Ask a Reactionary

[Borachio]

Are you saying that refugee camps in Syria or Lebanon could be annexed to Israel?

Oh? Isn't that the plan?

Spoiler :

(He asked, naively.)

 

[Tahuti]

The Negev is a rocky desert. You can't simply raise the population of a country by 30% and expect the surplus to live there. You do realize that Israel has a severe housing crisis?

The housing market in the Netherlands is overregulated so little housing is built despite a general need and a decent amount of space to build - discounting government regulations. So a housing crisis doesn't mean a general lack of space.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd like to give theory a secondary role for my question.
Can you remember, name, describe, characterize and fathom the moment and/or process you became a reactionary?
What impressions, thoughts, feelings, experiences lead to your reactionary political conclusion?

I think before you answer we have to be straight about one thing - whatever the answer to all those questions may be - it probably will be entangled with things which will range from personal to intimate. And at some point, things may always get a bit too intimate.

As with us all. So naturally, I'll be fine with respecting your boundaries, but since we already acknowledged the relevance of matters which pose boundaries may have (within this post, anyway), it may be called for that you are mindful of such black-box-areas in your answer to you and me/us.

And in the hopes of esquiring your agreement to that approach and, perhaps, unusual way of inquire - it seems a matter of fact that to be a reactionary is, right now at the very least, a freak phenomena. And to me it seems relevant what personal factors motivate a person to embrace the reasoning of such a fringe ideology, which is not only opposed to popular topics but even all-out themes which have clawed their way into the vast majority of people beyond establish political fractions.

And it does seem so to me because in the case of more or less mainstream ideologies personal reasons kinda suggest themselves in many ways, in my opinion. But an outsider like a reactionary is rather baffling to me in that respect.

 

[Tahuti]

I'd like to give theory a secondary role for my question.
Can you remember, name, describe, characterize and fathom the moment and/or process you became a reactionary?
What impressions, thoughts, feelings, experiences lead to your reactionary political conclusion?

When I just 20, I suffered for quite a long time of a certain existential angst. Politically, I was a moderate liberal, who supported a politically fashionable viewpoints associated with such. I.e. democratisation of Russia, universal health care in the US, two-state solution, federal Europe. Before that, I was a Libertarian who supported Ron Paul. However, I felt rather bad about the lack civics awareness of my peers. I thought I was becoming mentally ill because of it. I adopted Postmodernism as my life's outlook, and thought it would help me cope with this angst.

It eventually became worse however. After reading a couple of authors (including E.F. Schumacher, who isn't a reactionary but has the right cognitive style to be one), I had dropped to kneejerk reactions against anything else but that which is intellectually popular. I began to develop an admiration for the European Pre-Modern period (1000-1750) and what I considered to be a greater sense of meaning that prevalent at the time.

To put a long story short, I felt myself mentally more at ease with a traditional world view than anything else I have tried up to that point.

 

[Mouthwash]

Oh? Isn't that the plan?

Spoiler :

(He asked, naively.)

The refugee camps are basically ghettos, it would be impossible logistically to extend Israel control and jurisdiction over them, the Arab countries wouldn't allow it and the Palestinian refugees wouldn't want it. The entire point of the 'right of return' is for all those millions of Palestinians to live in Palestine.

The housing market in the Netherlands is overregulated so little housing is built despite a general need and a decent amount of space to build - discounting government regulations. So a housing crisis doesn't mean a general lack of space.

So the Netherlands doesn't have a problem accepting ten million English immigrants tomorrow then?

There is another complication in that a large number of Palestinians believe that they will be able to reclaim their houses left behind in 48. Even if only ten percent of them do (and polls show around 30%), you're not going to convince 400,000 Israelis to hand their homes over.

When I just 20, I suffered for quite a long time of a certain existential angst. Politically, I was a moderate liberal, who supported a politically fashionable viewpoints associated with such. I.e. democratisation of Russia, universal health care in the US, two-state solution, federal Europe. Before that, I was a Libertarian who supported Ron Paul. However, I felt rather bad about the lack civics awareness of my peers. I thought I was becoming mentally ill because of it. I adopted Postmodernism as my life's outlook, and thought it would help me cope with this angst.

It eventually became worse however. After reading a couple of authors (including E.F. Schumacher, who isn't a reactionary but has the right cognitive style to be one), I had dropped to kneejerk reactions against anything else but that which is intellectually popular. I began to develop an admiration for the European Pre-Modern period (1000-1750) and what I considered to be a greater sense of meaning that prevalent at the time.

To put a long story short, I felt myself mentally more at ease with a traditional world view than anything else I have tried up to that point.

Can you describe what made you uneasy? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, although as David Goldman points out, civilizations are largely psychological.

 

[Tahuti]

There is another complication in that a large number of Palestinians believe that they will be able to reclaim their houses left behind in 48. Even if only ten percent of them do (and polls show around 30%), you're not going to convince 400,000 Israelis to hand their homes over.

Then build new houses for the returning refugees.

 

[Mouthwash]

Then build new houses for the returning refugees.

Every area outside of the Negev that isn't already urban is a nature reserve. We would have to build upwards, and it would take a decade to be able to house the bulk of the population (which is not to say that their living standards would be anything close what we have in Israel right now).

I'm not even discussing aspects like crime or good old fashioned ethnic violence.

 

[Takhisis]

Could we not have yet another thread hijacked and derailed into Israel v. the world?

 

[Mouthwash]

Could we not have yet another thread hijacked and derailed into Israel v. the world?

