Ask a Reactionary

[Tahuti]

First: where you are from?

I'm from the Netherlands. If I am not mistaken, Jehoshua is from Australia.

Second: what would modern monarchy look like? How it would contradict democracy and parlamentarism? What elements of society would be removed and added?

It would like the UAE or Liechtenstein. I wouldn't say many countries would emulate Saudi Arabia as that was result of conditions that are particular for its locale. Democracy would by circumvented by increased decentralisation and deproliferation of news media. Parliamentarism can be acceptable provided the franchise is sufficiently limited.

As to what elements would be added and removed, an aristocracy would naturally have to reappear. Likewise, news media would largely be limited to government issued bulletins to inform the populace of recent changes in laws.

the Monarch/Aristocracy system advocated here reminds me of Red China, where the Elite comprises often the Sons of Mao clique, If they put Mao descendant automatically as "President" /King, we'll be top on. Reactionaries are the last Maoists ;-)

What is important that the aristocracy needs to be sacralised (i.e. has meaning above the material) and formally titled. The European aristocracy has all these characteristics. The Chinese elite is purely rational as well as anonymous and does not fulfill the reactionary ideal of sacrality and formal entitlements and duties. Nevermind the fact the PRC has several policies reactionaries find distasteful such as the one-child policy and its deference to Marxist ideology.

 

[calad]

It would like the UAE or Liechtenstein. I wouldn't say many countries would emulate Saudi Arabia as that was result of conditions that are particular for its locale. Democracy would by circumvented by increased decentralisation and deproliferation of news media. Parliamentarism can be acceptable provided the franchise is sufficiently limited.

As to what elements would be added and removed, an aristocracy would naturally have to reappear. Likewise, news media would largely be limited to government issued bulletins to inform the populace of recent changes in laws.

Seems like you support idea of a classic enlightened monarchy.

Well back to more fundamental problems would there be a constitution? And how would new aristocracy be formed? Would they be elected by people, rich and politically important people could buy status or they gain it by civil service or would they be simply warlords? Could you lose aristocracy status, is it inheritable and what limits that everybody could be nobles or nobody?

 

[Tahuti]

Well back to more fundamental problems would there be a constitution?

Not necessarily a written one.

And how would new aristocracy be formed?

Hard to tell, most likely thing in my view is that democratic polities can sustain themselves no longer and/or radically decentralise, giving way to important local voices.

Would they be elected by people, rich and politically important people could buy status or they gain it by civil service or would they be simply warlords?

Ideally, by lower aristocracy.

Could you lose aristocracy status, is it inheritable and what limits that everybody could be nobles or nobody?

Denoblement would a good idea for those that really tarnished the respectability of the monarchy. Lower ranks like knights were historically non-heritable (at least in the Netherlands) while the higher ranks would heritable (to ensure a fluid transition of power) while the highest rank would be elected - by the aforementioned though often leading to the election of the eldest son.

Everybody who displays bravery in the service of the monarch should be able to become, say, a knight. To some extent, it implies a physical risk that is taken.

 

[calad]

Not necessarily a written one.

Then would there be any limitations of monarchs power? Non of your examples are nation that does not have a constitution.

Hard to tell, most likely thing in my view is that democratic polities can sustain themselves no longer and/or radically decentralise, giving way to important local voices.

Well your ideology is a bit immature if you cant bring any ideas how to establish it.

Denoblement would a good idea for those that really tarnished the respectability of the monarchy. Lower ranks like knights were historically non-heritable (at least in the Netherlands) while the higher ranks would heritable (to ensure a fluid transition of power) while the highest rank would be elected - by the aforementioned though often leading to the election of the eldest son.

So what would denoblement really mean? In classic way he would lose his land and priviledges but I assume even you are not that reactionary

Everybody who displays bravery in the service of the monarch should be able to become, say, a knight. To some extent, it implies a physical risk that is taken.

This reminds me of hellenic hero cult and how Roman emperors were made Gods after they died.

 

[Tahuti]

Then would there be any limitations of monarchs power?

Tradition and pressure by aristocrats - who may potentially produce replacements if the monarch proves incompetent. The reason why many nations have written constitutions was to implement designed checks and balances over the check and balances that evolved by custom. Now, many of these customs have been destroyed by the French revolution and Napoleon, and the only way to restore this - at least in part - is to adopt the reactionary ethos and allow these customs to be revived over time, which may be centuries.

Well your ideology is a bit immature if you cant bring any ideas how to establish it.

It is more of an attitude than an ideology. It is an ethos people subscribe to, rather than something that is accomplished by a planned revolution with a pre-fabricated revolutionary programme, which rather against the reactionary spirit. The very notion that a reactionary society can be achieved within our lifetime is utopian; the only thing we can do is adopt a reactionary ethos, which includes participating in our own family lives and refusal to participate in democratic politics and raise our children to such values.

So what would denoblement really mean?

His privileges certainly, but not necessarily his land - which is still his property - unless there is a valid reason to take that as well.

 

[HannibalBarka]

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.

Aristocrats and Kings wives rarely if ever cared about their kids, I thought you would encourage that behaviour of the elite

And now that I think about it, I know why I have always preferred American reactionaries to European (and apparently Australian) ones: they at least are against Aristocracy/Monarchy nice world BS and are pro-democracy

 

[Tahuti]

I know why I have always preferred American reactionaries to European (and apparently Australian) ones: they at least are against Aristocracy/Monarchy nice world BS and are pro-democracy

American reactionaries/paleoconservatives do not support democracies, as they are republicans without being democratic.

A reactionary that supports democracy is a contradiction in terminis.

