Ask a Reactionary

[Gary Childress]

The centrality of family life.

What does "centrality of family life" mean? I mean, I have met many people who have very tight knit families and even larger groups and communities that are relatively tight knit. Even if siblings live thousands of miles from each other, they still communicate and interact and care for one another. But I live in the US, is that something that is disappearing in Europe?

 

[Tahuti]

What does "centrality of family life" mean? I mean, I have met many people who have very tight knit families and even larger groups and communities that are relatively tight knit. Even if siblings live thousands of miles from each other, they still communicate and interact and care for one another. But I live in the US, is that something that is disappearing in Europe?

It is dissappearing in the US as well. It is dissappearing in the West in general. Though perhaps you are right that Europe for some reason is heading the charge.

Most prominently, take kindergartens. In Europe, such get statefunding, which discourages mothers from staying at home to look after the kids. Reactionaries find this a bad thing, since they will have comparitively sparse contact with their own kin, and comparitively lots of contact with non-kin, resulting in weak family units. Furthermore, one can get divorces for the slightest of reasons encouraging families to dissolve instead of overcoming personal challenges that are inherent to marriage, or conversely, the entering of marriages with frivolous goals, simply because it is possible.

 

[Borachio]

You know, I very nearly agree with you on marriage and families!

It does seem strange that people used to be able to afford to bring up a family on one income. Back in the 1950s. But nowadays it seems no one is able to.

I think this one breadwinner is largely a myth though. It was true at one time, for a certain sector of the population (and still is, if your income is very large and/or your aspirations low), but for poor people it's probably never been true. And probably never will be.

Oh, and what a lot of misery there must have been in marriages that neither partner could afford to leave!

 

[Jehoshua]

It does seem strange that people used to be able to afford to bring up a family on one income. Back in the 1950s. But nowadays it seems no one is able to.

Its not strange at all really, female participation in the workforce increased from around 30% in the 40's 50's to around 60% in the present in western countries give or take depending on which country specifically one refers too, which resulted naturally in a great increase in the size of the labour pool. This had the consequence of lowering the value of the individual worker and thus following the laws of supply and demand (supply of labour as compared to demand for workers) we have seen that ever since the seventies real wages have stagnated (and declined proportionate to inflation and other factors) while incidentally productivity has for the most part increased. This of course means that it is now next to impossible for a working class family (or even a middle class one) to manage on a single income as was formerly the case.

Now of course no one proposes that women all be forced out of work (I certainly don't, such a proscription would be highly problematic in the modern economic paradigm, even more so in places likely to in a fairly short time frame face issues related to aging demographics) and indeed it has never been the case that women were excluded from the workforce in the west. But devaluation of the role of mother and the consequent tendency for women to favour career over family (or try the very difficult and balance both, placing part of the burden of parenthood onto childcare) with the concordant increase in the labour pool available to employers is an important factor to consider in understanding the current dynamic as it pertains to wages in my opinion.

 

[Phrossack]

It is dissappearing in the US as well. It is dissappearing in the West in general. Though perhaps you are right that Europe for some reason is heading the charge.

Most prominently, take kindergartens. In Europe, such get statefunding, which discourages mothers from staying at home to look after the kids. Reactionaries find this a bad thing, since they will have comparitively sparse contact with their own kin, and comparitively lots of contact with non-kin, resulting in weak family units. Furthermore, one can get divorces for the slightest of reasons encouraging families to dissolve instead of overcoming personal challenges that are inherent to marriage, or conversely, the entering of marriages with frivolous goals, simply because it is possible.

What does monarchy have to do with this, though?

You make plenty of valid criticisms of democracy and modern society, but you've yet to explain how installing some hereditary, better-blooded overlord will fix it.

If anything, the past five thousand years of monarchy have been pretty dismal.

 

[Nuka-sama]

Question, would you still support an aristocratic elected monarchy if you were a peasant?

 

[useless]

I just don't understand how someone can take full advantage of the society they live in, education etc and then advocate it's destruction by returning to a clearly unfair system that was ousted and removed after centuries of clear mismanagement and failure.