It's amazing how the subject results in a reptilian and completely territorial attack approach to discussing other people's ideas. I've read anti-Zionist material for a long, long time, and Flying Pig's comment about Palestinian refugees being like Jews is something you would normally find in a YouTube comment section.

 

[Takhisis]

That might well be true, but it's neithe rhere nor there. We have several dedicated Israel threads and one Poland thread so that people don't derail every single other thread within sight.
We could just derail Ask a Dutchman by asking about Ajax's Yids and end up discussing WWII and Hezbollah yet again.

 

[Senethro]

So monarchies were supposedly less violent, but reactionaries seem to love militaristic nations and leaders. Hmmmm.

Was just rereading some pages in this thread and did anyone else find jehoshuas posts unreadable? A guy in desperate need of an editor.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I find them unreadable, too.

But then I find any "blocks" of text pretty much unreadable. Probably because I can't be arsed to read them as much as because of the content of them, tbh.

 

[Sanguivorant]

You said somewhere:

I don't see Islam as innately evil force in need to be destroyed for the good of mankind, though we are definitely destined to face Islam again and again as long as both exist.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Tahuti]

So the Netherlands doesn't have a problem accepting ten million English immigrants tomorrow then?

Would they even come?

Can you describe what made you uneasy? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, although as David Goldman points out, civilizations are largely psychological.

Cognitive dissonance. I sought fulfillment and my political beliefs were strongly inhibiting such. The best way to cope with the situation was to drop these beliefs completely.

Was just rereading some pages in this thread and did anyone else find jehoshuas posts unreadable? A guy in desperate need of an editor.

Yes. I find them unreadable, too.

But then I find any "blocks" of text pretty much unreadable. Probably because I can't be arsed to read them as much as because of the content of them, tbh.

I find Jehoshua's posts pleasant to read, but that's perhaps a reactionary thing. I do completely understand why you think this. Every ideological group has its own vocabulary: Libertarians use words like "statist" and "crony capitalism", Marxists words like "sublation" and "class warfare". Thus, reactionaries love words like "sacralisation", "natural order", "distributism", "discivic" and "organicism". To make matters worse for the uninitiated, reactionaries tend to emphasis different aspects of popular ideological labels like democracy.

Why do you believe this?

First of all, let me clear up a few things before I answer this directly: Neither the West nor Islam are neat monolithic blocs. More people have died in conflicts within these entities than between them. My view of Islam is also highly complicated: At the same time, it is a political threat to the West, though also a source of (re)learning lessons that the West has lost and Islam has preserved, for instance.

Now the direct answer: We are in proximity and we have power. And if it is not for the differing values, it is because we believe (perhaps falsely) we live better to shared values with Islam, and vice versa. I argue that distinguishing between the two is worthwhile too, as a conflict between Western and Islamic nations has a unique mental element that is rarely if ever seen in conflicts between nations belonging to roughly the same macrocultural entity (i.e. England vs. France). While conflicts between Western/Muslim nations are often more bloody than conflicts between
the West and Islam, every one of them was a cultural watershed, not only for the nations directly involved, but for the civilisations in general.

Now, this is not to say I wish to combat the influence of Islam at every possible opportunity, on the contrary. While I oppose economic migration, I prefer for the Muslim communities in Europe to develop organically, rather than attempting to assimilate them.

So monarchies were supposedly less violent, but reactionaries seem to love militaristic nations and leaders. Hmmmm.

Reactionaries like heroism and despise total war. Thus, the sentiment is not contradictory at all, though some adaptation to the reactionary mindset may be required to fully comprehend it. War is not unconditionally good, but not uncoditionally bad either.

 

[caketastydelish]

Would you consider me "reactionary" enough to answer questions here?

 

[Tahuti]

Would you consider me "reactionary" enough to answer questions here?

I don't know your political views enough to make a statement on this.

To me, being a reactionary means a fundamental rejection of democracy, as well as an appreciation of the mystical and the supramaterial and the belief government should embody this as well. This isn't to say one should be religious (though it makes it easier).

Plus, as I answered earlier in the thread, being a reactionary is more than just politics. It perhaps even more a cultural ideal than a political one.

 

[Mouthwash]

Would they even come?

I think you miss the point of analogies.

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't know your political views enough to make a statement on this.

To me, being a reactionary means a fundamental rejection of democracy,

I'm not sure I could go as far to say that I"fundamentally reject democracy". There is no guarantee that the king/queen put in place will agree with you particularly, but the same could easily be said just as much with a democratically elected official.

As to whether the system of Monarchy is better or worse, I'm honestly indifferent. Again, I would rather have a good King than a bad President, but would rather have a good President than a bad king.

as well as an appreciation of the mystical and the supramaterial and the belief government should embody this as well. This isn't to say one should be religious (though it makes it easier).

While I am "traditionalist" in many aspects, I can't honestly say I'm pro-theocracy. Although some very religious people have been very left wing, and the other way around just as much.

Plus, as I answered earlier in the thread, being a reactionary is more than just politics. It perhaps even more a cultural ideal than a political one.

Here is where I would decisively agree with you much more, methinks.

 

[Mouthwash]

As to whether the system of Monarchy is better or worse, I'm honestly indifferent. Again, I would rather have a good King than a bad President, but would rather have a good President than a bad king.

Would you rather have a bad President than a bad king?

 

[caketastydelish]

If they're equally bad, I wouldn't care either way.

edit: to give you a more technical, precise answer:

I would prefer a bad president because the people can easily elect a good president during the next election cycle.

I would prefer a good king over a good president because good presidents tend not to last long.