Well, let's see: the Vietnam War (Rebels were akin to Vietcong), Joseph Campbell's hero's journey for Luke, the corruption of the Bush Jr. years for the prequels Palpatine, and the Revolutionary war for the Brits being the bad guys.
You take great care not to mention the fall of the Roman Republic, and its replacement by the Empire. Even though that is literally
the example that the larger narrative is based on. I understand why you very much don't want to mention it, but it's a bit dishones, don't you think? Also, it's glaringly obvious.
As for the hero's journey. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Campbell was strongly inspired by the work of 20th century histoians who were of a macro-historical bent. That is: recognising universal patterns in civilisational history. He applied that same search for recurring patterns to mythology. Again: applying to fiction that which had already been applied to reality.
Funny story, Lucas knew that. He even references how patterns keep recurring in both history and in mythology, and even made it explicit that this was how he could, yes, reference both Bush and Caesar when it comes t Palpatine. Because he recognised a recurring motif/pattern that'all about the degradation of democracies and republics, as demogoguery and ruthless power politics increasingly become the norm. (In the case of Bush, as was also the case in ancient Rome, foreign military adventurism was a tool of the power-hungry.)
I think it's pretty funny that you cite George Lucas as a supposed argument against my analysis, when his stories are strongly rooted in historical assumptions very similar to my own. (And antithetical to yours, I daresay.)
No, it's rooted in both fact AND emotion.
Human's aren't Vulcan's
Again, human's aren't Vulcan's and operation on emotion more than logic, even if that is not something the Right likes to admit. 'Facts don't care about your feelings' may be a nice catchy line to draw more people to Ben Shapiro's show, but it's not borne out by reality.
Another funny case: you mntioned Rand as another example. Would that be the same Rand who was noted for stating that reality is not subject to your opinions, and that clear-minded reason is the correct way to approach the world?
That Rand?
I mean, if you're going to list some names to support your case, at least pick the names of people who actually agree with you.
You can learn lessons from both the past and visions of the future.
However only one of those sorts presents lessons informed by modern events, instead of assuming modern events must match and replicate a previous historical cycle/timeline.
"Visions" -- unless you are of course referring to religious revelation or enlightenment -- are by definition extrapolations informed by experience. The best experience, I would say, is
long experience.
You stress modern events. In other words: you have a horizon of experience that is very close-by. It's like being near-sighted and refusing to wear glasses. There's so much you don't see, with that approach.
I advocate taking the long view. Don't treat the last twenty minutes like they're somehow special. Look at all of history. Take in the big picture. You can't see the shape of the forest if you're standing on ground level, right in the middle of it.
Once you take the long view, the shape of things reveals itself. Recurring patterns become clear. Then, it becomes possible to say more sensible things about the future -- because you can learn from the past, and can grasp
why things keep happening in very similar ways, time after time.
(You also learn that people in all ages have believed themselves special; have thought that "this time, it'll all be different"; and that they were all wrong about that.)
how modern culture and society have changed the cultural and social paradigms.
Typically modernist ideas here. Pure presentism. Nothing of consequence has changed, and the limited parcel of history that you deign to consider important ("modernity") is barely more than a brief flicker of lightning. A turmoil, an uproar, flashy and shouty and... utterly meaningless.
You are chaining yourself to the suicidal premises a dying age. Worse, you'd have the rest of us make the same fatal error.
is another failing of the establishment and tradcon Right.
I just am trying to keep the Right from making the same mistakes it's continues to make
a glaring flaw in the thinking of parts of the Right.
It's funny how you are such an arbiter of what if good for "the right", but you keep on saying stuff that isn't in any way fitting with right-wing thought. Almost like you're a culturally left-wing modernist who got fed up with the SJWs and sort of gravitated to the right, but knows very little about it, and now tries to re-shape it into something more palatable to your sensibilities...
Using 'modernist' as an insult itself shows why part of the problem with the Right; it cares more about recreating the past than shaping the future.
The error in your thinking is clear. It's
not about recreating the past. It's about recognising what is timeless, and prioritising
that.
All the Right gets by clinging to comparisons to Rome is the approval of historians; Roman comparisons don't mean much to a lot of the youth who the Right need to bring on side, but comparisons to modern media they might like and watch can get through to them.
Deal with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.
You think I'm trying or some kind of electoral result by referencing history? Not at all. I'm just explaining why things happen as they do. But that doesn't change
that they happen, regardless of what I say. If I write ten books on this, or never speak of it again, it makes a difference only to the small minority of people who care about such matters. But regardless, the socio-eonomic pressures will keep building, and the outcomes will be the same.
History doesn't care about
my opinion, either.