 

[Plotinus]

It is dissappearing in the US as well. It is dissappearing in the West in general. Though perhaps you are right that Europe for some reason is heading the charge.

Most prominently, take kindergartens. In Europe, such get statefunding, which discourages mothers from staying at home to look after the kids. Reactionaries find this a bad thing, since they will have comparitively sparse contact with their own kin, and comparitively lots of contact with non-kin, resulting in weak family units. Furthermore, one can get divorces for the slightest of reasons encouraging families to dissolve instead of overcoming personal challenges that are inherent to marriage, or conversely, the entering of marriages with frivolous goals, simply because it is possible.

Several points to make here.

First, divorce is a good thing for families, not a bad one. There is no benefit to either society in general or the people directly involved if partners whose marriages have broken down are forced to stay married. That makes for misery for them and for their children, if any. It is far better for the children if they get divorced and the children are brought up in a more strife-free environment.

Second, this idolisation of the family may sound nice and fluffy in theory, but in practice it tends to lead to misery as well. This is for the same reason that the elevation of any group over the individual leads to misery: it can't cope with those who don't fit in. A society where family is everything has no place for the person who doesn't have a family or who doesn't get on with their family, just as (say) a school where loyalty to the school and victory on the football pitch are paramount has no place for the pupil who rejects those values. The result is a bullying culture where those who don't conform are excluded. You want to return to a world where men work and women stay at home to look after the children (although Jehoshua generously grants that he don't want to force this situation - it's still what you both aspire to), and where people don't get divorced. What would happen to those few people who do get divorced, or women who work, or who bring up their children alone? We know exactly what would happen to them, because it's what happened to them before the 1970s: they would be ostracised, bullied, and demonised. Now you may protest that in your fantasy world of old-school values this wouldn't happen because everyone would be compassionate and nice, but in the real world, it would, because that's exactly what did happen.

This is the same issue I've raised before: when social systems and mores of the kind you advocate actually existed, things were pretty miserable. I've already asked whether you really think society was better, and people were happier, in eighteenth-century Europe than today, and I don't think you've answered. The reason is obvious: of course they weren't happier and things weren't better, and above all, the poor and the marginalised were far worse off than they are today. The same goes for the stultifyingly oppressive culture of 1950s-style conformity that you're talking about now.

Another issue with the idolisation of family that you talk about is that it encourages bullying and disharmony within families themselves. When family is paramount, people who are seen to go against the family's interests are oppressed and bullied. I have friends from Chinese culture who despise their families and loathe everything about that culture precisely because it has the same attitude to family as you do, and because that attitude resulted in their parents becoming abusive. It is a sad fact that many men - and it is usually men - are abusive, either physically or psychologically, and that they exercise this abuse against those closest to them. When you make family everything, you make it far, far easier for men like that to carry out their abuse, because you make it far, far harder for women to escape. You also discourage victims of domestic abuse from speaking out about it, because other family members will regard it as shameful for the family. It's a universal fact that every time a social group is regarded as more important than the individuals within it, abuse is encouraged and the reporting of abuse is discouraged - whether that group be the family, a religious group, a school, a military unit, or whatever. Just think of the "honour killings" that we're seeing in some cultures, where fathers murder their own daughters because they think they've brought shame on the family. And in a society where you actively set out to rob women of political and social power by denying them the vote and encouraging them to give up work and devote themselves to raising children, you simply exacerbate that problem still further, because why should an elite and exclusively male aristocracy care in the slightest about such things? They never did in the past, did they?

This is the reality of the world you would bring about - and we know this, once again, because that world has actually existed in the past and still does exist in many cultures around the world that use the ideal of family to brutalise people. The world you seek to create is a world run by abusers for the benefit of abusers. Its disadvantages are far greater than the ephemeral and dubious advantages you cite for it:

When you know that your siblings, children or other relatives will be entrusted with your responsibilities, you will be more easily prepared to engage in projects that may not be finished in your lifetime but will grant you a sense of purpose. Therefore, family life is key in attaining purpose.

