a ribeye steak while watching me contrast Pantheism and Deism in this page.

Well, I think I have done a good bit of contrasting today. I look forward to discussing something meat-related or Mountain Dew flavors-related in my next page. Thank you all,

~TLD

Life Events

Now that I have my diploma from two years ago [long story], I have good news and bad news:

  • The bad news is I did not get the hours of work I signed up for over a month ago
  • The good news is that on the other hand I will make a Good out of it: specifically, I will use my Mondays and Tuesdays for my Fantasy fiction comics, my Citadel Miniatures, my YouTube commentary show, and/or my learning of how to speak Azûlaic [officially called Adûnaic] from LOTR.

Coming this Autumn will be my entry into a college of my choosing, just a community college for now.

It is likely I should choose a day of my apparently four-day weekends for the above purposes. So here it is:

  • Saturdays = YouTube channel
  • Sundays = Dark Fantasy comics
  • Mondays = Learning to speak Azûlaic
  • Tuesdays = Games Workshop [Citadel Minis]

So that is all I have right now. Thank you lads,

~TLD

Rise of Men of Darkness

Hello people. Yes, this is a post about Middle earth lore. This time I concern myself with the History, specifically what motivated the Haradrim, the Easterlings & the Variags to go from Chaotic Neutral to Neutral Evil

Chapter 1 – Relations with Numenor

In the Novels; The Men of Harad, Men of Rhûn, and Men of Khand [Men of The East] began their relations with the Men of Numenor with peace, free trade, and Non-alliance friendship, or should I say Friendly Neutrality? Anyway, Numenor and The East not only respected each other’s sovereignty, they actually had cultural exchanges and were teachers to each other of ideas – while Numenor taught The East how to work metals, how to mint currency, and all around how to make civilization; The East taught Numenor how to be good horse owners, how to harvest exotic spices from herbs and vegetables, and how to make dyes out of plant specimens, among other things initially only The East understood.

Chapter 2 – Loss of National Sovereignties

Sadly, this is where everything between the Western and Eastern hemispheres of the “World of Men” began to go to tainted nature: After the end of the reign of Tar-Ciryatan, Men of Numenor didn’t want to treat Men of The East as partners in economic policy shaping for Middle-earth, and wanted to treat them as lesser beings to be entitled to the properties of instead. So thus they went into oppressing The East and demanding free thing, and stripped them of their sovereignties and disbanding their three militaries. Eventually, Ar-Pharazon, a Numenor King brought up on hatred of Men of The East, waged war on Harad, Khand and Rhûn, enslaving the humans of these lands and using them as human sacrifices.

Chapter 3 – Campaign to Seize Back Sovereignties

This all lead to the people of the three nations of The East seeking a messiah who could restore their national sovereignties. But of course, they found their messiah to be someone who just happened to be Sauron, the Dark Lord, who had just gotten back from escaping the sinking of Numenor, therefore it likely only took mere minutes for Sauron and Men of The East to come to an eternal agreement they could both be 10000% comfortable with. Feeling absolute embarrassment over his failed attempt at making Numenor his property, Sauron sought revenge on Men of Numenor through Men of The East, and Men of The East’s rational fear of Men of Numenor became a genocidal and bloodthirsty obsession for poisoning, burning, melting, starving and slaughtering every human of Numenorean descent. The Dark Lord was the way for The Eastern Kingdoms to take back their National Sovereignties after everything they’d suffered. The Middle-earth lore novels have meaning behind “Men of Darkness”. There is a meaning behind the bond that The Eastern Realms [Haradrim, Easterlings, Variags] shared with The Lord of the Rings [Sauron]. He had made not one but three nations that had become powerless and subject to abysmal living conditions into three immensely strong military empires run by lineages of absolute overlords. And the reason Sauron never had negative thoughts on the Men of The East is because he needed them in order to be the numerically superior side of his wars with the Free Peoples of Middle earth. Sauron needed to hold on to his alliances with Harad, Rhûn and Khand in order to have a giant numeric advantage on the Free Peoples, and these three nations needed this Dark Lord in order to super-power and maintain national sovereignties. The two sides of this alliance became the equal of steroids to one-another – the Mordor & MotE [Harad, Rhûn, Khand] alliance is an addiction for both sides of the alliance, it is a drug for Mordor and for MotE as well. Which is why in the Fourth Age, The East had plenty of trouble making peace with The West and avoiding claiming revenge for the death of Sauron. It’s also why J.R.R. Tolkien’s final novel plans were all about sequel or two sequels to LOTR with a mass unifier of MotE as the main villain, titled “The New Shadow“.

Conclusion

So overall, Men of Darkness, or Men of the East or “MotE” are not spiteful villains, but vengeful ones. There is a vast difference, even duly noted on Wiktionary:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vengeful

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spiteful

New word I learned from this investigation – “Revanchist” – sums up the brand of Neutrally Evil Villain the MotE are:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/revanchist

Overall, the MotE are Revanchists, rather than Barbarians or Brigands. Thus concludes this post. Thank you all,

~TLD