 

[Linkman226]

What do you think of homosexuality? Gay marriage?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Constitutional monarchy - yay or nay?

 

[Borachio]

Wot about nuclear reactionaries? Are there any?

Oh no, wait. Maybe I shouldn't ask.

Dear oh dear. What do I say now? Think, borachio, think!

Nope. I got nothing.

 

[gay_Aleks]

They could get a mecha. One day. The nuclear reactionaries will have their redemption.

 

[Tahuti]

What do you think of homosexuality? Gay marriage?

I find homosexuality to a private matter and I do not have strong opinions on matter, personally. That said, I can understand why people would be opposed, and I also think the private matter part works the other way - that there is nothing wrong with keeping it hidden save for perhaps family and close friends. Jehoshua may have a significantly more antagonistic view though, since he has Traditionalist Catholic emphasis.

I stand opposed to gay marriage, since marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and gay marriage threatens the functionality of families, and make discussing differences between genders increasingly difficult as it sets a precedent for gender neutrality in everything, to which reactionaries are highly sceptical to say the least.

Constitutional monarchy - yay or nay?

Yay!

Constructions that could be equated to Constitional Monarchies have existed as long as Monarchies themselves have. Monarchs that were incapacitated, incompetent or had a highly deferential style often had capable individuals performing their day-to-day tasks, sometimes as regents, sometimes as de-facto grey emeninces and often as persons that could be likened to prime ministers. This is a useful tool for preserving monarchies when it turns out the monarch is perhaps less capable than was hoped for.

Wot about nuclear reactionaries? Are there any?.

Not that I know of!

 

[Linkman226]

I find homosexuality to a private matter and I do not have strong opinions on matter, personally. That said, I can understand why people would be opposed, and I also think the private matter part works the other way - that there is nothing wrong with keeping it hidden save for perhaps family and close friends. Jehoshua may have a significantly more antagonistic view though, since he has Traditionalist Catholic emphasis.

Why not hide being straight then?

I stand opposed to gay marriage, since marriage is by definition between a man and a woman,

So you don't think definitions should ever change? The way you are using the word "stand" wasn't invented until the 1590s (before then, it just meant literal standing). Please stop using that word that way. It offends my precious reactionary sensibilities.

and gay marriage threatens the functionality of families,

[citation needed]

and make discussing differences between genders increasingly difficult as it sets a precedent for gender neutrality in everything, to which reactionaries are highly sceptical to say the least.

Why?

 

[Tahuti]

Why not hide being straight then?

Straight couples are essential to the functioning of society. Recent technological advances have made it possible to almost entirely divorce (pun intended) procreation from sexuality and the family, though the social implications of that remains unknown. I don't feel human children ought to be used as guinea pigs, if I may put it that way.

So you don't think definitions should ever change?

When it involves an institution, you might want to think twice before you want to see that happen.

Why?

I said earlier that marriage was intended to be between men and women. I don't think gay marriage will change that. Thus, one man will play the man, and man will play the woman (replace one man with one woman if you will). Likewise some jobs are overwhelmingly chosen by males and others overwhelmingly by females, which I think is not the result of prejudice or oppression but by sheer pragmatism taking into account physical and psychological differences between genders that are innate as opposed to acquired. So we fear that gay "marriage", along with gender quotas intended to promote female participation in certain jobs contribute to gender confusion.

 

[Agent327]

I said earlier that marriage was intended to be between men and women. I don't think gay marriage will change that. Thus, one man will play the man, and man will play the woman (replace one man with one woman if you will). Likewise some jobs are overwhelmingly chosen by males and others overwhelmingly by females, which I think is not the result of prejudice or oppression but by sheer pragmatism taking into account physical and psychological differences between genders that are innate as opposed to acquired. So we fear that gay "marriage", along with gender quotas intended to promote female participation in certain jobs contribute to gender confusion.

Why? Gays are gays, males are males, females are females. Why should marriage or gender quotas change that?

 

[Tahuti]

Why? Gays are gays, males are males, females are females. Why should marriage or gender quotas change that?

Because marriage brings together the opposite sexes. Thus, gay marriage gives a signal that gender roles are to be seen as something that can be changed at whim, regardless of actual physiology and psychology. Likewise, gender quotas attempt to wash away the reasons why males tend to be fit for certain jobs more than women and vice versa.

Of course, if you think this is oppression and/or bull feces, this is not going to change your views - which is not the goal of this thread, however. However, for reactionaries, it is a big deal and they believe it fundamentally affects society in a big - and negative - way.

 

[Linkman226]

Kaiser, how would a monarchy possibly be good? Do you believe in human rights? If not, what is the ultimate moral good in your opinion? What I mean is, what's the damn point?

 

[Tahuti]

Kaiser, how would a monarchy possibly be good? Do you believe in human rights? If not, what is the ultimate moral good in your opinion? What I mean is, what's the damn point?

A monarchy is devoid the cons of democracy, and is a form of government that actually soul and engages with the populace at a personal level.

Morality should be dictated by the search and adherence to a certain transcendental order, which is superior to human rights, because it exists independently of humanity. It is the source of all life, yet greater than all, and found in every major religion and responsible for all art and everything that makes life worthwhile.

 

[Takhisis]

Which of the cons of democracy does a monarchy not have? (assuming, of course, that this is a monarchy in which the sovereign wields at least some substantial power, of course)

 

[Linkman226]

Yup, Kaiserguard confirmed for Don Quijote.

"Knights courting beautiful m'ladies and searching their souls for the deeper meaning of the universe! That's all monarchy is!"

Friggin history, how does it work?