I find this barely comprehensible. As far as I can make out, you're saying that I will be more prone to contribute to "projects" (whatever they may be) if I think that my relatives will benefit from them after my death than if I don't think that. But this rests on the assumption that I care more about benefits to my relatives than I do to other people in the first place. Why should I? Is there any actual evidence that people behave in this way? Do you have any evidence, for example, that people without children behave in a more "discivic" fashion than those with children? Or that those with children or closer families have more "purpose" in their lives than those without? Or is all of this just based on guesswork rather than on objective evidence?

 

[Old Hippy]

I don't prefer any culture for it. I consider this to be universal to mankind and cultures that cease practising it to be diseased. Ultimately, nations that succumb to this hyperindividualism are not able to cure it will - by virtue of evolution - cease to exist.

you seem to be implying that there is a place/society that does not have families
and even if there was, that they do not have children...
are you not just tilting at windmills, contrasting your 'ideal' with an imaginary foe?

 

[Jehoshua]

This is for the same reason that the elevation of any group over the individual leads to misery: it can't cope with those who don't fit in.

The core of your point seems to be that in any collective in which there is a corporate identity, an individual who breaks the norms of that group or generally acts outside of it will be ostracised or marginalised, with you applying this to societies that prioritise the family as an essential social unit (amongst others). I would just like to note however that while you apply this maxim to the family unit within the bonds of Kaiserguards proscription, it universally applies to all collective human endeavours whether or not the group formally elevates itself over the individual or not. Those who act beyond the confines of the current political/moral orthodoxy or accepted norms for example face the same treatment of ostracism, bullying and demonization you attest occurred to those who got divorced (and it is true divorce was frowned upon) and attribute to collectivised group identities. You cannot pretend the current order is somehow immune to the consequences you assert where intrinsic to the old (in terms specifically of the family) one. Its merely that you don't morally object to positions and actions now objectionable and see no problem with social sanctions on them, be it in terms of public outrage or the usual spiel of "offence" in the old two minutes hate session rather than some platonic moral objection to marginalisation and ostracism out in the aether per se.

This kind of auto-censorship needless to say is how any given society naturally as a consequence of how human beings work protect their normative values and core assumptions, be it a liberal one as we have now or a more traditional or conservative one. The question then is not whether some group or another will be ostracised or whatnot for acting beyond social norms (since such out-grouping is inevitable no matter how much one strives otherwise, even in our society which glories in the cult of the individual) but what norms and standards are best both in terms of the common good, and in reference to the higher moral order within the boundaries of what it is possible for humans to achieve in terms of the good in that sphere in light of the imperfections inherent to human nature.

-

I would also note that I don't "aspire" to a society in which all women stay at home. I don't think that is an ideal "type". My position on the matter is that it is in most cases better when circumstances allow if a mother is at home (this would include such things as working at home, such as in a family shop or on a farm) when she has dependant children so she is able to fully devote herself to raising said children, instead of passing on the task to childcare or trying the impossible task of balancing work and home lives. For the most part I think it is better for women who have no dependants to participate in the workforce if they are of working age.

 

[Plotinus]

The core of your point seems to be that in any collective in which there is a corporate identity, an individual who breaks the norms of that group or generally acts outside of it will be ostracised or marginalised, with you applying this to societies that prioritise the family as an essential social unit (amongst others). I would just like to note however that while you apply this maxim to the family unit within the bonds of Kaiserguards proscription, it universally applies to all collective human endeavours whether or not the group formally elevates itself over the individual or not. Those who act beyond the confines of the current political/moral orthodoxy or accepted norms for example face the same treatment of ostracism, bullying and demonization you attest occurred to those who got divorced (and it is true divorce was frowned upon) and attribute to collectivised group identities. You cannot pretend the current order is somehow immune to the consequences you assert where intrinsic to the old (in terms specifically of the family) one. Its merely that you don't morally object to positions and actions now objectionable and see no problem with social sanctions on them, be it in terms of public outrage or the usual spiel of "offence" in the old two minutes hate session.

This kind of auto-censorship needless to say is how any given society naturally as a consequence of how human beings work protect their normative values and core assumptions, be it a liberal one as we have now or a more traditional or conservative one. The question then is not whether some group or another will be ostracised or whatnot for acting beyond social norms (since such out-grouping is inevitable no matter how much one strives otherwise, even in our society which glories in the cult of the individual) but what norms and standards are best both in terms of the common good, and in reference to the higher moral order within the boundaries of what it is possible for humans to achieve in terms of the good in that sphere in light of the imperfections inherent to human nature.

This misses the point. There are really two reasons why people get ostracised for not fitting in. The first is that they may deviate from the opinions and values that society holds to be important. The second is that they may not fit in to the structure of society.

Now you say that the first factor operates in all societies. That's certainly true. But there is a point to make about it. This is that it operates to varying degrees. In modern liberal democracies, it certainly operates, but to a relatively lesser degree. In societies where tolerance and respect are held to be important, a wider range of values, opinions, and lifestyles are possible than in monocultures where tolerance and respect for those who are different are not held to be important. And yes, of course, that comes at the price of intolerance towards the intolerant and disrespectful, but my point is that the overall level of tolerance is higher than in cultures that don't value these things.

More importantly, you address only the first factor and not the second, which is concerned with the structure of society. In the 1950s world, a woman may be ostracised irrespective of her beliefs and actions simply because she is a single mother. She doesn't fit in to what society considers is the only acceptable social structure. In a modern liberal democracy, there is much greater flexibility in social structure, and a person is not ostracised for being different in such a way. Of course there are limits to what's tolerated, but these limits are much wider. As a result, society is more inclusive and more caring.

I would also note that I don't "aspire" to a society in which all women stay at home. I don't think that is an ideal "type". My position on the matter is that it is in most cases better when circumstances allow if a mother is at home (this would include such things as working at home, such as in a family shop or on a farm) when she has dependant children so she is able to fully devote herself to raising said children, instead of passing on the task to childcare or trying the impossible task of balancing work and home lives. For the most part I think it is better for women who have no dependants to participate in the workforce if they are of working age.

And if society were to share this view, what would happen to (say) women who work while their husbands stay at home to look after the children? You may say - I hope you would say - that your ideal is not universal and in some families individuals are such that the woman is better suited to go out and work and the man is better suited to stay at home and look after the children, even if that may be unusual. But in the real world people like that suffer discrimination, and they suffer more discrimination the more society has fixed role models for men and women.

Again, ostracism and bullying of those who don't fit in is an inescapable part of human society. But it can be minimised. The proposals and ideals articulated in this thread would maximise these negative aspects of society. And that isn't idle speculation, it's simple fact as shown by what happened when society really did have the features defended in this thread. People did not have happier home lives when men were expected to go out and work and women were expected to stay home and look after the children - any more than the needs of the poor were better met when all decisions were made by wealthy landowners, or race relations were better when the races were segregated.

 

[Gary Childress]

On the topic of "bullying", I wonder if it isn't the case that many of the same core values still exist in our societies as before but that we are much more sensitive today to the effects of outright ostracism and oppression against those who may not express those core values in the same manner as others.

As the globe gets smaller, obviously many of us probably live in more culturally diverse societies than before where different cultures and different customs intermix. There is undoubtedly a sense of confusion and uncertainty in where to draw various "lines". Perhaps after a long enough time some kind of new consensus regarding how things "ought" to be done or perceived may emerge.

In the mean time there is a lot of unhappiness out there in this world of diversity and the resulting chaos and confusion. I know I often feel confused and uncertain of where I am in the scheme of things and where I ought to be. Substantial happiness seems elusive to me. But I also know that I cannot afford to play the "blame game" and say it's all the fault of diversity and toleration. Like it or not we all must deal with the fact that the globe is getting smaller and people of different values and ways of life are more able to intermingle than before. My hope is that out of the chaos something better will emerge but that may take some time, unfortunately. I don't think there are any magic solutions at this point. I just have to "weather the storm" so to speak. I don't know if creating little bastions or enclaves of shared values where people get "stuck" in a particular way of life is the answer. Individual mobility seems like a more pragmatic answer. But I'm far from an expert on such matters.

So since this is an "ask a.." thread my question would be, have you ever experienced love or a melting (for lack of a better word) of personal barriers between yourself and another human being? I think I have experienced it on a few brief occasions. But not for a very substantial and sustained period of time. I know I tend to erect barriers and walls between myself and others and they tend to stay up indefinitely sometimes.

 

[Jehoshua]

This misses the point. There are really two reasons why people get ostracised for not fitting in. The first is that they may deviate from the opinions and values that society holds to be important. The second is that they may not fit in to the structure of society....

I think you are making a false distinction, seeing as actions and states of affairs (case in point, divorce) presume and are oriented towards particular values. Hence the divorcee is ostracised because the action of divorce is seen to be opposed to a particular value (the indissolubility of marriage) tethered to the compact it breaks. Ergo in conducting the action, the individual very much is making a morally charged act that manifests deviation from the opinion and values society holds as important, and is thus ostracised. The formal act instantiates the related moral values, and so you can't really say there is a structure-idea distinction in how society responds socially to deviance since actions are so intrinsically linked to the values which define the group.

At any rate, you don't deny that your objection to marginalisation here is based on your own subjective conception of the good (which appears to be the old tolerance/personal autonomy/diversity/affirmation of these points dynamic of modern liberalism) and moral objection to certain non-liberal values, or that auto-censorship of dissenting positions and actions is universal (I would disagree with you incidentally that liberalism lessens marginalisation, as compared to merely shifting the focus elsewhere, indeed conformity to norms is more ubiquitous than ever if one delves behind the superficial facade of "diversity", but that's neither here nor there and misses the point). Hence what you are saying in the final calculus of things is simply that Kaiserguards proscriptions (and mine more circumspectly) deviate from your values (including the moral structure they exist within, such as for example personal autonomy being a good, and thus divorce is a good since it maximises personal autonomy), and that this deviation is objectionable to you. This is all well and good, but its facetious of you to say that our disagreements here do not boil down to competing conceptions of "the good", with moral and social proscriptions then being consequences of this disjunction between our core values.

And if society were to share this view, what would happen to (say) women who work while their husbands stay at home to look after the children? You may say - I hope you would say - that your ideal is not universal and in some families individuals are such that the woman is better suited to go out and work and the man is better suited to stay at home and look after the children, even if that may be unusual....

If a mother has a particular charism (say she is a specially gifted physicist or musician) she might be expected to do that and the husband might take a greater caring role. But on the whole I tend to think that there is a natural differentiation of function between men and women, and that women generally in accord with the feminine virtues are better suited to caring roles than men, and that concordantly it is natural for the mother to take a primary role in the nurturing of her children.

 

[Plotinus]

I think you are making a false distinction, seeing as actions and states of affairs (case in point, divorce) presume and are oriented towards particular values. Hence the divorcee is ostracised because the action of divorce is seen to be opposed to a particular value (the indissolubility of marriage) tethered to the compact it breaks. Ergo in conducting the action, the individual very much is making a morally charged act that manifests deviation from the opinion and values society holds as important, and is thus ostracised. The formal act instantiates the related moral values, and so you can't really say there is a structure-idea distinction in how society responds socially to deviance since actions are so intrinsically linked to the values which define the group.

No, because sometimes people find themselves outside the prescribed structures through no fault, or indeed any action, of their own. E.g. the wife whose husband has left her is ostracised for being a single mother even if she never chose to be one. And so somebody who already lacks a voice on equal terms with others loses what power and social good she has left to her. Once again, the society you envision takes power from those who have little and concentrates it in the hands of those who have much to start with.

At any rate, you don't deny that your objection to marginalisation here is based on your own subjective conception of the good (which appears to be the old tolerance/personal autonomy/diversity/affirmation of these points dynamic of modern liberalism) and moral objection to certain non-liberal values, or that auto-censorship of dissenting positions and actions is universal (I would disagree with you incidentally that liberalism lessens marginalisation, as compared to merely shifting the focus elsewhere, indeed conformity to norms is more ubiquitous than ever if one delves behind the superficial facade of "diversity", but that's neither here nor there and misses the point). Hence what you are saying in the final calculus of things is simply that Kaiserguards proscriptions (and mine more circumspectly) deviate from your values (including the moral structure they exist within, such as for example personal autonomy being a good, and thus divorce is a good since it maximises personal autonomy), and that this deviation is objectionable to you. This is all well and good, but its facetious of you to say that our disagreements here do not boil down to competing conceptions of "the good", with moral and social proscriptions then being consequences of this disjunction between our core values.

I don't think I did say that these disagreements don't boil down to competing conceptions of "the good". On the contrary, I agree with you that they do. I suspect that you and I will also agree that most people would find your conceptions of "the good" to be, in the final analysis, repugnant. I suppose that you would say, well, so much the worse for most people - a fine elitist position - while I would take my stand with Aristotle on this and say that if most people find a viewpoint repugnant we should probably be fairly wary of it.

If a mother has a particular charism (say she is a specially gifted physicist or musician) she might be expected to do that and the husband might take a greater caring role. But on the whole I tend to think that there is a natural differentiation of function between men and women, and that women generally in accord with the feminine virtues are better suited to caring roles than men, and that concordantly it is natural for the mother to take a primary role in the nurturing of her children.

Fine, but then that fails to address what I said, which is that the mother with a "particular charism", as you call it, will find herself subject to unjust ostracism in the society you envision. Your society is one that doesn't value justice, and that's one of the reasons why I think most people would find it repugnant.

 

[Jehoshua]

No, because sometimes people find themselves outside the prescribed structures through no fault, or indeed any action, of their own. E.g. the wife whose husband has left her is ostracised for being a single mother even if she never chose to be one.

The point is that the moral-ideational baggage of the act (divorce in this case) exists to the point that act and the moral associations of the act cannot be separated. This being so the subject is perceived to have broken a moral norm, with this being the case even if the subject is not the guilty party so to speak. Subjection to negative treatment when another party is at fault does not negate the synthesis of moral norms and actions that I described, since its the perception of the people doing the ostracising that matters in that case. As to the ostracism itself, when applied to a blameless party that action speaks to the moral failings of those people doing the ostracism (and humanities imperfection in general) and is hardly something essential to a given social programme (as compared to human nature, which is something every system has to deal with). Indeed to say that holding marriage and families as goods causes people to be oppressed as you seem to do is an absurd position, seeing as the logical extension is that having any values at all oppresses those who are judged rightly or wrongly by those values due ipso facto to the standards and subsequent morally hierarchical distinctions instantiated by those norms very existence (no matter what those norms are).

I suppose that you would say, well, so much the worse for most people - a fine elitist position - while I would take my stand with Aristotle on this and say that if most people find a viewpoint repugnant we should probably be fairly wary of it.

I would say my position in essence is far more normative over the course of history than yours, and perhaps it even is so today if one takes account of the fact that the world is not contained entirely within the liberal west. How much more so should people be wary following Aristotles proscription then, applying it to liberalism, given the historical novelty of many of its positions and how it exalts as good that which so many generations have understood as deeply repugnant, unnatural and evil (such as sodomy to the point of "marriage" for example, or abortion which is even understood as a "womans right").

Your society is one that doesn't value justice, and that's one of the reasons why I think most people would find it repugnant.

On the contrary, seeing as I predicate my moral position on a vertical reference to higher moral order it proceeds essentially from a consideration of justice. The distinction is that what you consider as just proceeds from core values (personal autonomy as a good in and of itself for example) that I don't hold, and so when I don't prioritise those core values of yours in my positions you find the proscriptions problematic. This does not mean that my whole conception doesn't value justice, it means it runs according to a different standard of the good (as we both agree) which leads inexorably to a proscription of what is "right and just" that is divergent from your own. This is of course not mentioning whatever assumptions you are running in your head apart from what I've actually said (seeing as you are extending from my position that a limited franchise which excludes the female vote is preferable [with some potential restrictions, hardly absolute dictates of my position, being mentioned in addition as possibilities] and associated thoughts on the matter (in addition perhaps to some things I previously said, such as to the importance of tradition and whatnot), to the totality of my political-moral thought when it comes to social affairs)

 

[Tahuti]

What does monarchy have to do with this, though?

Reactionaries want to model politics on family life, and monarchy is essentially a means of politics through family life. Standard US conservatives don't get that Republics are more like frat parties than families: It's great, but not something that is meant to least, nor will.

You make plenty of valid criticisms of democracy and modern society, but you've yet to explain how installing some hereditary, better-blooded overlord will fix it.

If anything, the past five thousand years of monarchy have been pretty dismal.

Monarchies tend to last longer than republics, with San Marino being a radical exception, although it is a very small country as well, and still beaten by the Ethiopian Empire which lasted continously from [some time BC] till 1936.

First, divorce is a good thing for families, not a bad one. There is no benefit to either society in general or the people directly involved if partners whose marriages have broken down are forced to stay married. That makes for misery for them and for their children, if any. It is far better for the children if they get divorced and the children are brought up in a more strife-free environment.

I'm not against divorce or dissolution of marriage in general, but I rather seek to limit the practice. There are indeed situations in which divorce or dissolution may be a responsible choice, though such are far more limited than is commonly understood. 'We have grown tired of each other' simply isn't a good reason.

They never did in the past, did they?

That's a good thing in the 'we don't pry into your business, except when we are required by duty to protect' variety.

Why should I? Is there any actual evidence that people behave in this way? Do you have any evidence, for example, that people without children behave in a more "discivic" fashion than those with children? Or that those with children or closer families have more "purpose" in their lives than those without? Or is all of this just based on guesswork rather than on objective evidence?

Many government projects aimed at helping ethnic minorities often fail, in part because government is targeting individuals and not families. Even if such project are partially succesful, the individual is marginally helped at best as long as the family stays utterly dysfunctional. We can debate the causes of family dysfunctionality among ethnic minorities elsewhere, but generally speaking, dysfunctional families are a scourge. (That being said, I oppose such government programmes)

Question, would you still support an aristocratic elected monarchy if you were a peasant?

Yes. Even though my position IRL is better than that of a peasant, I likely wouldn't have much more if any political more formal political power than one.

you seem to be implying that there is a place/society that does not have families
and even if there was, that they do not have children...
are you not just tilting at windmills, contrasting your 'ideal' with an imaginary foe?

I don't really think there is a malevolent conspiracy - aside from the most malicious of left-wingers who are a minority among their political brothers. Rather, it is ignorance.

At point, I have been what could be considered a left-winger and I pretty much ignored the family as a political issue. The word 'ignored' is key here.

 

[Snorrius]

Kaiserguard
What are your thoughts on Neoreactionary, Dark Enlightenment movement? Are there big, irreconcilable contradictions with traditional Reactionary movement?

 

[Tahuti]

Kaiserguard
What are your thoughts on Neoreactionary, Dark Enlightenment movement? Are there big, irreconcilable contradictions with traditional Reactionary movement?

I don't really like them, despite I occasionally read Mencius Moldbug. I find their flirtations with racial separatism (in the form of HBD) to be worrying, since I consider neat racial groups to be a fallacious modernist and democratic concept.

As mentioned earlier, another problem they are too invested in the 'regime change' type of thinking - compare to Vladimir Lenin's views about an revolutionary vanguard. My view is that the old world order can only return by evolution. More precisely, reactionary thought must outlive modernist institutions. We essentially must be prepared to fill the void that the collapse of modernist institutions will bring.

 

[Agent327]

Reactionaries want to model politics on family life, and monarchy is essentially a means of politics through family life.

Really? Since when? Are we talking post-prince Charles family life politics? Or post-prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld family life politics?

 

[Tahuti]

Really? Since when? Are we talking post-prince Charles family life politics? Or post-prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld family life politics?

Post, pre and para.